tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23077414.post826295074910653616..comments2023-10-12T09:29:51.035-05:00Comments on The Podium: Social Security Is Welfare, Not An InvestmentRev. Christopher J. Pattonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15020185341644873695noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23077414.post-34602053919485941762009-03-19T15:21:00.000-05:002009-03-19T15:21:00.000-05:00But Social Security is sold as an investment syste...But Social Security is sold as an investment system. As I said in my post, we should call it what it really is: a welfare system for indigent elderly Americans. And then we should use means testing to stop payments from going to people who don't need them. Ideally, I don't think the federal government should be involved with this at all, but I recognize that the federal-welfare-state genie is probably irreversibly out of the bottle.<BR/><BR/>Regarding sky-rocketing medical costs, I agree that this is a serious problem. But I'm far from convinced that the federal government is well-equipped to improve the situation by getting even more entangled in the health-care market than it already is. What I do know is that some amount of deregulation could lower costs by allowing people to fix "simple" problems like broken bones or standard bacterial infections without first forcing them to earn graduate degrees in general medicine. A more robust market for basic medical services would facilitate enhanced competition that would increase supply and decrease cost.<BR/><BR/>Again, if our real concern is people not being able to afford basic health care, then we should just have a welfare program that directly subsidizes the treatment of indigent patients. And, as is the case with Social Security, this is not something I think the federal government should be doing at all. Just about the only national health program I support is the CDC because preventing communicable epidemics is clearly a national security issue. I don't think spending huge amounts of federal money making sure that everyone gets the most advanced treatment possible for their cancer is appropriate.Rev. Christopher J. Pattonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15020185341644873695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23077414.post-47162699380324316222009-03-19T09:47:00.000-05:002009-03-19T09:47:00.000-05:00The trouble is telling who is and is not prudent. ...The trouble is telling who is and is not prudent. If the measure of success is the rates of indigence and poverty among the elderly, then SS has been a resounding success. I personally may or may not be able to get a better return on the money I pay in, but that never was the point of the system so the complaint seems odd to me. It's always been about reducing the morally shocking conditions of poverty that too many elderly Americans had to endure in the early 20th century, not about maximizing returns for optimally intelligent and prudent investors.<BR/><BR/>In an case, the dependents:producers ratio is going to increase in the US. The projected shortfalls in SS funds are a symptom of this. My understanding is that though currently insolvent SS can be made solvent by small but politically inconvenient changes: lifting the cap on how much income gets taxed into SS, raising the retirement age, etc. So lets just muster the political courage to fix the system. The poll numbers Savage cites just reflect the misinformation that the system is hopelessly broken. Of course people say they want to opt out when they think it won't be there for them. <BR/><BR/>IMO the larger problem relating to the impending dependent:producer shift is that per capita health care costs in the US are way out of line with our economic competitors. We need to find a way to bring that way down as the boomers retire. The SS shortfall is peanuts by comparison with the taxing effect on the economy of our current health care system.jrshipleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05991272871497674850noreply@blogger.com