Privitizing SS and Medicare

[LivingAlmostLarge]

It's on the table now with Trump and Republicans in control. Trump said he won't cut entitlements.

But what about Paul Ryan's plan of privitizing SS and Medicare? He's suggesting that privitizing Medicare is needed because of ACA (not true). But would seniors go for it? Medicare is socialized health insurance for seniors.

I'm for both programs and if SS were privitized most on here would be fine. Most will probably be fine if Medicare is privitized as well.

But do you want it to be? Do you think it would be more efficient if we did? I do worry that SS if privitized would end up in scandal like how 401k are being charged excessive fees.

Obviously privitizing it will make it cheaper for the federal government so I think it's worth a try. Maybe push it through asap and see how it fares. If it works great, if not then we'd have to change congress and WH to change it back.

[FLA]

I am dead set against privatizing it. It will be about profits, quality of healthcare will go down. He should focus on fixing Universal healthcare first.

MCR and SS are two of the few things we still do at least a little bit right in this country.

"If it works great, if not then we'd have to change congress and WH to change it back." I disagree, once it's gone, it's gone.

[disneysteve]

MCR and SS are two of the few things we still do at least a little bit right in this country.

Agreed. SS is a huge system that works incredibly well given the size and scope of the program. The same for Medicare. It has its problems for sure but it's far better than the ridiculous patchwork of insurance plans we have to deal with for everyone else. Compared to all of the private companies, dealing with Medicare is a snap.

[cornfieldj]

Privatizing Social Security is probably more a matter of creating individual accounts that equate to giving you back just what you put in, not actually handing over the assets to individuals to manage.

I just had a chat this morning w/ a policy expert at some research group who is anti-privatizing - my job is just to get explanations and perhaps a prediction of what might happen.

Trump said over and over again he wouldn't cut benefits. He also said he would leave the system "as is."

Not sure he will or not. And Ryan and Preibus have both come out in favor of privatizing.

But if Trump wanted to do that, he'd pretty much have to gear up for a huge fight about it... now. Because it would be a *very* big fight, and he's got other things to push through. (Repealing the ACA... immigration... coming up w/ a Supreme Court nominee... )

(I can see that this is going to be a well.. but... kind of a thing.)

Trump has also appointed Michael Korby to staff the Social Security Administration. Korbey is a former lobbyist who led President Bush's effort to privatize America's retirement system.

But, as another economist I spoke to said, at that time, when privatization was being batted around, Social Security was running at a much bigger surplus. Many conservatives and moderates (though not all) have since changed their views, he said. Social Security is no longer operating at surplus. And - there never was widespread support for the idea of those private accounts.

So... I don't have a clear sense yet of what's going on, and I'll bet the incoming government doesn't either. Keep watching, I guess.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

DS and FLA I don't agree with privitizing, but people keep pushing free market healthcare and obscene costs of medical care and SS being too much. I think people don't even connect that Medicare is socialized medicine, and EVERY SENIOR I've meet said don't take it away. Yet when the idea is thrown about for making socialized medicine for everyone people reject the idea.

So I think maybe the answer is to privitize both and let them go free market. I get what you are saying if it ain't broke and it won't come back. But I think that people won't even move away from the idea of personal responsibility for health care unless we break the system down completely and takeaway all socialized health care options.

It won't be pretty but I think it needs to be done. I think if it hurts a lot of people then perhaps it would also be reversed quickly.

cornfield, it'll be really hard to not do some of these reforms for Trump when the rest of the party wants it.

[Thrif-t]

I'd like it for me, but honestly for the greater good of all society, it needs to stay as is!

All this money stuff is just too complicated for most people. We get it but we are a minority when it comes to this stuff. Most people can't even count change back for goodness sakes.

[Fishindude77]

I think the management of these systems could definitely be privatized improving customer service and saving a bunch of unnecessary overhead expenses at the same time.

[FLA]

I was a nurse for 23 yrs, mainly working in peoples' homes. I saw little to none MCR fraud or overuse, hospice and palliative care actually save MCR tons of money. I also witnessed couples who worked full time and worked hard and only had a small or no pension and were mainly living off SS. Taking any risk with their benefits is wrong. Assigning them to huge HMOs to save MCR dollars is wrong (most already are doing this with an Advantage plan, which is making the health insurance companies tons of money). Mess with either one and there are going to be a lot more people qualified for Medicaid and that saves nobody anything. And Medicaid is a bit** to deal with.

I am scared to death that with a GOP congress, this stuff is going to come to pass.

[MakeAStash]

Without privitization these systems are projected to run out of funds. Privitization sounds less costly than another taxpayer bailout.

[cooliemae]

Without privitization these systems are projected to run out of funds. Privitization sounds less costly than another taxpayer bailout.

Just to be clear, SS is not running out of funds but is projected to fall short of being able to pay 100% of current benefits in the early 2030's. This is because there are fewer workers paying into SS than have in the past, so I don't know how privatizing, or lack thereof has anything to do with SS's coming shortfalls.

Also, I don't think that would be that much in the way of cost savings due the fact that the current SS administration costs are less than 1%.. Just the cost of turning the system over to a private company would cost more than that.

Medicare has a low administrative cost associated with it was well Though the details can be debated.

For me it boils to down to the idea that we shouldn't make money off of people's health or the benefits you and I have paid taxes to have. So I want to see SS and Medicare remain in the hands of the federal government and definitely echo FLA in worrying about what a GOP government is going to do with their new found power.

[FLA]

SS will not be depleted, payments could be reduced to 79% in 2034. However, that's assuming no one does anything to fix that fact. Increasing FICA a minuscule amt and increasing what employers put in, again by a minuscule amt would solve the program. There are other options as well:

http://time.com/money/4213065/will-social-security-run-out-money/

MCR is not going to be depleted unless Trump messes with the ACA act and screws it up:

http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt

And that's only MCR money spent on hospital care that is at any risk. Office visits, meds, MCR parts B and D are fine.

[cornfieldj]

I think we could see a combination of fixes - raising the cap on wages (which gets raised anyway, every year or two), raising the age -- most likely for younger generations who are now in their 20s -- "slight" benefit cuts -- which I realize may not feel slight for some people. This administration will have its work cut out for it. Or... it might just kick the can down the road to the next administration.

[disneysteve]

I think we could see a combination of fixes - raising the cap on wages (which gets raised anyway, every year or two), raising the age -- most likely for younger generations who are now in their 20s -- "slight" benefit cuts

I agree. The wage cap does go up annually. Just raise it faster. Or eliminate it all together. Make everyone keep paying into the system no matter how much they earn.

Raising the age is troublesome and probably the least likely to happen. Yes people are living longer overall but that doesn't mean they can keep working longer necessarily.

Modest cuts in benefits for those who are not yet collecting would be the easiest to implement. Don't touch the benefits of those already getting them. Just change the system going forward.

[cornfieldj]

Remember, I'm not recommending or advocating for any of these changes. My job is reporting on retirement and trying to help people make good decisions. For a policy thing like this, I talk to policy experts - I try to talk to both liberal and conservative policy experts - and tell my readers what is being talked about.

A conservative policy pro said the system is paying out way too many benefits. People are living longer, she said, and jobs are less physically demanding. They'll have to work longer, is her recommendation. (And some trims to the system.)

I like what another person I spoke with said, that a good fix would not make any one group feel that they were being singled out for more of a cut or more of a sacrifice than any other. In other words, the pain is going to have to be shared as equally as possible.

It's considered a third rail in politics - very dangerous to touch. It'll be interesting to see what Trump comes up with.

Policy guy just told me privatization has a .01 percent chance of happening. But that's just one opinion.

[disneysteve]

People are living longer, she said, and jobs are less physically demanding. They'll have to work longer, is her recommendation.

This is true as a generalization. The problem is it isn't true on a person by person basis. There are plenty of people who, for legitimate reasons, can't work until they're 70. What are those folks supposed to do if they can no longer start collecting SS at 62?