|
 |
 |
|
| ||||
          | |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
 |
« Previous Entry | Main | Next Entry » How Do You See Medicare and Social Security Being Changed to Accommodate Future Generations? Name:
Julie Weeks
Question/Comment: What is the future of Social Security and Medicare in the next 20-years and how do you see it being changed to accommodate future generations? Paul Solman: Medicare is a much bigger problem than Social Security. I think Medicare will be extended to all Americans at some point. Nobel laureate economist George Akerlof convinced me, some years ago, that universal health insurance is inevitable because with genome testing, either you know that you're likely to have a serious disease but your insurance company doesn't, so you load up on insurance OR your company demands the test results and refuses you if the odds are bad. Either way, it's the death knell for a private insurance system; everyone has to be in the same UNIVERSAL risk pool. But when that happens, and probably even before, Medicare will almost surely be changed in basic ways to further limit the procedures and pills it pays for. That's because the main reason health care costs will continue to rise steeply, as best I can tell, is technology. See my very personal take on this argument. As for Social Security, I'd bet (not very much) on some combination of two "reforms": A rise in the income ceiling on Social Security ("payroll") taxes, $102,000 for 2008; another extension of the eligible age for benefits, in line with increased longevity, as was last done in the early '80s. There may be other changes in the wings as well, but these seem the most likely to succeed. See our 2005 pieces on these issues for further exploration: 2) Lifting the cap on payroll taxes 3) Reducing retirement benefits -- Posted January 21, 2009 | Comments (4) | Permalink
 TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: How Do You See Medicare and Social Security Being Changed to Accommodate Future Generations?. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/964 4 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
|
 |
||
|
 |
 |
|
ABOUT US |  |
FEEDBACK | |
SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS: |  
| |
|
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
Full retirement age is already set to go to 67 years gradually. It is about 66 years of age, now. This was set in 1983 because people are living about 2 years longer now than they did when Social Security started.
People can retire at 62 at a 25% reduction in benefits or the can retire at their full retirement age and get full benefits. If they work past their full retirement age they get even more benefits.
Many can't afford to retire, others have to retire after being layed off and not finding another job. Others want to work for as long as they are able. It should be about choices.
Look around now, how many 70 year olds do you see working now? Maybe a few of the big business types, who consider work going in for a couple of hours a day, then leaving to play golf.
The life expectancy is not but two or three years higher than it was when Social Security started. You should figure it from the time people turn 62 because that is the true life expectancy.
There is no reason to cut benefits, the way they are figuring inflation does that already.
If you figure it from birth, there are more babies living now than did back then.
It is beyond me to understand why there is so much talk about addressing the "entitlements," Social Security and Medicare.
It is obvious that Medicare does need to be changed, starting with a complete overhaul of the Bush prescription drug program. That program benefits the pharmaceutical companies more than it does Medicare patients. However, Social Security has done very well through the decades when that program was founded.
Social Security actuaries have factored in the impact of the time that the baby boom generation takes its turn on Social Security. As I see it, no changes in the program are called for at this time. There is over two trillion dollars in surpluses held in the trust fund in the form of special issue treasury bonds. The system can finance full benefits and the small expense of operating the system for at least another 33 years based upon the current projections. The projected insolvency date has consistently moved from 2027 in 1998 to 2042 today. Isn't it true that this is more of a political problem than a real problem?
Gwen Ifil was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight and mentioned entitlement reform. Why are all of the pundits on the same page on this issue when the facts would indicate that they are all wrong?
The last 8 years have seen many important issues overly politicized and vilified as liberal agenda.
I haven't seen any discussion of the fact that, at least in my experience, some doctors are refusing to take new Medicare patients. Is this phenomenon confined to the Washington, DC metropolitan area? Is there anything in any of the emerging legislation that will preclude this practice?