Social Security Reform - Redux
Amy Ridenour has some analysis and links to a new study on Social Security reform. It appears the problem may actually be worse than even President Bush is alluding to. It seems that most of the recent analyses used in discussing Social Security reform may have excluded Medicare.The prognosis for these entitlement programs growth as a proportion of the federal budget is not new. I remember reading essentially the same forecast of growth and warnings about the effect on our economy and ability to compete globally back in the '70s. If I remember correctly, it was forecast that between Social Security and Medicare these programs would 'own' over 50% of the Federal budget within 30 - 40 years. While the timing may be off, the prediction is still valid.
Nothing has changed, since no one has been willing to touch the '3rd rail'. The Democratic Party leadership has been very effective in utilizing scare tactics to prevent anyone from doing anything but growing the system.
Read Amy's post here, and Robert Samuelson's article in the Washington Post here.
What are our alternatives? Is there a workable solution that doesn't kill our economy in the process? Along the lines of stealing shamelessly, could the Medicare itself be changed fundamentally? Instead of being an insurance and medical care program, would it be more effective to utilize taxpayers contributions in the same was at the proposed PSA's for Social Security?
Instead of transferring money from the taxpayer, to a fund which then transfers it to beneficiaries with no overall 'work' done by the funds in the brief interim, have the funds instead act as a supplemental/taxpayer designated premium for a medical/long term health care insurance provider of their choice.
This would eliminate Medicare/Medicaid as a 'competitor' to the private market, should eliminate a significant amount of bureaucratic overhead, and put the funds in a private sector system which has far more and better experience than the government in utilizing such funds for both economic return (and thereby acting the grow the economy instead of acting as a drag on it), and in working with the payee to tailor insurance and care to suit the needs of the payee.
I'm not talking about an HMO type setup, but more along the lines of a PPO. I prefer the PPO paradigm since it still tends to maximize the benefits of a 'shared' user base while leaving care decisions more in the hands of the doctor/patient. I'm painting in broad strokes here, so a lot of details would need to be worked out. However, in thinking along these lines, I think this may provide a better long term answer than the current system and the inevitable brick wall toward which it is heading.
Update on Social Securty Reform:
Dick McDonald discusses flap in SS Administration Union employees - seems they think the PSA Thrift Fund accounts they enjoys as government employees are a bad idea for the public. Read more here.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home