when will Social Security / Medicare be privatized / dismantled?

[© tweed]

..

[Vepres]

Never

[Frink]

When one of our parties decides to commit political suicide (never).

[© tweed]

When one of our parties decides to commit political suicide (never).

it will be defined as necessary to close the budget gap as a larger and larger chunk of the pie goes to debt service (and as health care costs continue to rise with drug companies allowed monopoly priced wealth transfers from the public coffers).  either social spending gets slashed or the "military" budget (ie subsidy to manufacturing and tech industry), and the latter is of course sacred.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

When the country goes bankrupt, which isn't too far off into the future.

[Frink]

When one of our parties decides to commit political suicide (never).

it will be defined as necessary to close the budget gap as a larger and larger chunk of the pie goes to debt service (and as health care costs continue to rise with drug companies allowed monopoly priced wealth transfers from the public coffers).  either social spending gets slashed or the "military" budget (ie subsidy to manufacturing and tech industry), and the latter is of course sacred.

Theirs time to tweak the system before it stops paying for itself (2037 is the current estimate after the business cycle reverses) in complete and you can bet it will see some sort of changes to put the system back into long term solvency before politicians let one of their most popular programs die.

Medicare is probably a different matter entirely though. Not sure when we'll see that destroyed, but I can't imagine politicians aren't going to push it off until the last minute.

[Landslide Lyndon]

When one of our parties decides to commit political suicide (never).

it will be defined as necessary to close the budget gap as a larger and larger chunk of the pie goes to debt service (and as health care costs continue to rise with drug companies allowed monopoly priced wealth transfers from the public coffers).  either social spending gets slashed or the "military" budget (ie subsidy to manufacturing and tech industry), and the latter is of course sacred.

Let me tell you a secret: besides a small cadre of fanatics, the public in general doesn't care about balancing the budget. They care much more about having a steady income when they retire.

[Dgov]

Let me tell you a secret: besides a small cadre of fanatics, the public in general doesn't care about balancing the budget. They care much more about having a steady income when they retire.

And what happens when the exploding debt puts that steady income at risk?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Let me tell you a secret: besides a small cadre of fanatics, the public in general doesn't care about balancing the budget. They care much more about having a steady income when they retire.

And what happens when the exploding debt puts that steady income at risk?

You cut defense spending and roll back the empire.

[Dgov]

Let me tell you a secret: besides a small cadre of fanatics, the public in general doesn't care about balancing the budget. They care much more about having a steady income when they retire.

And what happens when the exploding debt puts that steady income at risk?

You cut defense spending and roll back the empire.

Which by that time will be a rather insignificant expense compared to the multi-trillion dollar SS and Meds payments.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Let me tell you a secret: besides a small cadre of fanatics, the public in general doesn't care about balancing the budget. They care much more about having a steady income when they retire.

And what happens when the exploding debt puts that steady income at risk?

You cut defense spending and roll back the empire.

Which by that time will be a rather insignificant expense compared to the multi-trillion dollar SS and Meds payments.

Oh really?
Says who, Sean Hannity?

[Mint]

When the country goes bankrupt, which isn't too far off into the future.

^^^

I'm guessing something along the line's of Paul Ryan or W style privatization by the middle of this decade. Don't just look to the Republicans either.. There's plenty of Clintons and Kerreys in the party who were receptive to the idea before and could easily get on board when the party inevitably decides to 'moderate' and pursue 'bipartisanship' through 'austerity' measures.

[Lief 🗽]

Before the end of the decade.

[ag]

Let's try to understand, what it would mean.

First "privatization". There is nothing really to privatize here, except for liabilities. Shifting to private accounts would mean discovering some source of income to pay for the current retirees - it isn't happening because there is no such income source. Medical care as such is private already. The insurance for the elderly could be privatized only under two conditions: a) general mandate, much stricter than the one currently in the process of being introduced for the general population, both requiring everyone to get insured and prohibiting the insurers from denying insurance and b) humongous subsidy to the insurers, which would be at least as costly (probably, more costly) than the current budget outlay. De facto this would be equivalent to making some private companies agents of the government: they would be in this business only as long as the goverment pays the bill and they would be empowered to make decisions w/ quasi-governmental authority.  Any other "privatization" would be tantamount to abolition, as an overwhelming majority of the seniors would be left without insurance, period.

So, that leaves abolition. Outright abolition would be humongously disruptive and politically unfeasible. The current generation of the elderly has planned based on the availability of these programs. Not only they will all be up in arms if anything like this was attempted. They'd also be left to be cared for by their children.Most Americans of the working age would face the choice: get the mum and dad to live with you and spend big chunk of your sallary to pay for their medical care, or let them beg at the church door for food and shelter (or, I guess, smother them in bed, so that they don't suffer). American families are not set up for that - this would require a dramatic change in social and family fabric. It can happen over time, but it can' t happen overnight. The short-term dislocation would make Great Depression seem a picnic. Any attempt to do this fast would lead to such a level of political disaffection that no sensible politician would even contemplate it (unless s/he already has a house and retirement plan set up in Australia, or something, and is ready to depart within a year or two never to come back to the US).

What might happen (in fact, is likely to happen), though, is something more gradual. The benefits will be, gradually, somewhat eroded by inflation without adjustment. This would take long enough to readjust expectations and planning arrangements. Retirement age will, almost certainly, grow, following the life expectancy (70 or more sounds reasonably likely). Most importantly, Medicare benefits will be curbed and costs will be cut in the medical industry. These things are unsustainable, and they won't be sustained.

To sum up, there is a lot of space between outright abolition (or, de facto equivalently, privatization) and the mainenance of the status quo. Neither of the two extremes is likely in the forseeble future.

[ag]

When the country goes bankrupt, which isn't too far off into the future.

^^^

I'm guessing something along the line's of Paul Ryan or W style privatization by the middle of this decade. Don't just look to the Republicans either.. There's plenty of Clintons and Kerreys in the party who were receptive to the idea before and could easily get on board when the party inevitably decides to 'moderate' and pursue 'bipartisanship' through 'austerity' measures.

Which idea? Stopping social security payments cold to the current elderly? I'd bet that even if every single Democrat were to disappear from the Congress and the White House tomorrow, Republicans wouldn't be able to pass it. Borrowing like drunken sailors to finance the transition (paying the benefits to the current seniors, while shifting to private solutions for the future generations)? And who is going to be lending, especially under the current conditions?

The fact is, whatever you think of the current system, it has a lot of inertia. Stopping it cold isn't feasible politically, and transitioning to another system would cost a lot of money and require humongous temporary expansion of the public borrowing. Long-term adjustment is another matter - I could easily see adoption of policies that would slowly transition, say, to individual private accounts, while letting the traditional Social Security wither through inflatoin. But it would take many, many decades for this to happen.

And, as for Medicare, though cutting costs is an urgent necessity, abolishing it is outright impossible (and "privatizing" would either save nothing, or would be tantamount to abolition), unless the society is willing to experience a major (admittedly temporarily) mortality spike among the elderly. Since many non-elderly voters have elderly parents, and since, if Medicare were to be abolished, they'd be solely responsible for their care, and since, given the tax incidence at present, for an overwhelming majority their expenses would dwarf whatever tax savings they'd be able to enjoy, the uproar wouldn't be limited to senior citizens. Florida would secede ))

[ag]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

[Lief 🗽]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

[ag]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

You haven't specified, what does it mean "dismantling social security". Do you mean "stopping cold payments to the current recipients"? Or do you mean "adopting a resolution that would declare "no more social security after year 2110"?

Republicans were in the WH and in majority in both the House and the Senate as recently as 4 years ago. The empirically observed fact is, when given a chance they launched a major EXPANSION of Medicare. What is it that makes you suspect that they would now choose to kill it?

[Mint]

When the country goes bankrupt, which isn't too far off into the future.

^^^

I'm guessing something along the line's of Paul Ryan or W style privatization by the middle of this decade. Don't just look to the Republicans either.. There's plenty of Clintons and Kerreys in the party who were receptive to the idea before and could easily get on board when the party inevitably decides to 'moderate' and pursue 'bipartisanship' through 'austerity' measures.

Which idea? Stopping social security payments cold to the current elderly? I'd bet that even if every single Democrat were to disappear from the Congress and the White House tomorrow, Republicans wouldn't be able to pass it. Borrowing like drunken sailors to finance the transition (paying the benefits to the current seniors, while shifting to private solutions for the future generations)? And who is going to be lending, especially under the current conditions?

I basically see Ryan's plan as being the blue print the GOP and DLC Democrats will use. Replacing medicare with vouchers, diverting money from the trust to public-private schemes for retirement, etc... All things they've made it apparent are on the agenda for at least the last 8 years but haven't had the ability to shove through. Obviously I see significant cuts and tax hikes just because of our financial situation but I'd be surprised if they didn't take advantage of the situation to implement those models.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm well aware of this. Please don't mistake what I'm saying as what I want to happen.. Personally I would prefer we repealed Obamacare and replaced it with single payer then means tested everything else but we all know the likelihood of that right now.

[Mr.Phips]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

There is a little thing in the Senate called the filibuster that would make that almost impossible even if those events did happen. 

[Lief 🗽]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

There is a little thing in the Senate called the filibuster that would make that almost impossible even if those events did happen. 

The GOP will abolish the filibuster as soon as they gain a majority in the Senate. Count on it.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

There is a little thing in the Senate called the filibuster that would make that almost impossible even if those events did happen.  

The GOP will abolish the filibuster as soon as they gain a majority in the Senate. Count on it.

Hadn't they already failed at that the first time they attempted it?

[Torie]

SS and medical subsidies are two entirely different bags.

[Mr.Phips]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

There is a little thing in the Senate called the filibuster that would make that almost impossible even if those events did happen. 

The GOP will abolish the filibuster as soon as they gain a majority in the Senate. Count on it.

That's not going to happen.  Do you think Republicans want to risk Democrats passing single payer health insurance when they get a Senate majority?

[dead0man]

The GOP will abolish the filibuster as soon as they gain a majority in the Senate. Count on it.

Lief's insanity is starting to reach opebo levels.