Social Security was sold to the public as an insurance program. That is still the way it is perceived by many today.
It is not so of course. In reality, it is and always has been a transfer of funds from young, middle class working people to the elderly, pure and simple. The "trust fund" is just a marketing gimmick, a set of accounting fictions where different branches of the federal government write IOUs back and forth to each other. The program does contain a financing element, however, in the form of a tax that falls on wages but no other form of income, has no deduction, and stops at an income cap. Easily the most regressive feature of the US tax system, and again the burden falls hardest on the working middle class.
Notwithstanding all this, Social Security has endured for decades, is popular with the electorate and has became the untouchable "third rail" of US politics.
ACA is also marketed as an insurance program. But like social security what it really involves is transferring costs from older, sicker people, to younger, healthier people. The burden, like social security, mainly falls on young middle class people. The financing mechanism -- other than the notorious mandate tax -- is even more well hidden than with social security but the effect is the same.
The similarity in the use of deception to conceal the true effects of the program is interesting. In the case of Social Security, the deception has worked quite effectively for a long time, even though it isn't too hard to see what is going on. In the case of ACA, however, the deception has worked less well, probably because for those negatively affected there is a direct increase in costs that is more obvious thant the inter-temporal subsidy game going on with Social Security. Still it is interesting to see the different ways the programs are perceived. And if ACA sticks, then the deception may become more effective because people will no longer be able to "see" the one off increase for some.
It is easy to sling arrows at ACA. I am not a fan. However, if we start with the premise that the following two concepts are popular and desired by most Americans:
1) a private system for insurance provision that maintains the key features of the current employer-based system, and
2) non-discrimination against higher risk people that have little control over the nature of risk,
then anything you design that makes any sense is going to end up looking a lot like ACA.
Some people might say that #2 should be dispensed with but that raises lots of problems of its own in terms of fairness and practicality.
Some people might say that #1 should be dispensed with. I am inclined to agree there. But we tried that route and the majority of US opinion is too against to pull it off.
So that leaves ACA or something a heck of a lot like ACA. I am open to hearing other ideas, really. But haven't heard any yet.
Bottom line: if the program survives its implementation teething problems, I suspect it will eventually be accepted as the new normal and stick, kind of like social security has.
Really?
A reasonable alternative would have been to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions and leave everyone else alone.
Alternatively, mandate high deductible catastrophic insurance for everyone.
On the whole I agree, although I'm starting to think the way forward is to gradually extend Medicare to greater segments of the population until it includes all citizens. Right now it covers those with the expected and expensive medical costs, so I don't see why it wouldn't work to cover those who wouldn't be using it as much and get rid of all this other insurance nonsense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2013, 03:21:06 PM
A reasonable alternative would have been to subsidize those with pre-existing conditions and leave everyone else alone.
Alternatively, mandate high deductible catastrophic insurance for everyone.
#1 I don't think would work politically. But it would meet the conditions.
#2 is just ACA with a lower bar for qualifying plans - which could very well happen if Congress moves in that direction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2013, 03:31:47 PM
#1 I don't think would work politically. But it would meet the conditions.
#2 is just ACA with a lower bar for qualifying plans - which could very well happen if Congress moves in that direction.
What do you mean by work politically? You mean achieve the fabled consensus that you pooh-poohed earlier?
#2 would be ACA without the various cross-subsidies.
JR, it's been going for a long time, it's working and so sort of undermining you argument, as those young hard working people have grown old and are now claiming these benefit, in turn other young people have come along to fund it ?
Or am I missing something ? :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2013, 03:40:55 PM
What do you mean by work politically?
I mean pass Congress and be signed by a President.
Liberals won't like it because its not universal. Conservatives because it looks like welfare for "takers".
Quote from: mongers on November 26, 2013, 04:16:57 PM
JR, it's been going for a long time, it's working and so sort of undermining you argument, as those young hard working people have grown old and are now claiming these benefit, in turn other young people have come along to fund it ?
Doesn't change the fact that any given point in time, there is a transfer. It's not a true insurance program.
This is not necessarily a criticism of social security. It is a criticism of the way it has been represented. Also of the way the tax is levied by that is a different point.
Working middle class? :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2013, 04:28:33 PM
I mean pass Congress and be signed by a President.
Well with the current Congress and the current president nothing would pass.
Back at the beginning of Obama's first term they would have passed whatever he told them to.
:face:
:mad:
:lol:
Quote from: mongers on November 26, 2013, 04:16:57 PM
JR, it's been going for a long time, it's working and so sort of undermining you argument, as those young hard working people have grown old and are now claiming these benefit, in turn other young people have come along to fund it ?
Or am I missing something ? :hmm:
You're missing that it's been passed for some time but hasn't actually been in implementation. It's still getting started.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 26, 2013, 05:39:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 26, 2013, 04:16:57 PM
JR, it's been going for a long time, it's working and so sort of undermining you argument, as those young hard working people have grown old and are now claiming these benefit, in turn other young people have come along to fund it ?
Or am I missing something ? :hmm:
You're missing that it's been passed for some time but hasn't actually been in implementation. It's still getting started.
I'm pretty sure mongers was referring to Social Security, not ACA.
Oh yeah. It's very likely that the ACA will evolve just like SSA did. IMO. Eventually, it will reach an equilibrium that works well for the most people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2013, 04:40:01 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2013, 04:28:33 PM
I mean pass Congress and be signed by a President.
Well with the current Congress and the current president nothing would pass.
Back at the beginning of Obama's first term they would have passed whatever he told them to.
So you think the law that was passed is what he wanted from the start? :huh:
Quote from: sbr on November 26, 2013, 07:39:51 PM
So you think the law that was passed is what he wanted from the start? :huh:
He said it was 95% of what he wanted. What did Barack want that isn't part of the current law?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 26, 2013, 03:03:03 PM
In reality, it is and always has been a transfer of funds from young, middle class working people to the elderly, pure and simple. The "trust fund" is just a marketing gimmick, a set of accounting fictions where different branches of the federal government write IOUs back and forth to each other.
You mean that young, middle class working people have never transferred funds to themselves when they became elderly? Ever?
Meh, it is certainly a transfer of funds from those with a low risk of needing significant medical attention to those who are at a high risk of needing significant medical attention.
You can look at that as a transfer from the young and healthy to the old and sick, or you can look at as a forward payment - everyone who is currently young and healthy is hoping to reach old and in need of more medical care.
The health rich are taxed to pay for the health poor. Or the youth rich to the youth poor. The main difference is that you don't have a guarantee if you're cash rich that someday you will be cash poor. :P
It never should have been enacted. Single payer, or nothing.
Quote from: sbr on November 26, 2013, 07:39:51 PM
So you think the law that was passed is what he wanted from the start? :huh:
The only meaningful way in which Congress altered his proposal that I can think of was to add some phony revenue from holding down Medicare reimbursement rates, so that it would be quote unquote revenue neutral.
I'm still really, really worried about being able to afford the mandated insurance and/or the penalty. It's such fucking bullshit. :(
What say you to that, Joan, you party hack?
You're really, really worried you won't be able to pay 1% of your income? :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2013, 10:21:00 PM
You're really, really worried you won't be able to pay 1% of your income? :huh:
Doesn't it balloon after 2014?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2013, 10:26:04 PM
Doesn't it balloon after 2014?
My tentative understanding is it starts out at $95 or 1%, whichever is higher, then moves in stages to $235 or 1%, whichever is higher.
Or maybe it's whichever is lower. :hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2013, 10:31:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2013, 10:26:04 PM
Doesn't it balloon after 2014?
My tentative understanding is it starts out at $95 or 1%, whichever is higher, then moves in stages to $235 or 1%, whichever is higher.
Or maybe it's whichever is lower. :hmm:
If it's which ever is lower, I'll be better off to just continue not to have insurance and pay the penalty.
Looked it up. It's greater. And, yes, actually, 1% of my income is no joke. That's like $350-500. That's like half a week's work. For what? I didn't even get anything out of it; I just helped pay for fucking Boomers' Viagra and cancer medications.
If I actually got insurance it'd cost like a zillion dollars. Well, like $2-4000, or even more. Who knows? Which is insane. Now we're talking serious impact.
The hierarchy of needs does not begin with fucking health insurance. Fuck Obama and his dumb hybrid bullshit plan that most of America is frankly too poor to afford.
Of course, the Democratic candidates can still count on my vote in November.
:lol: Yeah, the kind of socialism where the other pays is a lot more fun.
Socialism is a lot more palatable when the people being redistributed from have their basic needs met first.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2013, 10:41:01 PM
Looked it up. It's greater. And, yes, actually, 1% of my income is no joke. That's like $350-500. That's like half a week's work. For what? I didn't even get anything out of it; I just helped pay for fucking Boomers' Viagra and cancer medications.
And my nieces will help pay for your Reese's Peanut Butter Diabetes, so it's a push, Captain Nutrition.
I really haven't eaten a Reese's cup in like three or four months. :(
Been a lot of ramen lately, actually. Turns out it's kind of delicious.
Well, also a lot of chocolate chip cookies. If I'm being honest, although I have no idea why I'd do that. -_-
Specifically, I have no idea why I'd do that on the insurance forms that ask if I'm a smoker. I assume they test for that? :hmm:
I don't want to hear you bitch about having to pitch in to help cover somebody else's health, when somebody's going to have to be on the hook when your shitty ass single guy diet catches up to you.
It's about the social contract, so then how about getting with the program and jump on the team and come on in for the big win, bitch.
CdM had a job, job-provided insurance, a house and an Asian woman in his crawlspace for like twenty-five years, and now he wants me to pay for his dotage. Right, I'm way selfish.
Mind your elders, whippersnapper.
Don't trust anyone over 30 40.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 26, 2013, 10:19:17 PM
I'm still really, really worried about being able to afford the mandated insurance and/or the penalty. It's such fucking bullshit. :(
What say you to that, Joan, you party hack?
Don't complain to me, I wanted single payer like everyone else in the OECD.
N.B. the "party hack" thing is just a joke I've been using lately. :P
I posted (in more condensed form) similar thoughts as a response to Valmy's thoughts that the obamacare was a failure.
The theoretical beauty is that the guy with cancer will vigorously support Obamacare as he will understand he needs it, but the younger healthy guy may not realize the system is making him pay more (he may want affordable insurance, but if you aren't an actuary it is hard to know how affordable it can be).
Quote from: Berkut on November 26, 2013, 08:59:58 PM
You can look at that as a transfer from the young and healthy to the old and sick, or you can look at as a forward payment - everyone who is currently young and healthy is hoping to reach old and in need of more medical care.
Actually, that isn't so valid, imo. Medicare already exists--if you reach old age in good health, you were already going to be covered. If we confine this to the effects of the ACA, high risk population groups are more likely to win, and low risk population groups lose.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2013, 11:50:43 PM
I don't want to hear you bitch about having to pitch in to help cover somebody else's health, when somebody's going to have to be on the hook when your shitty ass single guy diet catches up to you.
It's about the social contract, so then how about getting with the program and jump on the team and come on in for the big win, bitch.
Not to mention the smoking.
Quote from: Maximus on November 27, 2013, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2013, 11:50:43 PM
I don't want to hear you bitch about having to pitch in to help cover somebody else's health, when somebody's going to have to be on the hook when your shitty ass single guy diet catches up to you.
It's about the social contract, so then how about getting with the program and jump on the team and come on in for the big win, bitch.
Not to mention the smoking.
Yeah, Ide...if I can quit, so can you.
How many times have you quit?
I only count the last time. But thanks for the support, assmunch.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 11:28:26 AM
Quote from: Maximus on November 27, 2013, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 26, 2013, 11:50:43 PM
I don't want to hear you bitch about having to pitch in to help cover somebody else's health, when somebody's going to have to be on the hook when your shitty ass single guy diet catches up to you.
It's about the social contract, so then how about getting with the program and jump on the team and come on in for the big win, bitch.
Not to mention the smoking.
Yeah, Ide...if I can quit, so can you.
You've quit? Does that include the smokeless cigarettes?
:hug:
Yup. Not doing shit.
Trying not to punch walls, strangers and parents at the same time, but not using nicotine, either.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 12:29:45 PM
Yup. Not doing shit.
Trying not to punch walls, strangers and parents at the same time, but not using nicotine, either.
You need to start drinking.
I smoked a cigarette the other day, just for the hell of it. I was... Alive with Pleasure.
But I still don't understand how people get hooked on them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 27, 2013, 12:42:10 AM
Don't complain to me, I wanted single payer like everyone else in the OECD.
Except a good chunk of the OECD does not have single-payer systems.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 12:29:45 PM
Yup. Not doing shit.
Trying not to punch walls, strangers and parents at the same time, but not using nicotine, either.
Well done sir. Well done.
:slowclap:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 12:24:21 PM
I only count the last time. But thanks for the support, assmunch.
How long have you been clean?
2 months maybe , sometime before the Great Costanza Migration, not really keeping score this time. All that does is make you think about it every day.
It's extremely painful when I try to quit. Feels like my head's gonna cave in.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 27, 2013, 08:36:47 PM
It's extremely painful when I try to quit. Feels like my head's gonna cave in.
I will be your spirit animal. Now toss the smokes in the commode. Now.
I actually don't have any right now. Problem is, I do dip. Obviously, I'd like to quit that too, but it's probably even harder due to the very high nicotine content. (I know hillbilly etc.)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 08:26:19 PM
2 months maybe , sometime before the Great Costanza Migration, not really keeping score this time. All that does is make you think about it every day.
Yeah, don't look back on it or think too much about it, it's now part of the past.
Try and only think about it when you're doing something easily, that previously you're lungs had burned like hell, be it climbing a big hill or having good sex. :cool:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 27, 2013, 08:26:19 PM
2 months maybe , sometime before the Great Costanza Migration, not really keeping score this time. All that does is make you think about it every day.
Nice. :cheers:
February will be 6 years for me.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 27, 2013, 08:39:32 PM
I actually don't have any right now. Problem is, I do dip. Obviously, I'd like to quit that too, but it's probably even harder due to the very high nicotine content. (I know hillbilly etc.)
At least you don't do that Swedish crap.
It's made in Nashville, TN.
USA! USA! US *jaw falls off*
Quote from: Ideologue on November 27, 2013, 08:39:32 PM
I actually don't have any right now. Problem is, I do dip. Obviously, I'd like to quit that too, but it's probably even harder due to the very high nicotine content. (I know hillbilly etc.)
What do the ladies think of this?
I keep it secret, as I might reasonably would a heroin habit.
Your hillbilly is showing ide.
You can't say it when I already admitted it. Them's the rules.