..
Ahh . . . but not all expenditures produce equal "good" in the economy. When dollars are in the hands of a consumer, that individual spends them on whatever will bring him the most benefit (food, clothing, shelter, medical care, a car, a boat, etc). He will also shop around for that particular item to find the seller who gives him best value for the dollar. From these millions of possible choices, the individual will choose one, and both the seller and the buyer are winners at the end of the transaction. This competition for business consistently improves the quality of goods and services and lowers prices.
Ok... wait a minute.
There are multiple issues buried in the topic. It can be difficult to separate them.
Don't get hung up on whether the money was distributed by an Insurance company or Uncle Sam for a minute.. or efficiencies or, or how people ripoff the system or any of that... for a minute. Just the consumer behavior side.
For SS or a payout annuity from an insurance company either... the money goes into the hands of a consumer. They spend it on their needs. Correct?
They make a consumer choice!
When the government takes money from the public to spend for the health care for others, there's no reason to believe that this is the best use for the money--the people who the money belonged to initially certainly didn't make the choice to spend it on health care (it got taken from them in taxes). The people who receive the health care didn't choose the sellers (in some cases) and didn't/couldn't shop for a good price (hey, it was Uncle Sam paying the bill).
For health care. Another very complicated problem. Let's narrow it down for the sake of this comment. Forget the myriad private vs public debate (much of which is born out of rhetoric to not solve the problem but to yield some advantage to someone or group).
Our current health care system (the whole thing) is not fit to solve the current problems we face. The broad system for funding it to the way it is currently rationed and delivered. And there are thousands of issues buried in it. Including the way it is funded (across the board). It is a patch quilt that evolved out of many artificial barrier and problem (natural or artificially created by some group or situation).
I agree medicare should change. But it is a funding mechanism for our broader healthcare system. The whole thing has been gamed and twisted for different groups to take advantage of it. It is really a complicate mess.
I am for the most efficient and lowest cost approach. But it will require big changes to our current system (just about every aspect of the rules and how it is administrated, etc). Right now everybody thinks it should be someone elses problem... they do not want to change!
You better believe... the most powerful groups opposing it are the health insurance industry and many of the providers of drugs and services. Why? Because they make massive profits the way things are today... they do not want to change. Besides, they may wind up with less or even be obsolete. IOW - they don't want the risk their current business in an effort to evolve the system.... this is really the issue!
Be careful about the political rhetoric. All that is happening there is someone yanking your chain and telling part of the story... the part of the message that might yield your support.
Watch, this is going to be a real national crisis.... and it is not just Medicare... or Medicaid for that matter.
True, except for all the "extra" money collected from me for the last 30 years--the money that went into the "trust fund". That money didn't go to any oldsters at the time, it went immediately to be spent on whatever the government bought: Tanks, welfare payments, food stamps, aid to cities, space exploration, studies on the sex life of frogs. That money is gone and the taxpayers in general don't have money to pay the "trust fund" back. Surprise! No, not really. So, lets stop the charade and make SS a true pay-as-you-go affair that balances out every year. Make the payouts match the SS taxes, or make the taxes match the payouts, but no more shifting around of money. That game is over.
Couldn't agree more. A lot of govt waste.
And I would add to it. If the geniuses in Washington decide that there is a better way... make the changes. But be reasonable about it and don't yank the carpet out from under people that no longer have time to adjust.
On were the money went... yes SDI, and a zillion other things.
Did you understand what I meant about that money being transferred to the wealthy? Do you understand how that worked?
Because what I think what I am hearing from you is... yeah... the money was spent. Ok we got scr3wed... let's move on.
If so, that is very confusing. I don't understand. I am not that forgiving.
Look... you really need to be skeptical of the story: we really mean it this time. Heck many of them are the same people!!!
This really is about what programs will be cut.
You are going to pay no matter what. But they hope that the expenditure cut is what they owe you! And they are really hoping you will agree to it. Their best outcome... is that they convinced you that is was a great idea.
I am suspicious when they want to lump it all together move it around like a shell game where no one (of us) knows what happened.
The starting point should be: Let's cut everything else first and after that has been wrung dry.... Then let's take a look at SS and Medicare. Because it sure sounds like another round of three card monte to me!