Medicare to be Insolvent Earlier than Previously Anticipated; Social Security Not Far Behind

[Mavric]

 

[teachercd]

2034?  Dang!  

 

Good thing I like what I do!

[Moiraine]

For SS, increase the cap by $10k every year, increase the rates slightly, and wait for the baby boomers to die off. At that point there will be a higher worker to old person ratio than we have right now so it should begin to fix itself by 2065ish.

[mrandyk]

I wish I could opt out of SS.

[Moiraine]

1 minute ago, mrandyk said:

I wish I could opt out of SS.

 

 

I don't think I'll need it. But I think it's good that it exists.

[mrandyk]

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don't think I'll need it. But I think it's good that it exists.

I feel that the money simply won't be there in 35-40 years when I'm able to file, and that I could be doing much better things with that cash myself.

[Moiraine]

10 minutes ago, mrandyk said:

I feel that the money simply won't be there in 35-40 years when I'm able to file, and that I could be doing much better things with that cash myself.

 

 

It wouldn't be very hard to fix, but I think the GOP just wants to get rid of it so they'll let it get to that point. I don't think they can just get rid of it immediately, because too much of their voter base is retired people.

[huKSer]

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

For SS, increase the cap by $10k every year, increase the rates slightly, and wait for the baby boomers to die off. At that point there will be a higher worker to old person ratio than we have right now so it should begin to fix itself by 2065ish.

 

Hey! I resemble that remark

[BigRedBuster]

First off....to all younger workers.  ALWAYS go through life believing it's not going to be there and prepare as though it's not going to be there.  Yes, you should be paying into it.  It's really not that much out of your paycheck and the program is needed in the US.

 

Now...after saying that.  I've heard that SS is going to go bankrupt all my life.  I'm now 51.  So, what they are basically saying is that right about the year I retire, it's not going to be there.  

Meh....it's an easy fix and I believe it will eventually get done.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, huKSer said:

Hey! I resemble that remark

 

 

You and my mom are a burden to society!

[huKSer]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

You and my mom are a burden to society!

 

Soylent green is people!

[RedDenver]

This is a sensationalized headline that misrepresents what's happening.

 

First, the Social Security's trust fund is running out of money around 2034, not all of Social Security, which means there's options for how SS continues after the fund is gone, not that SS goes away:

Quote

 

What happens after 2034?

The mistaken impression that many people have about Social Security is that once the trust fund no longer has any money, Social Security benefits will come to a complete stop. That isn't accurate, and although the disruption would be substantial, it wouldn't leave retirees and their families entirely in the cold.

 

Even once the trust fund has no money left, Social Security will still get income from payroll taxes and from income taxes on benefit recipients. According to the latest trustees report, that income in 2034 will be sufficient to pay 79% of the program's overall costs. Social Security recipients will share in whatever money is available on an equal basis. Therefore, if someone was getting benefits of $1,000 per month prior to 2034, then the worst-case scenario would be a reduction to around $790 per month once the trust fund is depleted.

 

Moreover, the government can take further steps to shore up Social Security and provide full benefits even after the expected 2034 date. The simplest thing would be for lawmakers to appropriate money to make up the shortfall directly from the general federal budget, restoring full benefits. Alternatively, the government could look at measures to increase income or reduce expenses from the trust fund, preserving its assets for a longer period. If those measures are substantial enough, then they could avoid any benefit cuts at all for the foreseeable future.

 

 

Second, similar to SS, Medicare's hospital insurance fund is running out of money around 2029, not all of Medicare:

Quote

Even in 2029, when the HI trust fund is projected to be depleted, incoming payroll taxes and other revenue will still be sufficient to pay 88 percent of Medicare hospital insurance costs.[1]  The share of costs covered by dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 81 percent in 2041 and then rise gradually to 88 percent in 2091.  This shortfall will need to be closed through raising revenues, slowing the growth in costs, or most likely both.  But the Medicare hospital insurance program will not run out of all financial resources and cease to operate after 2029, as the “bankruptcy” term may suggest.

 

Third, if you don't believe those links, then read the actual report that the recent reporting is based on, which says in the intro that even after the funds run out, that benefits will continue to be paid at reduced rates directly from money allocated in taxes:

Quote

The one exception is that the projections disregard payment reductions that would result from the projected depletion of the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund. Under current law, payments would be reduced to levels that could be covered by incoming tax and premium revenues when the HI trust fund was depleted.

 

Finally, the federal government can't actually miss paying for something, so we can continue to fund SS and Medicare if we choose. The US can fund Social Security or Medicare or the military or whatever it wants because it can literally create money. And all you have to do to see this is true is look at where funding actually comes from: it's how the bailouts worked and how the federal government pays for anything it wants. The recent tax cuts and budget put into law didn't have the incoming and outgoing money match because it doesn't need to. Just like last year when Trump and Congress gave an extra $60 billion to the military - nobody even debated where the money would come from because it doesn't matter.

 

Now that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for simply creating more money - inflation is the likely result. But it does mean we don't have to take this fatalistic attitude that somehow the moment there aren't fund lying around programs will shutter their doors. That will only happen if we choose to let it happen.

[Moiraine]

32 minutes ago, huKSer said:

 

Soylent green is people!

 

 

That would save us a lot in both Medicare and Social Security costs, and lower the cost of food.

[Big Red 40]

This is simply unacceptable . The government took money from my paycheck for 36 years and one way or another I’m going to need to get something in return. Even worse without Social  security ,and Medicare,  I wil get the pleasure of working til I die, and so will millions of other Americans who paid into this system . That’s wrong.  

Ideally yeah I should have saved all that money I didn’t have , invested it and made millions , then I wouldn’t need it but I don’t live in an ideal world , and neither do most people . 

Our wonderful government needs to take money from one of the thousand stupid things they waste money on and fund these programs . This one really matters . 

[Danny Bateman]

I wonder if this has anything to do with slashing trillions in federal revenue in tax cuts so we can even more hand even more of our liberties over to corporations...