Nick Stuart · Nov 4, 2011 at 9:13am

A note on several entitlement-related conservative tropes that crop up often on the Ricochet Podcast, Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge, Ricochet postings, and the conservative punditosphere generally: block grant Medicaid, means test Medicare (and Social Security), and raise the "retirement" age (which I take to mean raise the age at which you can collect Social Security).

To establish my conservative bona fides, let me first state my solution is to voucherize Medicaid and Medicare. Social Security is tougher but if the government would simply return the money I've paid in over 40 years, they can keep the employer's contribution, and I'll gladly walk away and deal with it on my own come what may.

If Medicaid and Social Security goes away, I'll gladly continue to take care of my blind, developmentally disabled, adult daughter who is currently both a Medicaid and SSI recipient. I mention her to establish I know whereof I speak with respect to government programs.

Now to cases

Block granting Medicaid to the states simply places in the hands of state politicians a huge chunk of money that they can spend on whatever they want regardless of what the Code of Federal Regulations says. No wonder governors are clamoring for it. You will get whatever the state politicians deign to let you have. The pols will spend the bulk of the money providing upper-middle income sinecures for connected cronies. You gotta problem with that? Litigate it at your own expense. I know firsthand this is how it works based on my experience with the my state's Department of Rehabilitative Services and my daughter. Granted I live in the kakistocratic People's Republic of Illinois and other states will be better (because they can't possibly be any worse).

"Means test Medicare. Why should the taxpayer subsidize Warren Buffet's medical bills?" Um, maybe because there's no upper limit to the Medicare tax of 3.3% (individual and employer combined). So if Mr. Buffet has $10 million in taxible income year after year, he pays $330,000 in Medicare tax year after year. Now I have no personal sympathy for Warren Buffet and if he were to suffer $330,000 worth of anal fistulas and scrotal necrosis per annum I blush to say I would revel in the schadenfreude. But his, and I daresay most wealthy people's Medicare has already been means tested on the basis of the taxes they've paid.

"Raise the retirement age." No question something like this is going to have to happen. The question is, where is everybody supposed to work at the age of 70, or 75 if you need to make more than the minimum wage? A co-worker recently said of age discrimination "why, that's illegal!" to which my reply was "my son, clearly you are yet a stranger to this world." This is the point in the conversation where some conservative pundits would imply that I'm a shiftless improvident boomer slug who should have saved for my retirement instead of living the material high life. To which I can only say "mea culpa." It turned out that homeschooling five children K-12, one of whom is severely disabled and the other four of whom all either served or are serving in the Air Force (1) or Army (3) turned out to be God's way of making sure I never had any money (although having 15.3 % of my income raked off the top to pay for other people's Medicare and Social Security, and another $5000/yr to pay for other people's children's educations, and subsidized lunches, in the government schools didn't help).

So next time the block-granting, means testing, retirement age raisers cavalierly toss off their talking points as if they are dispositive received wisdom, call them on it and see what they say.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

genferei
Joined
Oct '10
genferei
Nick Stuart: Social Security is tougher but if the government would simply return the money I've paid in over 40 years, they can keep the employer's contribution, and I'll gladly walk away and deal with it on my own come what may.

I don't disagree with the tenor of your post - fixing entitlements means pain - but the fact is that the government spent all the money you paid in over those 40 years. And not just 'the government', but the government made up of representatives you voted for (or against). So, having eaten your cake you can't really expect to have it too. Yes - pain, tough choices. But let's set out the equities fairly.


Joined
Sep '10
liberal jim

Your post touches on the primary problem which is not a financial one.  Government social programs breed dependency and a sense of entitlement and undermine the virtues of self-reliance and individual responsibility.  For more than a half-century both parties fostered these programs primarily because it benefitted their political careers.  I think the oft repeat phrase that the enactment of the various programs were acts of “well meaning” individuals is one more lie, in a long list of lies being told by accomplished liars.  They were enacted and maintained to buy votes and the buying of votes is what most of both parties are still primarily concerned with.  Both parties are populate primarily with self-interested politicians and the pundits that write about them are little more than cheerleaders. The last half-century has seen a corruption of the culture that made the US great and neither party is willing to talk about it, let alone accept some responsibility for it.  I find it amusing to read how electing a Republican is going to make a real difference.


Joined
Jan '11
Kowaliczko Tom

 It is indeed worthwhile to delve further into such nice sounding slogans as these. There is indeed every reason to think that the states will mess things up just as much as the feds have.

In all of the discussions about entitlement reform (just think of the term 'entitlement' in general), they were sold as social insurance. I'm thinking the way out of this jam is to separate the insurance aspect (cases like your daughter or some one who becomes unable to work) from the the planning for old age aspect. As a middle age man with children, I look at that paycheck and compare those 'insurance taxes' with the separate/private life insurance payments I make and honestly feel that the private sector does just as good (better?) job of handling that risk, the remainder could go into designated HSA's with no caps so that by the time a young person retires, they could have an HSA with hundreds of thousands of dollars - same with SS. I want my own 'Lockbox' with my own 'Key' - it's clear that polititians on both sides cannot be trusted to manage such a thing.

Charlotte
Joined
Apr '11
Charlotte

Main Feed, please!

CoolHand
Joined
Dec '10
CoolHand

Sorry to break this to you bud, but that money you paid in is gone.  You might as well have lit it on fire.

Call it a tax if it makes you feel better, but realize that we are quickly approaching the point at which simple math is going to dictate that nobody is going to get out even close to what they paid in.

It sucks, but the math don't care.

Pilli
Joined
May '11
Pilli

Block grants and mandates to the state are still big government getting into our pockets and lives.  Telling us the "state" is taking care of something that was mandated to it is simply trying to shift the blame.

I am tired of getting my collars grimy because I have to dance with lipsticked pigs.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

The problem is more Medicaid itself than it is the principle of block grants.

Of course, Buffett is not paying a "premium", he is paying a tax.  Means testing is one more piece of progressivity in the tax.  Philosophically repellant, yes, but a sad necessity.  And those who did save for retirement are turning out to be the biggest fools, and Obama is determined to inflate away all of the capital value, and continue to block any investment returns with those zero interest rates.

Interestingly, Romney is proposing a virtual Ryan plan for Medicare.


Joined
Sep '10
liberal jim

Because of government controls during WW2 the country has adopted a third party prepaid medical scheme.  Under the scheme people are free to eat too much, drink too much, use drugs and engage in risky sexual conduct and the health costs of their actions will be borne by someone else, and this is done in large part on a tax free basis.  In addition to the almost non-existent cost controls inherent in a third-party payee scheme the government has also encouraged an out of control tort industry that does little but enrich lawyers.  Health costs will not be controlled unless this fundamental problem is addressed.  It would be nice if someone would address the fundamental problem being faced by the country instead of talking about reforms to programs that cannot succeed until the problem is addressed.  I would suggest that since the problem resulted from government action, government action might be needed to solve it.


Joined
Aug '11
cbc
Kowaliczko Tom:  I look at that paycheck and compare those 'insurance taxes' with the separate/private life insurance payments I make and honestly feel that the private sector does just as good (better?) job of handling that risk, the remainder could go into designated HSA's with no caps so that by the time a young person retires, they could have an HSA with hundreds of thousands of dollars - same with SS. I want my own 'Lockbox' with my own 'Key' - it's clear that polititians on both sides cannot be trusted to manage such a thing. · Nov 4 at 7:16am

HSAs which don't roll back in a year, are certainly one key to improving the health care cost situations dramatically.  The DC republicans have been fighting for them.  The Democrats won't agree, but the Republicans are getting them through at the state level -- at least for Medicaid.  The feds should not be involved.  Maybe the states shouldn't be involved. But we are getting the right kind of reform in some states.

Your private insurance premiums would probably go up the insurance company knew you would not be covered by medicare in your old age.

Kirsten Weiss
Joined
Aug '11
Kirsten Weiss

I feel your pain on age discrimination in the workforce - I know so many fifty and sixty year olds who've lost their jobs and are now stuck peddling products in pyramid marketing programs (or whatever they're called).  But Social Security was originally not designed as a retirement program.  In the 1930s, the average life expectancy was under age 65 (62 or 63, I think).  So the average person did not collect social security, but was expected to retire on savings and with help from family.  Social security truly was a safety net for the needy and those who had outlived their savings.  Today, we're living until 95, and I know more and more people over 100.  An insurance actuary told me recently that they're projecting today's eight year olds will live until 130.  The age when Social Security kicks in has to change alongside average life expectancies.

Lucy Pevensie
Joined
Nov '10
Lucy Pevensie

cbc

Kowaliczko Tom:  I look at that paycheck and compare those 'insurance taxes' with the separate/private life insurance payments I make and honestly feel that the private sector does just as good (better?) job of handling that risk, the remainder could go into designated HSA's with no caps so that by the time a young person retires, they could have an HSA with hundreds of thousands of dollars - same with SS. I want my own 'Lockbox' with my own 'Key' - it's clear that polititians on both sides cannot be trusted to manage such a thing. · Nov 4 at 7:16am

HSAs which don't roll back in a year, are certainly one key to improving the health care cost situations dramatically.

Yeah. Whose bright idea was it to let those things run out at the end of the year?  Talk about perverse incentives.  Not that I ought to mind, as a health care provider, but really!

Nick Stuart
Joined
May '10
Nick Stuart

Great thoughts.

What got me going was how tiresome it was to hear members of the conservative punditocracy dispense the tropes of "means test" this and "block grant" as if they are inarguable received wisdom.

The fellow Ricochetians who reminded me that the money is gone are right of course. What I have to say to our elected representatives is "If all the money I was forced to pay is gone, and there's not going to be anything there, at least stop lying about it, and please don't make me pay any more, let me keep and save it so I'll at least have something."

Robert E. Lee
Joined
Jun '10
Robert E. Lee
genferei So, having eaten your cake you can't really expect to have it too. Yes - pain, tough choices. But let's set out the equities fairly. · Nov 4 at 3:04am

Yes, I can expect to have eat my cake and have it too.  No pain, no gain, is a contemptible lie.  No pain means no pain.

My choices were to pay my taxes like a law abiding citizen or go to jail.  I paid.  Yes, that was my "choice," not to be a dirty OWS hippie.  The government basically stole the money we all paid in, and it didn't matter who voted and who didn't, who was liberal and who was conservative.  If there was a buck to be had, some government person pried it out of our hands and spent it.  I don't think it's too much to ask that they deliver on their promises without causing me more pain.  They're the government, they had no problem stealing from me, let them steal from someone else for a change and give mine back.  The cake is a lie.

Duane Oyen
Joined
May '10
Duane Oyen

Lucy Pevensie

cbc

Kowaliczko Tom:  I look at that paycheck and compare those 'insurance taxes' with the separate/private life insurance payments I make and honestly feel that the private sector does just as good (better?) job of handling that risk, the remainder could go into designated HSA's with no caps so that by the time a young person retires, they could have an HSA with hundreds of thousands of dollars - same with SS. I want my own 'Lockbox' with my own 'Key' - it's clear that polititians on both sides cannot be trusted to manage such a thing. · Nov 4 at 7:16am

HSAs which don't roll back in a year, are certainly one key to improving the health care cost situations dramatically.

Yeah. Whose bright idea was it to let those things run out at the end of the year?  Talk about perverse incentives.  Not that I ought to mind, as a health care provider, but really! · Nov 4 at 1:48pm

HSA's don't run out at the end of the year, FSAs do.  HSAs are simply being gutted by ObamaCare implementation interpretive decisions from Sibelius.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In