Would you forego Social Security if you could invest in own account instead?

[Paul der Krake]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

[LiveFreeOrPie]

Absolutely.

There's nothing I loathe more than how much my employer and I have to pay into SS/medicare, a far larger amount than any other single federal program my taxes go towards. Nothing robs me of my freedom, my control over my future, and my ability to provide a better life for my family more than SS/medicare does.

Since I am saving/investing enough to be able to retire in my 30s I don't care what SS will pay out in my 60s/70s since I'm not planning to retire on the razor's edge of safety. That's if the program is even still alive at that point; or they'll at least raise the age to receive any benefits to the 70s by the time I get old. I'll have a big enough portfolio to live on ~4% indefinitely so the payments in my old age are next to useless to me.

I get sick looking over the numbers: what myself and my employers had to put in and what I'd have now if I just invested it in vanguard index funds. I'd be retired easily. All these programs do is slow me down. I imagine if I had debt/student loans I could be paying off with that money too I'd be even more furious.

But yea, there's the safety net bit. A lot of people will just never be able to manage their own finances. So, if you gave everyone full control over their own money you'd probably end up with a lot of old people who burned through all of their money. To keep society stable it's probably not realistic to just have all of them starving and such. Those folks can vote too in large numbers and will vote to have the government transfer money to them by force from other, more responsible people.

There have to be other options that would benefit early retirees in between keeping SS/medicare as it exists today (which probably means pushing back the date people start to receive benefits further and further into old age) and completely eliminating the programs. Thinking, thinking... maybe after you pass some kind of financial knowledge test and can prove a high enough net worth you simply pay in to support the safety net side like disability at a lower rate and then get to decide to take a modest early withdrawal based on what you already paid in. What you would have paid in going forward you are allowed to put into retirement accounts with the usual (or even more) restrictions to try to ensure you don't go broke and be a burden on society in your old age.

[starguru]

There have to be other options in between keeping SS/medicare as it exists today (which probably means pushing back the date people can withdraw further and further into old age) and completely eliminating the programs that would benefit early retirees. Thinking, thinking... maybe after you pass some kind of financial knowledge test and can prove a high enough net worth you simply pay in to support the safety net side like disability at a lower rate and then get to decide to take a modest early withdrawal based on what you already paid in and the rest that you would have paid in going forward you are allowed to put into retirement accounts with the usual (or even more) restrictions to try to ensure you don't go broke and be a burden on society in your old age.

Yes, keep the current SS in place and require people to save money.  Give them access to the TSP.  Add three funds, a 70/30, 50/50, and 30/70 (stock/bonds) and automatically put people in the one appropriate for their age.  I bet there are few enough people who want to do it themselves that those who want to opt out of the automatic system won't cause issues in the future. 

[Bucksandreds]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

The majority of Americans would be destitute in old age without SS.  Just because a small percentage of us who are intelligent enough to be better off without SS have to pay in, doesn't mean that SS is not in the best interest of most Americans.

[Yaeger]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

The majority of Americans would be destitute in old age without SS.  Just because a small percentage of us who are intelligent enough to be better off without SS have to pay in, doesn't mean that SS is not in the best interest of most Americans.

Social Security is making them destitute in old age. Why do we always appeal to emotion and not to a sense of responsibility in planning for retirement? They're poor, they're not stupid.

[Rufus.T.Firefly]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

[ulrichw]

To answer the original question: No

In particular the reason I say no is because of SS's income redistribution component.

I will probably pull less than my "fair share" out of SS, and I'm just fine with that - I do believe (Yaeger's arguments notwithstanding) that there is value in having the government provide a "floor" to retirement income, even if it causes some disincentives at the bottom.

What I *would* potentially support is a reduction of the scope of social security so all I'm paying is the redistribution portion (i.e., so that I get nothing out, but what I pay in gets paid to those less fortunate than me).

I can take care of my retirement income myself, and would rather not have the government (with all its inefficiencies) attempting to take care of a portion of that for me.

Yaeger - I believe a couple of your arguments are too absolute for my taste:
1. I don't believe the affluent will be significantly disincentivized by a small increase in taxes or a slightly more progressive structure. You argue as if there's a binary switch involved - increase marginal tax rates by a bit and the rich will stop working.
2. I also don't have the faith that you do in the general populace - specifically, your assertion that removing the safety net will bring people to reason and will cause them to start saving for themselves. There already is so much benefit of having income above social security that I think few people that aren't already saving would start saving more.
3. Finally in terms of income redistribution - You made a consumption argument - saying that taxing the rich more will reduce their consumption (among other things) which will cause economic harm. In fact, I believe it is generally accepted that poorer individuals have a higher marginal propensity to consume than richer individuals. This means that taking a dollar from a richer person and giving it to a poorer person could have a beneficial effect - (for support see, for example: http://houseofdebt.org/2014/04/13/who-spends-extra-cash.html)

I do generally take umbrage at those that clamor for taxing some group of which they are not a member, and the vilifying of one party or another. We all are participating in this society and benefiting from it, and we should all do our part to make it stronger. Let's recognize that the rich by and large worked hard to become rich and let's recognize that many of the poor work hard too, but lacked the luck or the opportunity to put themselves in the right place to become rich.

[MrMonkeyMustache]

Nordic states? Good call. Homogenous cultures, with a high tax rate and limited social mobilty. What else did Rachel Maddow teach you this week. I would rather grow up poor in the US, than live there.

Ask Denmark how their safety net is working in 5 years after the refugee crisis. I dare you.

I haven't read more baloney in a long time.

Bolding mine. Really? Nordic states have limited social mobility? Quote below from Wikipedia:

One study comparing social mobility between developed countries[11][12][13] found that the four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children.[12]

[dramaman]

Nordic states? Good call. Homogenous cultures, with a high tax rate and limited social mobilty. What else did Rachel Maddow teach you this week. I would rather grow up poor in the US, than live there.

Ask Denmark how their safety net is working in 5 years after the refugee crisis. I dare you.

I haven't read more baloney in a long time.

Bolding mine. Really? Nordic states have limited social mobility? Quote below from Wikipedia:

One study comparing social mobility between developed countries[11][12][13] found that the four countries with the lowest "intergenerational income elasticity", i.e. the highest social mobility, were Denmark, Norway, Finland, and Canada with less than 20% of advantages of having a high income parent passed on to their children.[12]

What Americans Don't Get About Nordic Countries

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/

But this vision of homogenous, altruistic Nordic lands is mostly a fantasy. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

[Yaeger]

People look at the Nordic states, but they see what they want to see. They look at taxes, or healthcare, or bits and pieces here and there but never the sum total. Some of those places are very pro-business. Other not so much. It is an Apples to Oranges comparison - for example the city of Los Angeles has TWICE the population of Sweden.

A very effective measurement is looking at their economic freedom. How oppressive are laws, taxes, regulations and markets on personal freedom, economic mobility, and quality of life? People like to pick and choose from the countries policies they like and disregard those they don't. For instance, the US has regulatory burdens and higher corporate taxes than the Nordic countries. We're also the only country that taxes overseas income. Wealthier nations with high standards of living tend to correlate with economically free societies, Capitalism.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

[Bucksandreds]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

The system would collapse instantly because the high earners would be the only ones to opt out. Part of SS is redistributive.  It's obvious from the right that their biggest problem with SS is the redistributive part. How about this. You can choose to pay 50% of your FICA tax and you get no benefit upon retirement?

[dramaman]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

The system would collapse instantly because the high earners would be the only ones to opt out. Part of SS is redistributive.  It's obvious from the right that their biggest problem with SS is the redistributive part. How about this. You can choose to pay 50% of your FICA tax and you get no benefit upon retirement?

I just have a hard time believing that low-income people would also not significantly opt-out, given that they are often living paycheck to paycheck and as a general rule people are short-sighted putting immediate concerns above those of the long term. This is particularly true of young people who generally just can't imagine being old aged, much less the need for retirement income when they are old aged.

[zephyr911]

People look at the Nordic states, but they see what they want to see. They look at taxes, or healthcare, or bits and pieces here and there but never the sum total. Some of those places are very pro-business. Other not so much. It is an Apples to Oranges comparison - for example the city of Los Angeles has TWICE the population of Sweden.

A very effective measurement is looking at their economic freedom. How oppressive are laws, taxes, regulations and markets on personal freedom, economic mobility, and quality of life? People like to pick and choose from the countries policies they like and disregard those they don't. For instance, the US has regulatory burdens and [/b]higher corporate taxes[/b] than the Nordic countries. We're also the only country that taxes overseas income. Wealthier nations with high standards of living tend to correlate with economically free societies, Capitalism.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Marginal or effective?
Heritage loves to base their corp. tax talking points on marginal rates that apply to little or no corporate profit. IOW, they're full of shit.

[Bucksandreds]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

The system would collapse instantly because the high earners would be the only ones to opt out. Part of SS is redistributive.  It's obvious from the right that their biggest problem with SS is the redistributive part. How about this. You can choose to pay 50% of your FICA tax and you get no benefit upon retirement?

I just have a hard time believing that low-income people would also not significantly opt-out, given that they are often living paycheck to paycheck and as a general rule people are short-sighted putting immediate concerns above those of the long term. This is particularly true of young people who generally just can't imagine being old aged, much less the need for retirement income when they are old aged.

If the poor don't opt out how would you suggest paying SS benefits once the high earners all drop out?

[dramaman]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

The system would collapse instantly because the high earners would be the only ones to opt out. Part of SS is redistributive.  It's obvious from the right that their biggest problem with SS is the redistributive part. How about this. You can choose to pay 50% of your FICA tax and you get no benefit upon retirement?

I just have a hard time believing that low-income people would also not significantly opt-out, given that they are often living paycheck to paycheck and as a general rule people are short-sighted putting immediate concerns above those of the long term. This is particularly true of young people who generally just can't imagine being old aged, much less the need for retirement income when they are old aged.

If the poor don't opt out how would you suggest paying SS benefits once the high earners all drop out?

My point is that most of the poor likely WOULD opt out, if opting out was an option. In other words, without mandatory participation, SS would cease to be effective as a program to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly.

[Marus]

People look at the Nordic states, but they see what they want to see. They look at taxes, or healthcare, or bits and pieces here and there but never the sum total. Some of those places are very pro-business. Other not so much. It is an Apples to Oranges comparison - for example the city of Los Angeles has TWICE the population of Sweden.

A very effective measurement is looking at their economic freedom. How oppressive are laws, taxes, regulations and markets on personal freedom, economic mobility, and quality of life? People like to pick and choose from the countries policies they like and disregard those they don't. For instance, the US has regulatory burdens and [/b]higher corporate taxes[/b] than the Nordic countries. We're also the only country that taxes overseas income. Wealthier nations with high standards of living tend to correlate with economically free societies, Capitalism.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Marginal or effective?
Heritage loves to base their corp. tax talking points on marginal rates that apply to little or no corporate profit. IOW, they're full of shit.

Their "economic freedom" methodology is pretty laughable if you ask me.  It looks at the tax burden and the government spending to GDP as numbers that are relevant in and of themselves, which is horribly misleading. 

For example, unlike many other first world countries, we don't treat healthcare for all as a government expenditure.  That's great for an "economic freedom" analysis, but terrible for anyone who actually has to pay healthcare premiums and deductibles.  Do I benefit from the freedom of getting to choose between a bunch of shitty health care plans that all rip me off?

In a truly free society, citizens get together and decide which services should be provided by the government and which services are better left to the private sector.  In an unfree society, that discussion never happens because the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them.

[Bucksandreds]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

The system would collapse instantly because the high earners would be the only ones to opt out. Part of SS is redistributive.  It's obvious from the right that their biggest problem with SS is the redistributive part. How about this. You can choose to pay 50% of your FICA tax and you get no benefit upon retirement?

I just have a hard time believing that low-income people would also not significantly opt-out, given that they are often living paycheck to paycheck and as a general rule people are short-sighted putting immediate concerns above those of the long term. This is particularly true of young people who generally just can't imagine being old aged, much less the need for retirement income when they are old aged.

If the poor don't opt out how would you suggest paying SS benefits once the high earners all drop out?

My point is that most of the poor likely WOULD opt out, if opting out was an option. In other words, without mandatory participation, SS would cease to be effective as a program to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly.

Again, my question is if for some reason the lower classes stay in the program and the high income earners leave then who pays when the system becomes severely underfunded?  Raise taxes on the rich? Raise taxes on all? Cut SS benefit to the lower classes?  It has to be one of these.

[Yaeger]

People look at the Nordic states, but they see what they want to see. They look at taxes, or healthcare, or bits and pieces here and there but never the sum total. Some of those places are very pro-business. Other not so much. It is an Apples to Oranges comparison - for example the city of Los Angeles has TWICE the population of Sweden.

A very effective measurement is looking at their economic freedom. How oppressive are laws, taxes, regulations and markets on personal freedom, economic mobility, and quality of life? People like to pick and choose from the countries policies they like and disregard those they don't. For instance, the US has regulatory burdens and [/b]higher corporate taxes[/b] than the Nordic countries. We're also the only country that taxes overseas income. Wealthier nations with high standards of living tend to correlate with economically free societies, Capitalism.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Marginal or effective?
Heritage loves to base their corp. tax talking points on marginal rates that apply to little or no corporate profit. IOW, they're full of shit.

Their "economic freedom" methodology is pretty laughable if you ask me.  It looks at the tax burden and the government spending to GDP as numbers that are relevant in and of themselves, which is horribly misleading. 

For example, unlike many other first world countries, we don't treat healthcare for all as a government expenditure.  That's great for an "economic freedom" analysis, but terrible for anyone who actually has to pay healthcare premiums and deductibles.  Do I benefit from the freedom of getting to choose between a bunch of shitty health care plans that all rip me off?

In a truly free society, citizens get together and decide which services should be provided by the government and which services are better left to the private sector.  In an unfree society, that discussion never happens because the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them.

I would argue that a free society would maximize healthcare choices to it's citizens. The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world when it was closer to a free-market system by delivering a better quality service at a lower price, data prior to 1965's Great Society healthcare programs show this. If I didn't want to pay for insurance I would be free to not pay and free to deal with the consequences. As a hospital, I would be free to decline to service people that couldn't pay for it. The benefits greatly outstrip the negatives, you see this as a general trend in 'freer' countries. Capitalism, economic freedom, has been the greatest system in history in reducing poverty, combating disease, and increasing our quality of life.

In a truly free society, other citizens couldn't force some citizens to pay for their benefits like Social Security. I couldn't vote for you, the politically unpopular section of the populace, to pay for my education. So yes, taxation and GDP spending are large macro-economic indicators of economic freedom. The data tends to support this, especially if you look at aggregate Real GDP growth in relation to government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Restricting economic freedom via taxation, legislation, regulation, tariffs, etc has a negative effect on economic growth, wages, and socioeconomic mobility.

New Keynesianism is slowly crumbling as any faith in demand-side policy-driven economics is being buried by disastrous results and historic levels of debt.

[Marus]

People look at the Nordic states, but they see what they want to see. They look at taxes, or healthcare, or bits and pieces here and there but never the sum total. Some of those places are very pro-business. Other not so much. It is an Apples to Oranges comparison - for example the city of Los Angeles has TWICE the population of Sweden.

A very effective measurement is looking at their economic freedom. How oppressive are laws, taxes, regulations and markets on personal freedom, economic mobility, and quality of life? People like to pick and choose from the countries policies they like and disregard those they don't. For instance, the US has regulatory burdens and [/b]higher corporate taxes[/b] than the Nordic countries. We're also the only country that taxes overseas income. Wealthier nations with high standards of living tend to correlate with economically free societies, Capitalism.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Marginal or effective?
Heritage loves to base their corp. tax talking points on marginal rates that apply to little or no corporate profit. IOW, they're full of shit.

Their "economic freedom" methodology is pretty laughable if you ask me.  It looks at the tax burden and the government spending to GDP as numbers that are relevant in and of themselves, which is horribly misleading. 

For example, unlike many other first world countries, we don't treat healthcare for all as a government expenditure.  That's great for an "economic freedom" analysis, but terrible for anyone who actually has to pay healthcare premiums and deductibles.  Do I benefit from the freedom of getting to choose between a bunch of shitty health care plans that all rip me off?

In a truly free society, citizens get together and decide which services should be provided by the government and which services are better left to the private sector.  In an unfree society, that discussion never happens because the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them.

I would argue that a free society would maximize healthcare choices to it's citizens. The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world when it was closer to a free-market system by delivering a better quality service at a lower price, data prior to 1965's Great Society healthcare programs show this. If I didn't want to pay for insurance I would be free to not pay and free to deal with the consequences. As a hospital, I would be free to decline to service people that couldn't pay for it. The benefits greatly outstrip the negatives, you see this as a general trend in 'freer' countries. Capitalism, economic freedom, has been the greatest system in history in reducing poverty, combating disease, and increasing our quality of life.

In a truly free society, other citizens couldn't force some citizens to pay for their benefits like Social Security. I couldn't vote for you, the politically unpopular section of the populace, to pay for my education. So yes, taxation and GDP spending are large macro-economic indicators of economic freedom. The data tends to support this, especially if you look at aggregate Real GDP growth in relation to government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. Restricting economic freedom via taxation, legislation, regulation, tariffs, etc has a negative effect on economic growth, wages, and socioeconomic mobility.

New Keynesianism is slowly crumbling as any faith in demand-side policy-driven economics is being buried by disastrous results and historic levels of debt.

It's interesting that when you think about pre-medicare health plans, the first place your mind goes is "if I don't want to have to pay for it, I don't have to.". I can see how that seems like an appealing option, but it's completely ignoring the mass of impoverished people who couldn't afford healthcare services.  When you're talking about a service that benefits Humanity as a whole you have to consider access, not just cost and quality. I have plenty of issues with Medicare, but I don't see how you can argue that it expanded coverage and met a need for many people that the market on its own wasn't capable of meeting.  Maybe I'm being shallow-minded though.  What's the free market solution for people who can't afford health insurance?  And if it was working so well, why did anyone think Medicare was a good idea in the first place?

[Yaeger]

It's interesting that when you think about pre-medicare health plans, the first place your mind goes is "if I don't want to have to pay for it, I don't have to.". I can see how that seems like an appealing option, but it's completely ignoring the mass of impoverished people who couldn't afford healthcare services.  When you're talking about a service that benefits Humanity as a whole you have to consider access, not just cost and quality. I have plenty of issues with Medicare, but I don't see how you can argue that it expanded coverage and met a need for many people that the market on its own wasn't capable of meeting.  Maybe I'm being shallow-minded though.  What's the free market solution for people who can't afford health insurance?  And if it was working so well, why did anyone think Medicare was a good idea in the first place?

Because it's popular? It's a great political tool? Something for 'free' (not at THAT voter's expense) will always be that carrot they dangle to acquire political power.

You are shallow-minded. The only way to improve impact and growth of healthcare is via a free-market capitalistic approach. You need to increase supply, demand is fairly steady in the healthcare field. You can anticipate pretty regularly what health trends are. Basically, allowing the government to transfer money to the poor isn't stimulating demand, it isn't creating more supply, it's just shifting the allocation of the resources around. The effect has been a sharp increase in prices. The poor that could afford healthcare in the past, no longer have ANY ability to purchase the higher costed healthcare without continual government transfers which continues to exacerbate the problem.

We've seen this in healthcare, with housing costs, with tuition. Take your pick.

[dramaman]

From a policy standpoint, I am fine with gov't safety nets for the less fortunate. But do I need the gov't to help me save for retirement? No, no I don't.

The problem with that line of thinking, is that everyone thinks they can do a better job than the government. But when some inevitably don't, they will be screaming bloody murder.

I appreciate the point you're driving at and I think it's a valid consideration.

But if given the choice, I bet most people would not bother to opt out because they like Social Security. By all accounts, the program is generally popular and would be left largely intact. Those that expressly opted out would not have much right to complain. Sure they might if it went badly for them, but at some point you have to allow common sense and individual responsibility to kick in. The rest of the public would wonder why they opt out of SS in the first place.

Here's a parallel thought experiment: suppose you offer everyone to pay no payroll taxes throughout the year and instead just tax everyone one time, on April 15th? But along with that, you announce that no one would get a "tax refund." There are millions of people who plan on those returns and love them. It's sort of a little automatic savings plan for them. Now, I would rather choose to be taxed once per year so I could take advantage of the 12 months my money could work for me. But I feel certain I am in an overwhelming minority. Likewise, I think most people like the automatic nature of SS and don't care much for change.

The system would collapse instantly because the high earners would be the only ones to opt out. Part of SS is redistributive.  It's obvious from the right that their biggest problem with SS is the redistributive part. How about this. You can choose to pay 50% of your FICA tax and you get no benefit upon retirement?

I just have a hard time believing that low-income people would also not significantly opt-out, given that they are often living paycheck to paycheck and as a general rule people are short-sighted putting immediate concerns above those of the long term. This is particularly true of young people who generally just can't imagine being old aged, much less the need for retirement income when they are old aged.

If the poor don't opt out how would you suggest paying SS benefits once the high earners all drop out?

My point is that most of the poor likely WOULD opt out, if opting out was an option. In other words, without mandatory participation, SS would cease to be effective as a program to prevent extreme poverty among the elderly.

Again, my question is if for some reason the lower classes stay in the program and the high income earners leave then who pays when the system becomes severely underfunded?  Raise taxes on the rich? Raise taxes on all? Cut SS benefit to the lower classes?  It has to be one of these.

The question is based on a faulty premise. I don't spend time thinking about the answers to theoretical problems that defy logic to begin with.

[dramaman]

The only way to improve impact and growth of healthcare is via a free-market capitalistic approach.

You state this as a fact, while it is nothing more than opinion. What is a fact is that plenty of nations have demonstrated that they can ensure their citizens have access to quality healthcare with healthcare systems that are less free-market but more affordable than what we have here in the U.S.

[Yaeger]

The only way to improve impact and growth of healthcare is via a free-market capitalistic approach.

You state this as a fact, while it is nothing more than opinion. What is a fact is that plenty of nations have demonstrated that they can ensure their citizens have access to quality healthcare with healthcare systems that are less free-market but more affordable than what we have here in the U.S.

Nah, approximately 50% of our total healthcare spending per capita is via government. How is this even remotely approaching a free-market system? That doesn't even consider the staggering amount of legislation, regulation, price controls, politics, lobbying, etc in healthcare that has grown by leaps and bounds and would prevent any attempt for the market to correct itself.

[Telecaster]

You are shallow-minded. The only way to improve impact and growth of healthcare is via a free-market capitalistic approach. You need to increase supply, demand is fairly steady in the healthcare field. You can anticipate pretty regularly what health trends are. Basically, allowing the government to transfer money to the poor isn't stimulating demand, it isn't creating more supply, it's just shifting the allocation of the resources around. The effect has been a sharp increase in prices. The poor that could afford healthcare in the past, no longer have ANY ability to purchase the higher costed healthcare without continual government transfers which continues to exacerbate the problem.

We've seen this in healthcare, with housing costs, with tuition. Take your pick.

Those are demonstrably false statements.   Since 2010 medical inflation has increased at the lowest levels ever recorded. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/03/us-health-spending-grows-at-lowest-rate/19830573/

[Yaeger]

You are shallow-minded. The only way to improve impact and growth of healthcare is via a free-market capitalistic approach. You need to increase supply, demand is fairly steady in the healthcare field. You can anticipate pretty regularly what health trends are. Basically, allowing the government to transfer money to the poor isn't stimulating demand, it isn't creating more supply, it's just shifting the allocation of the resources around. The effect has been a sharp increase in prices. The poor that could afford healthcare in the past, no longer have ANY ability to purchase the higher costed healthcare without continual government transfers which continues to exacerbate the problem.

We've seen this in healthcare, with housing costs, with tuition. Take your pick.

Those are demonstrably false statements.   Since 2010 medical inflation has increased at the lowest levels ever recorded. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/03/us-health-spending-grows-at-lowest-rate/19830573/

You think the ACA marked the line? No, this isn't a new problem in the US. This has been a slow process going on for at least 50 years starting with Medicare and Medicaid, slow expansions of those programs, and increasing encroachment by government into healthcare.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2015/05/27/the-smoking-gun-how-u-s-health-care-came-to-cost-insanely-more/

[Telecaster]

You think the ACA marked the line? No, this isn't a new problem in the US. This has been a slow process going on for at least 50 years starting with Medicare and Medicaid, slow expansions of those programs, and increasing encroachment by government into healthcare.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2015/05/27/the-smoking-gun-how-u-s-health-care-came-to-cost-insanely-more/

All of those countries have vastly more involvement in health care than the US and have been involved for longer.  Canada for example, has had near universal coverage since the 1950s, long before we had Medicare in this country.   If your thesis is correct, the graph should be reversed with US health care being the least costly. 

Switzerland FWIW, has universal coverage, but via private insurance. 

[Yaeger]

All of those countries have vastly more involvement in health care than the US and have been involved for longer.  Canada for example, has had near universal coverage since the 1950s, long before we had Medicare in this country.   If your thesis is correct, the graph should be reversed with US health care being the least costly. 

Switzerland FWIW, has universal coverage, but via private insurance.

The graph shows that government involvement in a free market system can create an environment where it becomes worse than 100% government controlled or 100% private market. You're essentially capturing the worst aspect of both systems. The profit aspect of the private market untempered by the inability to control costs, increase efficiency, and deliver to customers. The government aspect of it where the strengths of the private market are sacrificed in the pursuit of 'fairness'.

Some people won't be happy until we're 100% government healthcare, mostly so they can legally steal from other citizens. Others won't be happy until we're 100% private. I tend to follow the belief that the Constitution doesn't grant authority for the federal government to provide healthcare or social security. It's not an enumerated power granted to the federal government.

[Bucksandreds]

You think the ACA marked the line? No, this isn't a new problem in the US. This has been a slow process going on for at least 50 years starting with Medicare and Medicaid, slow expansions of those programs, and increasing encroachment by government into healthcare.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2015/05/27/the-smoking-gun-how-u-s-health-care-came-to-cost-insanely-more/

All of those countries have vastly more involvement in health care than the US and have been involved for longer.  Canada for example, has had near universal coverage since the 1950s, long before we had Medicare in this country.   If your thesis is correct, the graph should be reversed with US health care being the least costly. 

Switzerland FWIW, has universal coverage, but via private insurance.

Yaeger's mind is made up. It's one of every man for himself. Whenever you already have the solution in your mind, all new evidence must just be molded to fit your argument. No evidence no matter how compelling it is will alter his every man for himself world view. I actually like Yaeger. I completely disagree with 90% of what he thinks. He is however, very consistent and passionate. He is also far less rude about expressing his opinion than I have been.

[Marus]

It's interesting that when you think about pre-medicare health plans, the first place your mind goes is "if I don't want to have to pay for it, I don't have to.". I can see how that seems like an appealing option, but it's completely ignoring the mass of impoverished people who couldn't afford healthcare services.  When you're talking about a service that benefits Humanity as a whole you have to consider access, not just cost and quality. I have plenty of issues with Medicare, but I don't see how you can argue that it expanded coverage and met a need for many people that the market on its own wasn't capable of meeting.  Maybe I'm being shallow-minded though.  What's the free market solution for people who can't afford health insurance?  And if it was working so well, why did anyone think Medicare was a good idea in the first place?

Because it's popular? It's a great political tool? Something for 'free' (not at THAT voter's expense) will always be that carrot they dangle to acquire political power.

You are shallow-minded. The only way to improve impact and growth of healthcare is via a free-market capitalistic approach. You need to increase supply, demand is fairly steady in the healthcare field. You can anticipate pretty regularly what health trends are. Basically, allowing the government to transfer money to the poor isn't stimulating demand, it isn't creating more supply, it's just shifting the allocation of the resources around. The effect has been a sharp increase in prices. The poor that could afford healthcare in the past, no longer have ANY ability to purchase the higher costed healthcare without continual government transfers which continues to exacerbate the problem.

We've seen this in healthcare, with housing costs, with tuition. Take your pick.

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

[Yaeger]

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

It's easy to support the emotional 'help the poor' plug, when you're not the one helping the poor. I just want to get rid of this argument that we're somehow caring or generous using tax dollars to provide support or services to the poor. You're only caring or supportive with money that YOU sacrifice. It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You can laud using redistribution policies all day long, but it's irresponsible to avoid analyzing the negative effects of those policies in acknowledging whether we'd be better with or without them. Let's take more recent data in regards to hospital rates. Since the ACA rollout, admissions to ERs have increased despite expanding access of care to the uninsured. You really have to ask yourself how successful markets work comes down to understanding incentives and how people react. A good example of this is to look at how rent control, designed to increase affordable housing for the poor, actually hurts the poor.

[dramaman]

It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You seem to be under the misnomer that the mere act of taxation and spending equates to 'giving your money away'. That is a faulty interpretation. You have tax responsibilities to the state. Once you pay your taxes, that money is no longer yours. The money belongs to the state, which represents the collective citizenry.  Hence, NOBODY is giving your money away.

[Gin1984]

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

It's easy to support the emotional 'help the poor' plug, when you're not the one helping the poor. I just want to get rid of this argument that we're somehow caring or generous using tax dollars to provide support or services to the poor. You're only caring or supportive with money that YOU sacrifice. It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You can laud using redistribution policies all day long, but it's irresponsible to avoid analyzing the negative effects of those policies in acknowledging whether we'd be better with or without them. Let's take more recent data in regards to hospital rates. Since the ACA rollout, admissions to ERs have increased despite expanding access of care to the uninsured. You really have to ask yourself how successful markets work comes down to understanding incentives and how people react. A good example of this is to look at how rent control, designed to increase affordable housing for the poor, actually hurts the poor.

Citation please

[Bucksandreds]

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

It's easy to support the emotional 'help the poor' plug, when you're not the one helping the poor. I just want to get rid of this argument that we're somehow caring or generous using tax dollars to provide support or services to the poor. You're only caring or supportive with money that YOU sacrifice. It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You can laud using redistribution policies all day long, but it's irresponsible to avoid analyzing the negative effects of those policies in acknowledging whether we'd be better with or without them. Let's take more recent data in regards to hospital rates. Since the ACA rollout, admissions to ERs have increased despite expanding access of care to the uninsured. You really have to ask yourself how successful markets work comes down to understanding incentives and how people react. A good example of this is to look at how rent control, designed to increase affordable housing for the poor, actually hurts the poor.

Citation please

Google this (er visits since aca) and see the 100 or more links. It's a fact. That is a demographics trend with the uneducated not knowing any better. It's not going down no matter what we do.  I support Medicare for all.  I also think (sarcastically) that we should tax Yaeger at 95% to help pay for it.

[dramaman]

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

It's easy to support the emotional 'help the poor' plug, when you're not the one helping the poor. I just want to get rid of this argument that we're somehow caring or generous using tax dollars to provide support or services to the poor. You're only caring or supportive with money that YOU sacrifice. It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You can laud using redistribution policies all day long, but it's irresponsible to avoid analyzing the negative effects of those policies in acknowledging whether we'd be better with or without them. Let's take more recent data in regards to hospital rates. Since the ACA rollout, admissions to ERs have increased despite expanding access of care to the uninsured. You really have to ask yourself how successful markets work comes down to understanding incentives and how people react. A good example of this is to look at how rent control, designed to increase affordable housing for the poor, actually hurts the poor.

Citation please

Google this (er visits since aca) and see the 100 or more links. It's a fact. That is a demographics trend with the uneducated not knowing any better. It's not going down no matter what we do.  I support Medicare for all.  I also think (sarcastically) that we should tax Yaeger at 95% to help pay for it.

Most of the initial links I found seem to reference a single survey that was given to ER doctors. The survey seems to be almost entirely perception based. While the perception may be entirely accurate, there are no numbers whatsoever regarding to what extent there has been an increase, nor where the increase has been. For instance, it would be interesting to compare statistics among those states which expanded medicaid versus those states which did not. This may just be a short-term bubble reflecting medicaid recipients now having coverage but still being used to getting healthcare via the ER.  I would hope this would level off as medicaid recipients started to become accustomed to going to primary care physicians for preventive and minor healthcare issues.

[Yaeger]

It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You seem to be under the misnomer that the mere act of taxation and spending equates to 'giving your money away'. That is a faulty interpretation. You have tax responsibilities to the state. Once you pay your taxes, that money is no longer yours. The money belongs to the state, which represents the collective citizenry.  Hence, NOBODY is giving your money away.

That would be true if the tax burden was proportional, but it's not. How popular would Bernie Sanders be if his 'free' public college and universal healthcare initiatives advocating raising taxes on the people that would benefit from it? I guess it makes it easier to reconcile that fact in your mind, but reality operates differently. The government has the burden of proof in demonstrating that it's spending MY tax dollars effectively. If it's not, I will vote to lower my taxes or cut spending accordingly. That is every taxpayer's responsibility.

Your idea supports the tyranny of the majority, which is why for the majority of our history we had protections against voting for direct benefits at the expense of others. Trading votes for food. "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." - James Madison

[Gin1984]

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

It's easy to support the emotional 'help the poor' plug, when you're not the one helping the poor. I just want to get rid of this argument that we're somehow caring or generous using tax dollars to provide support or services to the poor. You're only caring or supportive with money that YOU sacrifice. It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You can laud using redistribution policies all day long, but it's irresponsible to avoid analyzing the negative effects of those policies in acknowledging whether we'd be better with or without them. Let's take more recent data in regards to hospital rates. Since the ACA rollout, admissions to ERs have increased despite expanding access of care to the uninsured. You really have to ask yourself how successful markets work comes down to understanding incentives and how people react. A good example of this is to look at how rent control, designed to increase affordable housing for the poor, actually hurts the poor.

Citation please

Google this (er visits since aca) and see the 100 or more links. It's a fact. That is a demographics trend with the uneducated not knowing any better. It's not going down no matter what we do.  I support Medicare for all.  I also think (sarcastically) that we should tax Yaeger at 95% to help pay for it.
[/
So basically you don't have any evidence for this statement and again, your facts have been shown not to be true.

[pbkmaine]

Going back to the original question: no.

[dramaman]

It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You seem to be under the misnomer that the mere act of taxation and spending equates to 'giving your money away'. That is a faulty interpretation. You have tax responsibilities to the state. Once you pay your taxes, that money is no longer yours. The money belongs to the state, which represents the collective citizenry.  Hence, NOBODY is giving your money away.

That would be true if the tax burden was proportional, but it's not.

I fail to see how the proportionality (or lack thereof) of taxation has ANY bearing whatsoever on the fact that your money CEASES TO BE YOUR MONEY once your taxes are paid. Whether you are taxed heavily or lightly, when the government spends the tax monies it receives, NOBODY is giving your money away.

How popular would Bernie Sanders be if his 'free' public college and universal healthcare initiatives advocating raising taxes on the people that would benefit from it? I guess it makes it easier to reconcile that fact in your mind, but reality operates differently. The government has the burden of proof in demonstrating that it's spending MY tax dollars effectively. If it's not, I will vote to lower my taxes or cut spending accordingly. That is every taxpayer's responsibility.

Your idea supports the tyranny of the majority, which is why for the majority of our history we had protections against voting for direct benefits at the expense of others. Trading votes for food. "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." - James Madison

Tyranny of the Majority is a complete non-sequitor and pure FUD in this case.

Ultimately what you are arguing that the entities who pay taxes receive commensurate benefits from government spending. The notion has not only never been practiced, but is entirely unworkable. There has always been unequal distribution of government spending, which in no way reflected who paid the taxes.

[Marus]

I'd say there's pretty clearly work that can be done on the demand side.  Look at all the people who can't afford to fill their prescriptions or put off necessary dental work.  If we wanted to boost demand, we could absolutely take policy measures to make that happen.  They'd likely involve some measure of redistribution though.

Ironically, Medicare itself is a great case study for how redistributive government programs expand poor people's access to healthcare.  If you look at hospital admissions rates between 1963 and 1970, the number of people without private insurance who visited hospitals increased from 9% to 13%.  Which shouldn't be surprising, since before Medicare people without money had to choose between letting their symptoms go untreated and facing ruinous medical bills.

It's easy to support the emotional 'help the poor' plug, when you're not the one helping the poor. I just want to get rid of this argument that we're somehow caring or generous using tax dollars to provide support or services to the poor. You're only caring or supportive with money that YOU sacrifice. It's not moral to give other people's money away.

You can laud using redistribution policies all day long, but it's irresponsible to avoid analyzing the negative effects of those policies in acknowledging whether we'd be better with or without them. Let's take more recent data in regards to hospital rates. Since the ACA rollout, admissions to ERs have increased despite expanding access of care to the uninsured. You really have to ask yourself how successful markets work comes down to understanding incentives and how people react. A good example of this is to look at how rent control, designed to increase affordable housing for the poor, actually hurts the poor.

I disagree.  I am helping the poor by doing my (small) part to build a political movement encompassing the idea that healthcare should be a right for all. If the free market isn't capable of making that right a reality then it's the government's job to step in and take more direct steps.

[Marus]

You think the ACA marked the line? No, this isn't a new problem in the US. This has been a slow process going on for at least 50 years starting with Medicare and Medicaid, slow expansions of those programs, and increasing encroachment by government into healthcare.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2015/05/27/the-smoking-gun-how-u-s-health-care-came-to-cost-insanely-more/

All of those countries have vastly more involvement in health care than the US and have been involved for longer.  Canada for example, has had near universal coverage since the 1950s, long before we had Medicare in this country.   If your thesis is correct, the graph should be reversed with US health care being the least costly. 

Switzerland FWIW, has universal coverage, but via private insurance.

Yaeger's mind is made up. It's one of every man for himself. Whenever you already have the solution in your mind, all new evidence must just be molded to fit your argument. No evidence no matter how compelling it is will alter his every man for himself world view. I actually like Yaeger. I completely disagree with 90% of what he thinks. He is however, very consistent and passionate. He is also far less rude about expressing his opinion than I have been.

Great point by the way.  The more I get into politics, the more I appreciate folks who are straightforward and sincere about their beliefs (even if I strongly disagree with them).  Way too much of politics is trying to sort through the surface level dialogue and figure out what the real beliefs and intentions are. 

[Bucksandreds]

You think the ACA marked the line? No, this isn't a new problem in the US. This has been a slow process going on for at least 50 years starting with Medicare and Medicaid, slow expansions of those programs, and increasing encroachment by government into healthcare.

http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2015/05/27/the-smoking-gun-how-u-s-health-care-came-to-cost-insanely-more/

All of those countries have vastly more involvement in health care than the US and have been involved for longer.  Canada for example, has had near universal coverage since the 1950s, long before we had Medicare in this country.   If your thesis is correct, the graph should be reversed with US health care being the least costly. 

Switzerland FWIW, has universal coverage, but via private insurance.

Yaeger's mind is made up. It's one of every man for himself. Whenever you already have the solution in your mind, all new evidence must just be molded to fit your argument. No evidence no matter how compelling it is will alter his every man for himself world view. I actually like Yaeger. I completely disagree with 90% of what he thinks. He is however, very consistent and passionate. He is also far less rude about expressing his opinion than I have been.

Great point by the way.  The more I get into politics, the more I appreciate folks who are straightforward and sincere about their beliefs (even if I strongly disagree with them).  Way too much of politics is trying to sort through the surface level dialogue and figure out what the real beliefs and intentions are.

At first I got angry at Yaeger's opinions and then I realized that I was being a douche. I got banned 3 days for calling him a sociopath and it made me think. He was being civil and I wasn't. He honestly believes that what you can get is yours and if you're not smart, privledged or strong enough then tough luck. I admire his passion. I would be terrified of his ideas became law, however. The best we can do is not argue with him because it won't change anything. I wouldn't mind having a drink with him and picking his brain, though.

[Yaeger]

I wouldn't mind having a drink with him and picking his brain, though.

I'd love a drink. I know we've had our differences, and some of it was me intentionally spinning you up (sorry), but I appreciate your insight.

Tyranny of the Majority is a complete non-sequitor and pure FUD in this case.

Ultimately what you are arguing that the entities who pay taxes receive commensurate benefits from government spending. The notion has not only never been practiced, but is entirely unworkable. There has always been unequal distribution of government spending, which in no way reflected who paid the taxes.

Hardly, that idea is championed by the Constitution, the US practiced that for the majority of it's history. It could only levy taxes proportionally on its citizens:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

It also was only allowed to spend that which all citizens benefited similarly specified by the Enumerated Powers. The entire goal of the Constitution was to limit the federal government's power's in favor of the states and the people. That changed in 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment, which granted Congress the authority to levy taxes however it wanted. This grew the federal government from about 2.5% of GDP in 1913 gradually to around 25% today. The negative effects of government spending have a strong correlation in Real GDP growth rate. Meaning, our economy grows slower as government overhead increases. Less long term jobs, wage growth, revenues, etc. From 2011 to 2014, the US had a Real GDP growth of about 2%, while China had a growth of 8%. By 2025 China's economy will surpass the US'. This means less jobs, unfavorable trade relationships, declining quality of life, etc.

To sum it up, I don't care about giving direct benefits to the poor because in the long run it's a losing scenario. Capitalism and the free market has been the greatest system in history in combating poverty. You need economic growth or that money you're throwing at the poor, and your ability to effectively combat poverty, will diminish over time.

[Bucksandreds]

I wouldn't mind having a drink with him and picking his brain, though.

I'd love a drink. I know we've had our differences, and some of it was me intentionally spinning you up (sorry), but I appreciate your insight.

Tyranny of the Majority is a complete non-sequitor and pure FUD in this case.

Ultimately what you are arguing that the entities who pay taxes receive commensurate benefits from government spending. The notion has not only never been practiced, but is entirely unworkable. There has always been unequal distribution of government spending, which in no way reflected who paid the taxes.

Hardly, that idea is championed by the Constitution, the US practiced that for the majority of it's history. It could only levy taxes proportionally on its citizens:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

It also was only allowed to spend that which all citizens benefited similarly specified by the Enumerated Powers. The entire goal of the Constitution was to limit the federal government's power's in favor of the states and the people. That changed in 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment, which granted Congress the authority to levy taxes however it wanted. This grew the federal government from about 2.5% of GDP in 1913 gradually to around 25% today. The negative effects of government spending have a strong correlation in Real GDP growth rate. Meaning, our economy grows slower as government overhead increases. Less long term jobs, wage growth, revenues, etc. From 2011 to 2014, the US had a Real GDP growth of about 2%, while China had a growth of 8%. By 2025 China's economy will surpass the US'. This means less jobs, unfavorable trade relationships, declining quality of life, etc.

To sum it up, I don't care about giving direct benefits to the poor because in the long run it's a losing scenario. Capitalism and the free market has been the greatest system in history in combating poverty. You need economic growth or that money you're throwing at the poor, and your ability to effectively combat poverty, will diminish over time.

Between 1785 and 1835 there were 11 recessions in the U.S. Could it not be surmised that government intervention may slow the peaks of an economy but also limit the depth of crashes?

[dramaman]

I wouldn't mind having a drink with him and picking his brain, though.

I'd love a drink. I know we've had our differences, and some of it was me intentionally spinning you up (sorry), but I appreciate your insight.

Tyranny of the Majority is a complete non-sequitor and pure FUD in this case.

Ultimately what you are arguing that the entities who pay taxes receive commensurate benefits from government spending. The notion has not only never been practiced, but is entirely unworkable. There has always been unequal distribution of government spending, which in no way reflected who paid the taxes.

Hardly, that idea is championed by the Constitution, the US practiced that for the majority of it's history. It could only levy taxes proportionally on its citizens:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers"
"The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

It also was only allowed to spend that which all citizens benefited similarly specified by the Enumerated Powers. The entire goal of the Constitution was to limit the federal government's power's in favor of the states and the people. That changed in 1913 with the passing of the 16th Amendment, which granted Congress the authority to levy taxes however it wanted. This grew the federal government from about 2.5% of GDP in 1913 gradually to around 25% today. The negative effects of government spending have a strong correlation in Real GDP growth rate. Meaning, our economy grows slower as government overhead increases. Less long term jobs, wage growth, revenues, etc. From 2011 to 2014, the US had a Real GDP growth of about 2%, while China had a growth of 8%. By 2025 China's economy will surpass the US'. This means less jobs, unfavorable trade relationships, declining quality of life, etc.

To sum it up, I don't care about giving direct benefits to the poor because in the long run it's a losing scenario. Capitalism and the free market has been the greatest system in history in combating poverty. You need economic growth or that money you're throwing at the poor, and your ability to effectively combat poverty, will diminish over time.

For someone who doesn't care about giving direct benefits to the poor, you sure seem committed to spreading propaganda otherwise.

I challenge you to demonstrate that at ANY time in the past government spending ever equally distributed benefits proportionally based on those who paid in taxes. What you are espousing is a a conservative fairy tale about the good ole days that never were.

[Tjat]

Personally? Of course I would prefer my own investments... Last year I contributed over $7,000 to SSI and $2400 to Medicare. In 15 years, that's $23k at 6% return. At those contribution levels OVER 15 years, my retirement accounts will have lost out on $227K.

 

[ender]

Between 1785 and 1835 there were 11 recessions in the U.S. Could it not be surmised that government intervention may slow the peaks of an economy but also limit the depth of crashes?

I suspect something to do with the "we just became a country and about fell apart a few times and fought a few wars" had more to do with that than anything else ;)

[Yaeger]

Between 1785 and 1835 there were 11 recessions in the U.S. Could it not be surmised that government intervention may slow the peaks of an economy but also limit the depth of crashes?

That's the idea behind Keynesian economics, to temporarily arrest the fall of the market with stimulus with the idea of paying off that debt in the good years that follow (shorten the fall, shorten the rise). The danger is using stimulus to mask market deficiencies, like bail out companies that should have been allowed to fail.

But recessions aren't necessarily bad, they're market corrections to correct something typically wrong in the market.  In the economics world, it's called a business cycle and it happens in every economy like clockwork. Our two largest recessions in history (the Great Depression and the Great Recession) were CAUSED by government's with monetary tightening and the Howley-Smoot Tariff Act in the 1930's to the sub-prime housing crisis in 2008.

[Bucksandreds]

Between 1785 and 1835 there were 11 recessions in the U.S. Could it not be surmised that government intervention may slow the peaks of an economy but also limit the depth of crashes?

That's the idea behind Keynesian economics, to temporarily arrest the fall of the market with stimulus with the idea of paying off that debt in the good years that follow (shorten the fall, shorten the rise). The danger is using stimulus to mask market deficiencies, like bail out companies that should have been allowed to fail.

But recessions aren't necessarily bad, they're market corrections to correct something typically wrong in the market.  In the economics world, it's called a business cycle and it happens in every economy like clockwork. Our two largest recessions in history (the Great Depression and the Great Recession) were CAUSED by government's with monetary tightening and the Howley-Smoot Tariff Act in the 1930's to the sub-prime housing crisis in 2008.

When factoring in changes in percentage population growth, your figures demonstrate that since 1913 the economy has outperformed it's pre 1913 growth.  You can't just cherry pick figures without context.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

[Yaeger]

When factoring in changes in percentage population growth, your figures demonstrate that since 1913 the economy has outperformed it's pre 1913 growth.  You can't just cherry pick figures without context.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

There's a difference between talking about economic trends and talking about the thousands of factors that contribute to it like the transition of agricultural, industrial, and post-industrial economies and the population growth rates associated with those. You could make a comparison to China, look at their lower population growth rates yet Real GDP increasing much faster than ours. I didn't want to take the conversation down a rabbit hole.

[Bucksandreds]

When factoring in changes in percentage population growth, your figures demonstrate that since 1913 the economy has outperformed it's pre 1913 growth.  You can't just cherry pick figures without context.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

There's a difference between talking about economic trends and talking about the thousands of factors that contribute to it like the transition of agricultural, industrial, and post-industrial economies and the population growth rates associated with those. You could make a comparison to China, look at their lower population growth rates yet Real GDP increasing much faster than ours. I didn't want to take the conversation down a rabbit hole.

China is in the process of industrializing from an agrarian society. My point is worthy of discussion. Growth per person (factoring in much lower population growth rates the last 100 years) is actually faster now than pre 1913.  You're my boy, you know that.  I do have a point, however.