Faith in Social Security System Tanking, Can Pharmacists Replace Doctors, and a Shortage of Pediatricians
75% of young Americans don’t expect Social Security benefits.
Can pharmacists replace doctors? Yes, say the pharmacists.
Doggie mansions. For people who want to pamper their pets, lavishly.
For adults: too many specialists, too few GPs. For children, it’s the reverse.
This shows that young Amercans are very perceptive.
I like the doggie mansions.
Social Security is the perfect illustration of the difference between “fair” and “compassionate”. Strict fairness would require an immediate reduction of benefits to actuarially sound levels, along with clawbacks of either excessive payouts or inadequate back taxes, or both. Obviously this wouldn’t be compassionate.
But increasing taxes on future wages to make up the shortfall would not be fair, nor would waiting until the system becomes bankrupt before drastically reducing benefits. (Compassionate? At least they will have been well-warned by then.)
What young people really ought to worry about is Medicare.
I suppose pharmacists could replace doctors. So could nurses, paramedics and pre-med majors. I’m afraid that’s where we are headed.
Social Security has been a real asset up to this year, when income has exceeded outgo , excluding interest.
However, in 2010, outgo exceeds income, and the deficit must be made up by increasing the public debt. Up until this year, Social Security, with its surpluses, not including interest, have reduced the public debt.
Intragovernmental debt (which many economists consider to be minoor) will transform into public debt as the trust funds start to dwindle.
I just found out yesterday that the federal employees have a retirement system very similar to Social Security.
I was under the impression that the federal employees had a similar funding program that state employees have, with a mix of assets, and a small portion of Treasury securities, and a real trust fund to hold the assets for retirement benefits.
From a paper entitled “Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government , Fiscal Year 2009” it states on page 345 “In 1984 a new system was set up to finance military retirement benefits on a full accrual basis. In 1986, full accrual funding of retirement benefits was mandated for federal civilian employees hired after Dec. 31, 1983. Since many years will pass between the time when benefits are earned and when they are paid, the trust funds will accumulate substantial balances over tiome. THESE BALANCES ARE AVAILABLE TO FINANCE FUTURE BENEFIT PAYMENTS, BUT ONLY IN A BOOKKEEPING SENSE. THESE FUNDS ARE NOT SET UP TO BE PENSION FUNDS, LIKE THE FUNDS OF PRIVATE PENSION PLANS.
WHEN TRUST FUND HOLDINGS ARE REDEEMED TO AUTHORIZE THE PAYMENT OF BENEFITS, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WILL HAVE TO FINANCE THE EXPENDITURE IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER FEDERAL EXPENDITURE: BY USING THEN CURRENT RECEIPTS, BY BORROWING FROM THE PUBLIC, OR BY REDUCING BENEFITS.”
And this is how the government fully accrues retirement benefits for its employees? By using the Treasury securities for other current expenses, and relying on the power of bookkeeping and the public debt to pay their benefits?
Don Levit