Tag: "Social Security"

The Coming Generational Warfare

The average monthly Social Security check is now $1,230. It is not subject to the employment tax and at age 65 you also get great health insurance for only $99.90 a month.

Workers at McDonald’s, which is hiring, earn about $8 an hour, pay the employment tax and, most often, don’t get health insurance…

We need to start worrying about whether millions of uninsured low wage workers will be capable of supporting the growing millions of well insured retirees who no longer work.

Source: Scott Burns.

Apr 27, 2012 | 6 comments | by

Medicare Trustee: ObamaCare Will Add $340 Billion to the Deficit

The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers.

More from Lori Montgomery in The Washington Post. Democrats respond with personal attacks.

Apr 10, 2012 | 4 comments | by

Deceased Husband’s Sperm, and Other Links

Woman conceives with the sperm of deceased husband. Now she wants his Social Security survivor benefits for the kids.

Only doctors should make a profit? Arnold S. Relman and Marcia Angell are still haranguing against capitalism in medicine.

Fat doctors see nothing wrong with fat patients.

A typical American restaurant meal is more like dinner for two.

Can humans grow new body parts – like salamanders and star fish?

Surprise: there is a black market (or is it a gray market?) for shortage drugs.

Mar 26, 2012 | 10 comments | by

A Liberal Economist Praises the Ryan Plan

I once called an older version of Paul Ryan’s budget plan “voodoo economics.” But you have to admire him. He has just released a new plan that slashes the deficit from 8 percent of GDP to around 1 percent by the end of the decade while simultaneously keeping revenues at 18 percent of GDP over the decade, very close to their historical average…

I expected to be horrified by what I read. I am not in favor of cutting programs for the poor, especially in a plan that reduces taxes for the wealthy and leaves Social Security virtually untouched. Instead, I found myself at least intrigued with the arguments that I found in this section of the plan. They are thoughtful, well-articulated, and worthy of further debate.

One argument is that federal subsidies for safety net programs encourage states to spend more than they otherwise would. Another argument is that federal dollars come with federal prescriptions and paperwork that stifle state innovation and efficiency. A third argument is that these programs undermine efforts by civic or faith-based groups to play a stronger role. A fourth argument is that some of these subsidies (for example, Pell grants) simply bid up prices (for college tuition). A fifth argument is that we have too many overlapping and complex programs with similar purposes (job training being a great example). A sixth argument is that assistance should be made conditional on personal responsibility—for example, being engaged in work or job training if you are receiving government assistance. This model of conditional assistance was a key element in the largely successful 1996 welfare reform law and could be expanded to other programs. Finally, the plan emphasizes the importance of upward mobility—a goal which I think many can embrace.

More by Isabel Sawhill at The Health Care Blog.

Mar 22, 2012 | 7 comments | by

How is the Kotlikoff-for-President Campaign Coming?

Scott Burns gives an update. Larry’s “purple plans” would transform the economy. Here is a summary:

Replace current federal taxes with a progressive consumption tax.

Restrict federal revenues to about 20% of GDP.

Privatize Social Security.

Voucherize health care.

Replace Dodd-Frank with 100% reserve banking.

Feb 28, 2012 | 5 comments | by

Disability Soars

In 2010, Social Security’s disability program cost $124 billion plus another $59 billion for Medicare (after two years, disability recipients automatically qualify for Medicare). This exceeded $1,500 for every U.S. household. For the past two decades, disability spending has increased at a 5.6 percent annual rate, compared with 2.2 percent for the rest of Social Security. As a result, disability represents nearly one in five dollars of Social Security spending, up from one in 10 in 1988.

 All these facts come from a fascinating paper by economist David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The disability program, Autor writes, is a “central component of the U.S. social safety net” but doesn’t help “workers with less severe disabilities” to stay in the labor force (By law, recipients can’t be employed because disability is defined as the inability to work.)

Source: Robert Samuelson in The Washington Post.

Feb 20, 2012 | 5 comments | by

Does Social Security Want More People to Be Disabled?

Some doctors have complained to the Social Security inspector general that they have been pressured to change their medical opinions to conform to targets or goals set by SSA officials, and they feared they would be fired if they resisted… The inspector general…discovered a doctor in the Alabama disability determination office who approved between 80 and 100 decisions a day. Another Alabama doctor signed off on 30 cases an hour after performing only a “cursory review of each case.” The investigation said several doctors complained of pressure from superiors to approve a higher number of applications to meet statistical goals.

Full article on the new Social Security policy.

Nov 22, 2011 | 4 comments | by

Is Super Committee Failure a Good Thing?

By Wednesday, the so-called “Super Committee,” a bipartisan group of legislators, is supposed to reach an agreement on how to reduce future deficits. Almost everybody expects the effort to fail. The result:  automatic across-the-board spending reductions called “sequester.” Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

On the left, Paul Krugman says “failure is good.” On the right, Phil Gramm says that in failure there is a “silver lining.” Surely somebody is miscalculating, and it probably isn’t Gramm. E.J. Dionne observes that if Congress did nothing there would be $7.1 trillion in deficit reduction (primarily through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and already legislated reductions in Medicare spending), in contrast to $1.2 trillion of sequestration. Ezra Klein endorses that view and provides the breakdown.

What about the fear that across-the-board spending cuts would harm defense spending and other vital programs? Gramm says that the law governing the Super Committee contains a little-noticed provision from the old Gramm-Rudman budget rules: In the face of sequestration, Congress can pass better budget-cutting provisions on a majority vote, with no filibuster. Avik Roy provides additional explanation.

Nov 21, 2011 | 7 comments | by

Dead Federal Retirees Paid $120 Million, and Other News

Dead federal retirees paid $120 million a year.

Shock: Home health firms are maximizing reimbursements for Medicare.

Should a nurse Ph.D be called “doctor?“

Oct 04, 2011 | 6 comments | by

The Texas Model for Fixing Social Security

Texas Gov. and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry is pointing to three Texas counties that decades ago opted out of Social Security by creating personal retirement accounts.

Those who retire under the Texas counties’ Alternate Plan do much better than those on Social Security.

  • A lower-middle income worker making about $26,000 at retirement would get about $1,007 a month under Social Security, but $1,826 under the Alternate Plan.
  • A middle-income worker making $51,200 would get about $1,540 monthly from Social Security, but $3,600 from the banking model.
  • And a high-income worker who maxed out on his Social Security contribution every year would receive about $2,500 a month from Social Security versus $5,000 to $6,000 a month from the Alternate Plan.

See Wall Street Journal editorial by Merrill Matthews

Sep 27, 2011 | 5 comments | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »