Does he really think that the solution to the dwindling social security fund is to privatize it? Perhaps it would be a better idea to return the money that has been "borrowed" without our consent? Does he really think that wall street, the people partially responsible for our present state of Affairs", will not consider this a wind fall and money in their own pockets to squander as they see fit? Perhaps I am just cynical and find it hard to trust the greediest among us with our hard earned money? Perhaps I am missing something? I'd appreciate other viewson the subject.
If it was privatised then the shareholder value becomes the single priority rather than those that need financial assistance. The way to increase this value is to reduce the payments to the needy and increase share dividends. It is clear who the winners and looser would be.
Obviously, this plan cannot work for those already in the system. I can't say I've actually looked at the plan, however, it is a much better plan than the current one if done correctly. It would have to be a "going forward" plan, and allotting a certain amount for every baby born to be invested. In discussing this idea a few years ago, based on my retirement plan and its ups and downs in the Market, I determined that had I invested exactly the same on the day I was born, I could retire tomorrow and be set for the rest of my life rather than the measly $2000 a month I've earned from the Government's system and can't even touch for quite a number of years yet.
Further, a privatized SS means no more borrowing from it by the Government.
There would be no shareholders involved, or dividends... nobody is suggesting anything like that.
I think it sucks. Social Security should be strengthened, not privatized. 401k plans which have for all intents and purposes replaced defined benefit pensions should be made more attractive and tighter rules established on how much can be charged for administering them and investing them. Investments in employer stock should be prohibited, and investments in low cost index mutual funds required or encouraged. Enrollment should be automatic unless the employee declines to participate.
Romney has proposed three ideas:
1 - Slowly increase the retirement age, as it hasn't been adjusted for increased life expectancy.
2 - Slowly decrease the benefits for the wealthiest Americans, literally a redistribution of SS contributions.
3 - Allow for private accounts, he has suggested they would work best as add-ons, rather than taking away part of SS contributions.
The left has consistently misrepresented positions on SS reform.
First of all the idea is not his. Bush came out with it a few years back. The talk about privatizing social security was dropped as soon as the financial markets crashed after the debacle of the investment world.
They say that social security is shrinking and in the future will not be there for those too young.
However, if Bush's push had succeeded , by now social security would have been another victim of Madoff and the rest of the investment world...
Most of the private pension plans are gone, and their beneficiaries will have to rely on social security and their ability to work until they die...
True. And Bush got the idea from Paul Ryan, Jack Kemp et al. Wall Street is salivating to get its greedy hands on SS tax funds. Privatization is a horrible idea.
Ralph, nobody is talking about what you claim they are talking about!
They are talking about giving citizens the same options that congressmen get. It's not giving your retirement funds to 'bankers' or 'wallstreet'. It's simply having more than the option to invest in limited-growth bonds.
You are assuming that the great majority of Americans have the intelligence and financial skills to manage their own money. Social Security came into being because our leaders knew this was not the case. It still isn't. People have proven this time and again, which is why we need to strengthen social security, not dilute it.
This isn't the same as normal investing.
You would get a packet which would basically say
You can keep the current system, or you can invest part of your contributions in fund X. Here is information on fund X. There would be no downside to investing in fund X, as it is guaranteed, and traditionally has 2-3 times the returns of treasury bills, including market 'crashes'.
LOL - This thread sounds (not surprisingly) like something that one would find published on Daily Kos or HuffPo. And it's wrong. At one time, Romney supported GW Bush's SS plan that included privatization, but he announced no plan of his own and, actually, he supports strengthening the SS system we now have.
Interstingly, SS is probably safer under Romney than it is under Obama, but that won't stop some people from saying the opposite anyway. This is what I love about politics. Anyone can say anything and pretend they are an authority.
Here's Romney's real position on SS. It would behoove all of us to do a little research.
Howard, what are you trying to do, take all the fun out of it for the pack of poo pitching primates that's begun to swarm the political theads? For shame!
Haven't you learned he is just a weather vane by now?
He said something to the contrary not long ago : http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/social … silliness/
Not to mention he chose a VP who supports it apparently.
In politics every one is an expert. The only difference is that some "experts" get paid others don't...
Well, that's not Paul Ryan's position, and Romney has endorsed the "Ryan Roadmap for America." As usual he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Paul Ryan's position is to allow citizens to divert some of their money to the funds that congressmen use.
Romney has stated that he would prefer that any personal accounts be on top of the current program.
Ryan's plan offers an "optional," and the keyword there is optional, plan for workers under 55 to divert some of their SS funds into diversified investments. He doesn't advocate forcing anyone to do anything.
While Romney might support Ryan's overall Roadmap, that doesn't mean he agrees with every detail. What's more, SS is such a highly emotional subject that it's unlikely either side is going to implement real changes to protect the program until we're very close to the edge.
So far - Obama and Romney aren't far apart on most of their platforms. Just because a candidate says one thing - doesn't mean he or she can achieve it. Take Obama's promise to close Gitmo - that fell apart. What about his plan to bankrupt fossil fuels? He's become one of their biggest supporters. And he was going to start pulling troops out of Iraq the first day in office. That didn't happen either, instead he invaded Libya and is making war noises toward Syria and Iran.
If we're going to hold a candidate's feet to the fire, let's do it on what they actually say - not on "he likes him so he must be guilty by association," tactics. That's no different than the crew that painted Obama as a terrorist because he was acquainted with a reformed American terrorist.
Since when has a VP's political agenda trumped a President's agenda anyway?
It's a terrible idea. First of all, it's a bald-faced, shameless handout to Wall Street. Second, Social Security wasn't in trouble until Congress messed with it. Third, SS is guarenteed by the US Gov't. if it's privatized, what happens when the market tanks again? (Notice I said "when," not "if.") What happens when the next Bernie Madoff comes along and steals a bunch of it?
The SSA is a public body that is open to scrutiny from, and answers to, the American people. If the money from SS was put into private hands, those people don't answer to anyone. There is no congressional oversight, precious little regulation, and no guarenteed return. It would be disastrous.
Some of the other replies in this thread address those issues.
Why won't people listen? Lol, I can quote Romney, I can link to his website, I can link to the website for the Roadmap for America, and still, people don't listen.
Neither Romney nor Ryan are calling for the privatization of Social Security. It's a lie perpetuated by the left ever since Bush started talking about it(but if Gore talks about it it's ok).
The Ryan plan would allow people the option to choose a personal investment account, which would still be managed by the SSA. The only difference is what the money is invested in. Nobody would be forced, the money wouldn't be managed by 'Wall Street', and funds would still be guaranteed by the government.
Everything you said is completely irrelevant to the subject.
I'm not sure what Ryan's and Romney's current positions are wrt SS, but Ryan has been advocating the privatization of SS for a long time. He's one of the ones who helped talk Bush into trying to privatize SS. SS should be strengthened not privatized or partially privatized. It has been a successful program which can be put on a sound financial footing with a couple of small changes.
Jaxson, they don't want the truth. They want to cling desperately to their version of it.
I think privatization is the only answer and I would embrace it wholeheartedly, although am probably too old to be included in a new system. People have taken advantage of the system for too long, and the baby boomers will put the final nail in the coffin. Not that they didn't work for it, I don't disagree that their benefits should be (and no doubt will be) protected. But for the rest of us it may be the only way to move forward since their just won't be any money left by the time we retire. Raising payroll taxes won't solve the problem, there are too many people collecting per worker these days.
Let us invest our own money in low cost funds, there would be more to choose from if there were more people investing. (although there are plenty out there at present) The only losers would be all those yahoos working at social security admin.
Give my social security to the bankers so they can offshore it. Off-shoring is about all Romney knows.
Romney had better tread lightly on this one. Bush found out that privatizing SS was a political non-starter. It wasn't really his idea. He let himself be talked into proposing it by Paul Ryan and other fringe conservatives.
I wonder, what do people posting in this thread think Romney's ideas/plans on Social Security are?
What you think of someone's idea is really irrelevant, if you don't understand their idea.
The dirtiest campaign in living memory is underway. People slinging mud at the idea, its proponent and this topic's author aren't interested in what the plans are, only in slinging more mud.
Yes, after 4 years of the opposition acting like total ladies and gentlemen...
See, this is the problem. Even if the current candidate on the R side for President runs a campaign centered on the issues, instead of negative personal attacks, it means nothing.
It's ok to play dirty against Romney, because (point to anyone beside Romney) is doing it/has done it too.
I wonder if a single person who is against Romney privatizing SS will post now that I have clarified that he isn't proposing that?
"I wonder, what do people posting in this thread think Romney's ideas/plans on Social Security are?"
Hard to tell. His positions aren't exactly carved in stone. However, he endorsed the Paul Ryan Roadmap for America which would partially privatize Social Security. Ryan clearly would go further if he thought he could get away with it.
That plan includes an option, voluntary option, for people to invest up to 1/3 of their SS into a private fund.
Romney's plan is slightly different(you can support one idea, even if you think a different way of handling it might work better) is to allow people to invest into a personal account on top of SS, as well as to reduce the benefits for rich people(you should like that), and to raise the retirement age.
"Romney's plan is slightly different(you can support one idea, even if you think a different way of handling it might work better) is to allow people to invest into a personal account on top of SS.."
You mean like a 401k plan? Wall Street 401k plans are already ripping off a lot of participants by overcharging for administration and trading costs. The 401k program needs to be tightened up and made more attractive for participants. With the disappearance of defined benefit pension plans in the private and public sector the need for both SS and 401k plans is more important than ever. SS keeps you out of the dumpsters and supports orphans and disabled workers. And SS plus 401ks can allow you to live like a human being.
Here's an interesting article about John Bogle who invented Index Funds which is relevant to SS and retirement income issues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/busin … f=business
The schemer and scam-artist is always resentful of a group of potential pigeons who are protected from what they see as a "profitable business opportunity."
It happened with the repeal of The Glass--Steagall Act by the bankers who relentlessly tried to get back into the speculation game that ended because of the '29 Crash and The Great Depression.
Jaxson's favorite argument is that no one can understand the complexity and sophistication of the conservative economic model or Mitt Romney's innovative business and economic acumen.
The fact is if Social Security is privatized, the real winners will be the the very same Wall Street Weasels who put America on the economic brink.
In other words, Jaxson thinks we're too stupid to understand what Romney wants to do.
Really? Quote plox?
Who is advocating the privatization of Social Security?
Right, care to quote what I have actually said, instead of making a straw-man out of it?
Jaxson, your lamentations always amount to the same fixations and conclusions . . .
You can't provide a quote, because I never said that.
You can't provide a source for who wants to 'privatize Social Security', because Romney isn't calling for that.
You just throw out mud, and hide behind your images. I know you think they are clever, but they really aren't. They just stand in the way of real discussion.
Too bad so many people here aren't interested in real discussion.
Romney is calling for partial privatization of SS. I hope he picks Paul Ryan as his running mate. That would provide a real choice for those who think there's no difference between the Dem and Republican parties.
Romney's actual plan doesn't include any option for privatization at the moment. He proposes that SS could be fixed simply by raising the retirement age and scaling back benefits for the wealthy.
His personal opinion is to allow an additional contribution to a private account.
Well, as I recall, Romney said if he were president he would sign the Ryan budget which does call for partial privatization of SS.
Lol, you just don't listen Ralph.
It doesn't call for any privitization, at all. I can quote you directly from his plan, but you'll just say I'm 'way off base' again.
Yes, I will.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Representative Paul Ryan has long wanted to let Americans invest part of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts.
After legislation he co-sponsored in 2005 went nowhere, Ryan included a detailed plan to privatize Social Security in his budget proposal in 2010. Under that plan, he would allow workers to funnel an average of roughly 40% of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.
Mitt Romney, who chose the Wisconsin lawmaker as his running mate on Saturday, has also voiced support for private accounts. He has said he likes the idea of allowing people to put some of their funds in accounts with higher returns than Social Security.
"Personal accounts will be a big plus," Romney said at a town hall meeting in 2007.
The thinking is that people would gain control over a portion of their retirement savings and be able to build bigger nest eggs by investing in stocks. Another plus: They could pass the accounts along to heirs.
But neither Ryan nor Romney have said much about private Social Security accounts lately. Ryan dropped it from his more recent budget proposals, while Romney doesn't mention it on his campaign Web site.
Adding private accounts to Social Security has been a hugely controversial issue for many years. President George W. Bush's effort to create such a system in 2005 went down in flames in the face of Democratic resistance.
Since then, there haven't been any serious attempts to open the retirement program to the stock market. And, of course, the market's roller coaster ride of recent years soured many Americans' view on the idea.
"Because of the ups and downs of the market, people see taking their Social Security nest egg and investing it in the market as a risky proposition," said Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy for the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Paul Ryan economics: 5 things to know
There's another reason why many supporters of private accounts have fallen silent in recent years ... that's because Social Security is no longer running a surplus.
When the system was taking in more funds than needed, it could afford to let people direct some of their payroll tax towards individual accounts.
But now that the surplus has ended, the system needs all the payroll tax money to pay benefits to current retirees. So private accounts became less desirable because any diverted funds would have to be paid by the federal government.
"There is no spare money anymore," said David John, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/news/ec … /index.htm
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan has argued for an overhaul of the federal Social Security program that would include private retirement accounts, but there is little indication that his running mate, Mitt Romney, will embrace Ryan's plan in full if elected in November.
As a House member during the George W. Bush administration, Ryan was one of the chief proponents of changing the federal pension program to allow workers to invest part of their income into private investment accounts, while retaining the current safety net currently available to retirees. In 2004, Ryan sponsored a bill with New Hampshire Republican Sen. John Sununu that would give workers the option to invest part of their payroll taxes into private accounts. Bush embraced a watered-down version of the plan, but it ultimately failed in Congress.
But while Social Security has been one of Ryan's key issues for several years, Romney has not made transforming the program a central part of his campaign. The former Massachusetts governor has discussed changes to the system, including allowing investment in the market, but has not given the idea the full-throated endorsement of his new number two.
T he official Romney campaign website lists two solutions that Romney intends to implement: Raising the retirement age and means-testing the program, which would provide fewer benefits to wealthy retirees who don't need to rely on the funds. (Romney is always careful to point out that any changes to the system would not apply to current retirees.)
In his 2010 book, No Apology, which is not so much a strict policy treatise as an outline of possible solutions, Romney discussed raising the retirement age and means-testing, but also mentioned allowing private accounts for younger workers.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/rom … CpMvqDz7QM
Ralph, personal accounts don't mean privatized.
Let's say my local electric company is a public service. They send me a letter saying I can choose to stay on my current plan, or go to a new plan which will charge me different rates by the hour. It's still the same public service, but a different plan. Has my electric service been privatized? No.
Now, let's say my local electric company is a public service. They send me a letter and say they will no longer be providing those services. Included in the letter is information on three private companies that will be providing electric services in my area, and I have to switch. Has my electric service been privatized? Yes
Can you spot the difference?
Personal accounts, managed by the SSA, are still government accounts.
In Romney's book, he says he would prefer to see optional personal accounts as an 'add-on' option to existing contributions.
There goes Ralph again... Insisting that even if I quote directly from the primary source, he will say I'm wrong and find some online article that disagrees with me.
Anything to make Romney look bad, right? Intentionally lying is perfectly acceptable, right Ralph?
Ralph, I always resonate with your points and point of view, and I couldn't agree more—pleeeeeezzzzzzze let it be Ryan!
A quote isn't necessary, Jaxson because the arrogance in your tone and your wonkish fixation with arcane flotsam precludes genuine discussion.
And I don't have to provide a source because it's obvious to anyone familiar with Romney's history that he will exploit absolutely anything to make a profit.
And you hate the images because they so effectively short-circuit your diehard compulsion to convince yourself and others that your opinions are unimpaired by biased ideology.
Jaxson, the arcane details of a dogma aren't going to convince anyone that your opinions are facts—so get used to it and grow up!
First of all, any arrogance you read into my tone is your own doing. When someone starts getting uncivil with me, I'll mirror it.
When I state facts, if you find that arrogant, it's your own fault.
Second of all, my preference for primary information over secondary or worse sources doesn't preclude discussion. Rather, people who refuse to accept the primary sources are the ones keeping genuine discussion from occurring.
So, instead of making stuff up about me, how about you prove it?
No, I don't hate the images. They make me laugh, but not the way you think. Your images represent all that is partisan and shallow in political discussion.
Grow up? Lol Wizard.
Let me tell you something Wizard, there are still people who are open to the truth. I've been glad to share many meaningful discussions with people, both where I have learned, and where they have learned.
Too many people here just aren't that interested in the truth, but I still discuss it so the truth stays out there. And every once in a while, I meet someone who is seeking it.
WoW has no real information or truth so he talks in pictures. You're wasting your time there.
That's right. Wall Street banksters are salivating to get their hands on SS money.
Romney doesn't depend on social security
So his ideas don't count.
Wizard, have you noticed how nobody here, who started off by saying Romney's idea to privatize SS is a bad idea, has admitted to the simple fact that he isn't advocating that?
He doesn't even get credit from the left for the proposal of decreasing benefits for the rich, which is essentially turning SS into a progressive tax, even though that's the kind of thing the left loves.
Jaxson, Romney and Ryan just aren't trustworthy and every scam needs a hook to get the sucker to believe in it.
The potential for exploitation in privatizing Social Security is vast and irreversible—people are just not as stupid as you think.
On edit: I'm sure you think you see "the truth" and think that you express it, but I've been around long enough to know that life is a journey from the illusions of certainty to the certainty of illusions.
When you can see the truth in what I just wrote, you might come to realize that you don't have the answers. Your certainty will fade and you will see that the intoxication of youth clouds perceptions—but only after those days pass and one becomes sober with the uncertainties that life eventually provides.
Of course not. No presidential candidate is completely trustworthy. They will all say things that they don't mean in order to get elected. Romney panders to the right, even though he's more moderate. Obama panders to his base.
Romney will make a claim about military voter rights to gain support of military groups in a swing state. Obama will make promises about cutting the deficit right before submitting a budget to increase it.
The key is finding out what's the real desire of a politician, and what's the fluff.
If there were an option for me to opt into, partially, a private account, I would take it.
Again, nobody is calling for the privatization of Social Security. There are two different paths being discussed which would allow for the option(that means choice) of putting part of SS contributions, or in excess of SS contributions, into a private account.
Historically, private accounts would have easily outpaced SS returns, and I'm optimistic about the future.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/09/social … silliness/
It does quote Romney as saying that partially privatizing social security is a viable option.
To me, it would all depend on who controls the investing. Would I have the power to put my money where I want it to go, or would some government agency invest it with JPMorgan where they would then go and lose 8 billion dollars?
Cody, I'm glad to see you actually looking at what he has proposed, instead of missing the whole target.
I'm not exactly sure how it would work, but part of the whole idea of private is that you have some control. It would probably be a combination of indexes, low-risk funds, bonds and whatnot, with perhaps a certain percentage being allowed to be place in 'higher growth' accounts.
Potentially, the greatest value of privatizing Social Security is to take it out of the hands of Congressional types who seem unable to keep their hands out of it. We, as a public, sat by idly for over 40 years as the government squandered funds that were paid in as Social Security. Had that money been privatized in the 60's when that legislation was enacted, the system would be healthy today for there would be capital in place that is actually earning interest on the base. As it stands right now, the government is spending the revenue faster than it comes in and replacing it with promises to repay...something which is not likely possible. Had this taken place in the private sector, it would be looked upon as the greatest Ponzi scheme of all times and people would be in jail just like Bernie Madoff. Now we run the chance of shortchanging those who have paid in for years and totally stealing from the ones who have years to pay into the future. How can anyone defend such a system or issue caution against privatizing it. Are we really afraid someone will run off with the money? Ha! They already have, and we elected them to office! ~ WB
The real problem, Wayne, is that opponents of the 'privatization' plan don't understand the plan.
The plan is to allow people, if they choose, to invest their SS contributions into a personal account. This account will still be managed by the SS administration, but it will contain options for investing approved by the government. Also, all accounts would be guaranteed, so if your personal account didn't do as well as the traditional method, you would still get the same amount as the traditional method.
It's what we do for our congressmen, and I haven't heard them complain that their retirement is going to be underpaid.
But, people opposed to the plan hear 'personal', then they think 'private', and then they assume that the government would take your SS money, and put it into the hands of 'Wall Street' or 'Bankers', and allow them to run off with your money.
Personally, I think it is just that people, generally, have a sincere disinterest in understanding any plans that come from 'the other side'.
One Privateer argues "the greatest value of privatizing Social Security is to take it out of the hands of Congressional types . . ." — guess whose hands it would wind up in—Wall Street financial institutions, who would obtain significant fees for managing private accounts and then the other Privateer argues we just can't possibly understand the positive benefits because, he implies, Wall Street would never run off with our money—oh yeah! Then he attributes the cause of our mistrust is "disinterest"—as if we haven't been around for trickle-down economics for thirty years and forgot who put the world economy on a cliff overlooking the abyss.
Welcome to the TeaParty Kids!
Privatization does not address Social Security's long-term funding challenges. The program is "pay as you go"—current payroll taxes pay for current retirees and diverting payroll taxes (or other sources of government funds) to fund private accounts would drive enormous deficits and borrowing ("transition costs").
Privatization converts the program from a "defined benefits" plan to a "defined contribution" plan—subjecting the ultimate payouts to stock or bond market fluctuations. Social Security payouts are indexed to wages, which historically have exceeded inflation. As such, Social Security payments are protected from inflation, while private accounts might not be.
Privatization in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression would have caused households to have lost even more of their assets, had their investments been invested in the U.S. stock market.
All of these points are ignored in their AynRandian delusions!
"This account will still be managed by the SS administration, but it will contain options for investing approved by the government." And exactly who is going to control these investment options?
Let the poor and the old die. They have nothing to offer that any billionaire needs.
For the last time, READ! What do you base this completely false statement on? What in the plan indicates the poor and the old will die? Or are you just reiterating the false statements put out by the Obama campaign? Your money does not go to Wall Street to be handled. You choose whether any of it would be invested, how it is invested, and SS still holds the proceeds. Also, it is guaranteed, meaning, that you are guaranteed the greater result of the two methods. It will not even affect anyone already on SS. Only those under age 55 and it is still a choice.
They won't listen...
For some reason, some people here are deliberatly blind and deaf to simple fact.
It's just...ugh...mouthpieces they all are. Reiterating talking points they know nothing about. I certainly hope this is not representative of the general population of America. It's a scary thought......all those sheep.
. . and the scam-artists who shear them . . .
"The policy-wonk term for this approach is “competitive bidding,” an idea that originated with Democrats. The Wyden-Ryan plan is nearly identical to one that was introduced a few weeks earlier by Mitt Romney.
The bottom line: if Romney and Ryan leave you the option to remain in the 1965-vintage, fee-for-service, traditional Medicare program, and you claim that Medicare has “ended as we know it,” what you’ve really ended is the English language as we know it."
Medicare would end for our children who will become eligible in the future. GOPers are always whining about burdens shifting to our children. Well, here's on their proposal would put on the shoulders of our children.
How does it end? If you have the choice to remain in the current traditional program, how does it end? There is nothing more burdensome to the future generations than the current program so your entire premise does not work.
I would guess that maybe half of each party, D and R, are just D/R and believe that whatever the D/R do is gilded in gold, and whatever the R/D do is evil. You simply can't talk to those kinds of people... they are the kind who come on a forum and admit to purposefully posting misleading information in order to make the other side look bad. What can you do when someone admits that they don't care about the truth?
But, if you keep up the fight, you find people who are interested in facts. Having discussions with those people is very rewarding.
It's not false. Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan which would gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Ralph, this is about SS. You won't listen to what Romney or Ryan have said about SS.
Nobody is going to gut SS.
Ryan's plan allows people to remain on the current plan. Nothing changes.
It also allows people to invest some of their money into the same retirement options that congressmen use. It is still managed by the SSA, not by 'bankers' or 'wall street'. That option is completely optional, and guaranteed to match regular SS.
That is not true Ralph. Read the plan. It is optional, you know, it means you have a choice with SS and Medicare is not different in that respect. You have a choice to remain on traditional Medicare. How is that gutting it?
Maybe not for current eligibles. But future Medicare eligibles will be forced into a voucher plan and purchasing private insurance.
http://roadmap.republicans.budget.house … sueID=8520
More info available in the read more link.
So it's not a voucher program. What you do is pick your insurance plan, and the government will pay for it. Any excess will go into your pocket or an MSA.
The amount is based on the current average payment of $11,000. It will be adjusted for inflation, income level, and health risk.
Ah, thank you Jaxson. Was not even aware of the keeping the difference part.
The Ryan/Romney plan does nothing to stem skyrocketing health care costs. It merely shifts cost increases to future beneficiaries of Medicare and gives an undeserved gift to the parasitic health care insurance companies. The likelihood of excess for medical savings accounts is zero or less.
Jaxon, please try a little harder to stick to the facts. You're not even close on this one.
"The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office."
"The plan picks up out-of-pocket costs for seniors who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. Other seniors who don’t qualify for Medicaid also will have their out-of-pocket costs covered, based on their income level."
That is an *interpretation* of the Ryan Plan by a partisan—Scott Bomboy, a Senior Web Producer at Fox News, and imho, he doesn't have the bipartisan credentials of the CBO.
Here is what the CBO had to say about ObamaCare and Medicare:
"the Independent Payment Advisory Board (established by the Affordable Care Act), which is required to make changes to the Medicare program to reduce spending if the growth in such spending is projected to exceed certain targets. The restraints on Medicare spending could lead to reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries; greater efficiency of health care delivery; less investment in new, high-cost technologies; or some combination of those outcomes"
Can you think of any steps that might be taken to reduce the rising costs of health care before they bankrupt the country. The problem is not Medicare. It's an out-of-control, not very effective health care non-system. The Affordable Care Act will be a step in the right direction. The Ryan-Romney plan does nothing to curb the rate of increase in health care costs.
You seem to have accepted my point about the partisan interpretation so I'll first point out that the CBO says these things . . . could lead to reduced access to healthcare"—with the Ryan plan it will definitely happen.
But the rattlesnake in the room here is that Ryan is a take-no-prisoners kind of guy and instead of working reasonably to come up with an equitable and fair plan with Obama, he's been out to kill Obamacare because he's a ruthless ideologue spurred on by TeaParty extremists who don't know any better and to hell with what's good for most Americans.
Actually, no, the CBO also uses a lot of "coulds" with analysis of both plans. So you're wrong.
As for "whats good for all Americans" it certainly isn't the last 3.5 years.
So says you—nothing changes in America and the wing-nuts have to dance their dance.
Let me guess, you're a Texan and you think Lee Harvey Oswald was a patriot . . .
Eh, I've seen my income go up steadily over the past 12 months or so.
Obama 2012 in a landslide.
lol Union or Government worker Cody? j/k but couldn't resist that one.
Better be careful though Cody, you'll be classified as an "evil successful person" if you keep that up!
I actually supervised a women who worked for the government as her full-time job. This was back in 2007 or 2008. She couldn't believe why we thought she was a whiner when she was getting "only" a three percent raise when everyone else was lucky just to have a job
True. I am eligible for Medicare and would be eligible to continue with it. However, future eligibles will not have this option. They will get vouchers to be used to buy commercial health care insurance and absorb future cost increases beyond the vouchers.
Ralph, I would suggest if you want to divert the topic to Medicare, that you create a new thread.
They are two different approaches, you can't just lump them together. Well, you can, but it just proves that you don't know what the actual plan is.
Now, if only we could limit Obama's hypocrisy to such trivial things.....
Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … an/261027/
All these guys are a bunch of jokers. Save your money and buy bullets/ammunition, gold and precious metals, and don't put an extra dime necessary into the banking system. Plan for your "own Social Security" fund by not waiting for the government to help you, because the cows will fly by the time that happens,
One can argue about whether Romney/Ryan/theGOP want to privatize social security or turn Medicare into a voucher program. The fact remains that on April 15, 2011, the House of Representatives voted 235-193 for the Paul Ryan budget for fiscal year 2012. All 235 yes votes were Republican; not a single Democrat voted for it.
In my opinion, having Ryan at the top of the GOP ticket with Romney creates a clear delineation between the economic policies of the Republicans and Democrats. It is unfortunate for conservatives that their party has been hijacked by a bunch of uncompromising radicals. Now, one of their most visible radicals is at the top of the ticket: an Ayn Rand worshipper who wants to drastically alter two of the most popular earned benefits while giving an economic boost to the wealthy.
I think it was a bad, bad move on Romney's part. People who don't pay much attention to politics on a regular basis will now be exposed to the extreme nature of recent GOP economic policies. Many seniors, moderates, and independents will not like what they see.
All just my opinion, of course, but I think I'm right.
I agree. To win national political office you have to appeal to the center, and Paul Ryan doesn't. People on the right would have voted for Romney regardless of who he chose as a running mate, so he didn't earn any extra votes by picking him. Marco Rubio would have been a far better choice, and would have help mitigate the "rich white guys" stigma.
The thing is, independents and moderates tend to pay more attention, instead of just voting for 'their party'.
Yes. I'm not sure what you're getting at?
My point is, I think independents/moderates are the ones who better understand the situation we are in. Unacceptable unemployment. Unacceptable deficits. Unacceptable debt.
Obama hasn't done anything to reduce the deficit, let alone the debt. Every year he submits a budget, he asks for trillions of dollars more than we are already spending. His first budget asked for $3.5 trillion more over the course of 10 years than we were already spending, stimulus/tarp included. His second and third budgets, he asked for $2.5 trillion more than we were already spending.
I think people are starting to realize that we can't keep going the way we are going, and I think they are starting to realize that Obama isn't doing anything about it.
"My point is, I think independents/moderates are the ones who better understand the situation we are in. Unacceptable unemployment. Unacceptable deficits. Unacceptable debt."
The debt and unemployment are a legacy of the Bush administration. The slow recovery is mostly attributable to the TeaBaggers in the House of Representatives led by none other than Paul Ryan whose social Darwinism was inspired by cult individualist Ayn Rand.
Lets not forget the tripling and quadrupling of the debit by your president, Barack Hussein Obama, as well as the FUBARred situation in the Senate because of none other than a Democrat, Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.
Obama is not to blame for increasing the debt. The increase resulted from two stupid, unnecessary wars started by George Bush, an $400 billion unfunded Medicare drug plan concocted by W. Bush as a gift to the pharmaceutical companies, a big Bush tax cut for the richest Americans, a bloated defense budget, a deep recession which resulted from Bush's failure to regulate the banksters and mortgage brokers which has meant greatly reduced tax revenues, and last but not least the TeaTard-controlled House of Representatives led by Paul Ryan who learned his economics from Ayn Rand.
WOW!!! Your temper is showing, Ralph.
I would have thought an elder statesman of HubPages would be calmer in their response. Obviously I was wrong in my assumption that the truth would be handled more diplomatically.
Now, let see how you handle me bringing up the Frank-Dodd screwing of the housing industry through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac.. They were both Dems and did all they could to screw things up as well. Lets not for get GWB warned them 14 times where they were heading and, like true liberals, chose not to listen.
"the Frank-Dodd screwing of the housing industry through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac."??
Not sure what you are referring to. I'm not at all happy with the performance of Fanny and Freddy, and I certainly don't deny the Dems culpability in their failures and self-serving actions which contributed to the housing bubble. And I don't deny that Barney Frank and Sen. Dodd deserve a share of the blame.
But you will deny Obama had any fault in the present situation, three and a half years into his administration. That's exactly what he does.
Are you working for Obama now?
I haven't denied Obama "any fault." His stimulus package proposal was inadequate to do the job. And Republican senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine forced the Dems to reduce the already inadequate package by $100 million or so as the price for voting for it. They had leverage because their votes were essential to get the package passed. Some argue that if Obama had proposed a bigger package originally he might have ended up with an amount which would have sparked a quicker recovery.
Am I working for Obama now?
No, I'm not involved in Obama's campaign. I'm supporting Obama, and I have contributed a small amount to his campaign. I have an Obama 2012 bumper sticker on my car.
I was just going by your post of: "Obama is not to blame for increasing the debt. The increase resulted from two stupid, unnecessary wars started by George Bush, an $400 billion unfunded Medicare drug plan concocted by W. Bush as a gift to the pharmaceutical companies, a big Bush tax cut for the richest Americans, a bloated defense budget, a deep recession which resulted from Bush's failure to regulate the banksters and mortgage brokers which has meant greatly reduced tax revenues, and last but not least the TeaTard-controlled House of Representatives led by Paul Ryan who learned his economics from Ayn Rand."
It certainly seemed as though your were blaming all our current problems on everybody but Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. I mean they did have complete control for two years and the best they could do was Obamacare. Wow, that's the best they could do?
"I have an Obama 2012 bumper sticker on my car."
I like those, too. Those are the cars I won't let into traffic just to see the lib driver go nuts and fly into road rage. It really is funny, actually.
"It certainly seemed as though your were blaming all our current problems on everybody but Obama, Reid, or Pelosi. "
Well, what do you expect? I'm a lifelong Democrat. My parents and all four grandparents were dyed-in-the-wool Democrats. My mother was born down the street from Harry Truman.
Two years in which most time was spent desperately attempting to fix the fallout of 8 years of conservative fiscal policy.
As for Obamacare it's expected to save from 30 to 40 thousand lives yearly which I would call one of the biggest political accomplishments in American history not to mention getting rid of that outdated don't ask don't tell nonsense, getting us out of one of the costly and unnecessary wars his predecessor got us into and actually successfully targeting terrorists rather than killing hundreds of thousands of innocents.
I would call that a busy and productive 2 years.
You might be right that most moderates and independents consider the path we are on to be unacceptable. However, I do not think that means they will embrace Republican policies as embodied by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney. On the contrary, I think they are thinking long and hard about what has brought us to this point, what has prevented us from moving forward, and which set of policies most closely reflect their values and their economic and social goals.
In my opinion, Ryan's Tea Party brand of conservatism is off-putting, not only to moderates, but also to many traditional conservatives. I believe the obstructionist antics of Congressional Republicans, as epitomized by Ryan, combined with Romney's amateurish and hollow campaign, has pretty much doomed any hopes the GOP had of winning the presidency. In addition, I think that the focus on Ryan will now bring to light to more people the radical policies have that have been embraced by the Republican party in an effort to pander to the Tea Party base, which will also make it harder for Republicans to get re-elected in swing states.
Lastly, Romney is a Mormon and Ryan has gone on record as idolizing Ayn Rand, even going so far as to make her books required reading for his staff. What will the Christian values voters think when they start hearing more about Rand and her atheist, Social Darwinist beliefs?
There is a reason Democratic party strategists are rejoicing that Romney picked Ryan.
Just my opinion, of course.
And what about obstructionist imbeciles in the GOP, intimidated by Norquist, Limbaugh, The Kochs and Fox News who won't allow Obama to address any problem?
You ignore so much in your fixations, Jaxson!
Republican David Stockman unveils the true Paul Ryan here:
" Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.
"Indeed, adjusted for inflation, today’s national security budget is nearly double Eisenhower’s when he left office in 1961 (about $400 billion in today’s dollars) — a level Ike deemed sufficient to contain the very real Soviet nuclear threat in the era just after Sputnik. By contrast, the Romney-Ryan version of shrinking Big Government is to increase our already outlandish warfare-state budget and risk even more spending by saber-rattling at a benighted but irrelevant Iran....
" The greatest regulatory problem — far more urgent that the environmental marginalia Mitt Romney has fumed about — is that the giant Wall Street banks remain dangerous quasi-wards of the state and are inexorably prone to speculative abuse of taxpayer-insured deposits and the Fed’s cheap money. Forget about “too big to fail.” These banks are too big to exist — too big to manage internally and to regulate externally. They need to be broken up by regulatory decree. Instead, the Romney-Ryan ticket attacks the pointless Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, when what’s needed is a restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era legislation that separated commercial and investment banking.
Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade.
Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.
Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.
Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.
Like his new boss, Mr. Ryan has no serious plan to create jobs. America has some of the highest labor costs in the world, and saddles workers and businesses with $1 trillion per year in job-destroying payroll taxes. We need a national sales tax — a consumption tax, like the dreaded but efficient value-added tax — but Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan don’t have the gumption to support it.
The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station.
In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.
David A. Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Great Deformation: How Crony Capitalism Corrupts Free Markets and Democracy.”
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 14, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Paul Ryan’s Fairy-Tale Budget Plan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opini … ;st=Search
by Jean Bakula5 years ago
I thought Mrs. Romney was very artificial and stiff. The things she said about all the roles we women play were true, but more for our Mother's generation. She was discussing things like helping the kids write the book...
by Grace Marguerite Williams5 years ago
If Mitt Romney wins the presidency, what would the affects be on the economy and society in general? Furthermore, how would YOU feel about a Romney win?
by Susan Reid5 years ago
Recently, we discussed here Ann Romney's qualications to be the spokesperson for American women on economic issues. Her accuser's remark "She's never worked a day in her life" bounced off Mrs. Romney. The...
by SparklingJewel6 years ago
I would be interested to hear opposition to the stated "facts" in this video...Has anyone done an extensive research on the origins of Social Security?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4BjLrTq … r_embedded
by Ohma7 years ago
I have read this http://www.copera.org/pera/about/legisl … toryss.stm and many similar articles which leads me to understand that SS is not at present mandatory.If SS is not mandatory why did my daughter have to...
by Petra Vlah5 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.