Let's keep it real with solutions

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Let's give this a shot. There are a lot of issues that many of us see with the government, so I thought that I'd try to start a thread which has the sole purpose to discuss problems and possible solutions. Let's try to avoid criticizing liberals and conservatives (or any other name you can come up with about these groups) and focus on giving your solution (and how to pay for it if you have an idea) for a problem you see with our current government. Voting one party out or the other would be considered criticizing a political party. If you disagree with a poster's solution, stick with why you disagree and what you feel would be a better solution. Many of us seem to hate that politicians can never seem to agree on any solutions, so let's see if we can do any better.

Here are a few problems that I see to start us out. Feel free to add other problems as well.

1. What would you about social security and Medicare?

2. What would you have liked to see come out of the fairly recent health care debate?

3. How would you address social safety net programs?

4. What would you do if you could revamp our education system?

5. How would you spark job growth and what type of jobs would you promote?

These are just a few off the top of my head to get us started. Let's see if we can do better than the politicians we criticize so often in both, coming up with a solution and avoiding the partisan attacks. So let's keep it real and come up with solutions. ;D

[cael]

[Politically_Incorrect12]

1. Personally I think that privatizing at least a portion of SS is a win-win situation. If companies succeed, then people have a chance to gain in that growth through their investments. At the same time, being the market does pose some risk, which is why at this time I think a hybrid system has the best chance of actually becoming a reality. While some may argue that the market is too risky, the truth is that having people completely dependent upon the government is also risky. I've mentioned before that possibly having a hybrid system where initially people are invested in target date funds, with the option to change into other available funds as they become available may be the best way to start this system. Get rid of early benefits for SS, and move the full benefit age up to age 70. Allow people to start pulling out their privatized portion at age 59 1/2 just like with other traditional retirement accounts. In this way, people only need enough saved up in their privatized account to last 10 years until they are eligible for the government portion. If people do not have enough saved up, then that will be no different than people collecting SS and still needing a part time job. It is also no different than the government deciding to increase the age of eligibility, raising taxes, and/or decreasing the benefit. I'd also make all the investments in this account tax free, as well as allow all assets in the privatized portion to be passed on to heirs probate free. Making it tax free would make it go further.

The real trick is trying to figure out how to phase it in. About the best way I can think of (although I am definitely not a fan) is to increase the current tax rate by 5%, with that entire 5% going into a privatized account. Eventually, work that percentage up to where the government portion/privatized portion are a 50/50 split. Doing this could help pay those near SS retirement age, while working on phasing in a system that could offer more options and better returns for future generations. The real issue is that no generation wants to be the one who has to take the hit during the transition, unfortunately that is the reality of the situation. I would keep the portion of SS that pays for SSDI separate because that is a valuable program to have, especially if you ever actually need it. I am sure I am forgetting some other ideas, but this should be enough for some to criticize, and other to add to it.

[Deleted]

OK

I will take a shot at what we can do.....

1. Tort reform.....one of the biggest problems with medical care and cost is malpractice costs. Doctors are so damn afraid of being sued, they are running every test possible not because they think it is needed....but because it reduces possibility of lawsuits.

We need to address reform in our law system....and that will be a start to tackling the health care cost problem.

We have to address SS benefits along with the medicaid/medicare system. Here we are going to HAVE to increase the age where benefits are paid out. In the 40's when these systems were put into place.....lifespans's were not as long. If someone was paid benefits for 10-15 years, that was abnormal at that time.

Now with people living iinto their high 80's and low 90's , 30 years of benefits are becoming normal. THAT CAN NOT CONTINUE

We need to increase the beginning age for getting basic benefits....and then relook at again increasing the age modifiers as time progresses....and life spans increase. I know....not popular....but it has to happen

What do you think?

[Bluerobin]

PI, each could be it's own thread. SS is good, leave it alone. Once people start working, it should recover. Medicare definitely needs some tweeking, but not cutting. Better audits, pay specialists less, pay family docs more.
Healthcare - needs single payor. Any proceedure is only worth so much. Get used to that idea. Also need to let drug prices be negotiated.
Tighten the requirements for Welfare - only citizens. Non citizens get a free plane ticket.
Education - Make it possible to fail students and raise eligibility requirements for college. Garbage men don't need degrees.
Jobs - make incentives for domestic job growth. Tax breaks for making it here, etc.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

2. As far as the recent health care debate, I still say I like the way Medicare supplements are set up. They have a lot of consumer protections, while also allowing insurance companies to compete. The big consumer protection is having people in groups where a healthy 65 y/o non-smoking male from Chicago, pays the same as an unhealthy 65 y/o non-smoking male from Chicago. If the unhealthy person needs to actually use the insurance, then the rates don't go up unless they raise the rates on all the people within that particular group. Medicare supplements also have 10 plans from A-J, and those plans are the same at every company, other than the premiums. So if you ask for an "F" plan at one company and an "F" plan from another company, you know you are comparing apples to apples when you see the premium difference. I would like to have let's say 50 plans to start out that every insurance company offers. I would allow people to pick their premiums from $0 up to $15,000. If a person wants to pay a higher premium to have a $0 deductible plan, that is their prerogative. Anyway, if you ask one insurance company what would plan 25 cost with a $5000 deductible, you know you are comparing apples to apples. I am thinking of also having something such as having an open enrollment period up to age 25, where no health questions can be asked, and then offering another open enrollment period every 5 years after...so basically you would have another open enrollment period for the first 3 months after you turn 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60. If you choose not to buy insurance during that open enrollment period, you are subject to being asked medical questions and being rejected. I'd be open to offering more standardized plans, 50 is an arbitrary number and 100 seems like too many.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 10:09:19 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PI, each could be it's own thread. SS is good, leave it alone. Once people start working, it should recover. Medicare definitely needs some tweeking, but not cutting. Better audits, pay specialists less, pay family docs more.
Healthcare - needs single payor. Any proceedure is only worth so much. Get used to that idea. Also need to let drug prices be negotiated.
Tighten the requirements for Welfare - only citizens. Non citizens get a free plane ticket.
Education - Make it possible to fail students and raise eligibility requirements for college. Garbage men don't need degrees.
Jobs - make incentives for domestic job growth. Tax breaks for making it here, etc.

I understand, but thought it could be an interesting experiment to see if we could have a thread that was dedicated solely to coming up with solutions to different problems we see without the partisan back and forth. Granted the thread could go many different ways, but that it is why it called a solutions thread.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 10:04:15 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

OK

I will take a shot at what we can do.....

1. Tort reform.....one of the biggest problems with medical care and cost is malpractice costs. Doctors are so damn afraid of being sued, they are running every test possible not because they think it is needed....but because it reduces possibility of lawsuits.

We need to address reform in our law system....and that will be a start to tackling the health care cost problem.

We have to address SS benefits along with the medicaid/medicare system. Here we are going to HAVE to increase the age where benefits are paid out. In the 40's when these systems were put into place.....lifespans's were not as long. If someone was paid benefits for 10-15 years, that was abnormal at that time.

Now with people living iinto their high 80's and low 90's , 30 years of benefits are becoming normal. THAT CAN NOT CONTINUE

We need to increase the beginning age for getting basic benefits....and then relook at again increasing the age modifiers as time progresses....and life spans increase. I know....not popular....but it has to happen

What do you think?

I'll address the SS portion of your answer. I think increasing age is a definite factor, which is why I felt increasing the government portion of SS while also allowing a privatized portion that can be used at an earlier would be a good compromise. I also feel that as people see their privatize SS savings increase in the market, it may make some see the importance of investing and how a little can add up; and in turn persuading them to invest in other private retirement account options being offered.

[Bluerobin]

Privatization would have wiped out many folks during the recent crash. That is not the answer. Keep SS as is and encourage private investing / saving.

[mmhmm]

I think it might also be very helpful if the government kept their mitts out of the Social Security accounts. These funds should not be used as a slush fund for whatever government decides needs a boost in funds.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 10:09:19 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PI, each could be it's own thread. SS is good, leave it alone. Once people start working, it should recover. Medicare definitely needs some tweeking, but not cutting. Better audits, pay specialists less, pay family docs more.
Healthcare - needs single payor. Any proceedure is only worth so much. Get used to that idea. Also need to let drug prices be negotiated.
Tighten the requirements for Welfare - only citizens. Non citizens get a free plane ticket.
Education - Make it possible to fail students and raise eligibility requirements for college. Garbage men don't need degrees.
Jobs - make incentives for domestic job growth. Tax breaks for making it here, etc.

The problem with a single payor system is that if you want the government to dictate what it will pay, then you also need to find incentives for people to work on new and improved procedures, medications, etc. Doing this will add extra cost to this system. Of course this is not even mentioned what would be a large tax hike. You would have a better chance at getting health insurance reform passed than having a government run system. While you might argue with the terminology of government run or government controlled, the truth is that the one who pays the bills is the one who makes the rules.

I am not sure what type of jobs you are wanting to promote growth in, but if it is manufacturing, I have a feeling those jobs are pretty much gone for good unless the dollar really tanks. Americans in general have shown that they want the cheapest price and that is hard to compete with when you are paying your workers American wages (that many complain is still too little). I do like the idea of tech schools being incorporated into high school. My only concern is that just push the problem from one sector to another by doing it. So now the manufacturing jobs are pretty much gone, we teach a lot of high schoolers how to be plumbers, carpenters, auto mechanics, builders, electricians, etc. While these type of jobs are unlikely to be outsourced to another country, does having this training offered in high school flood those particular markets and decrease wages?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 10:26:35 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Privatization would have wiped out many folks during the recent crash. That is not the answer. Keep SS as is and encourage private investing / saving.

That is a bit of an over exaggeration....the recent crash would not have wiped out 40 years of funds being invested regularly. Worst case scenario, they would have kept working a few more years and still kept investing while the market came back up to where it is right now. Again, no different than those people who take part time jobs to supplement SS....so in this case, they just retire a few years later.

[Bluerobin]

PI, new technology would require new prices. Profit would remain the incentive. Single payor would be sucessful. My insurance co only pays so much. If something isn't covered, I often get the rate they would pay, just through negotiation.
I would opt for made in USA everytime. Foreign clothes just don't fit. I will not buy any food items from China, and recently decided I don't want any stink bugs, so try to avoid clothing from there.
Not exaggerating about the crash. Many plans would have been ruined by the crash. Work a little longer? Older folks are routinely discriminated against, regardless of the law. Just wait until you get there and you will see.
Now stop being negative and search for solutions!

[pepper112765]

May 11, 2011 10:04:15 GMT -5 @gdgyva said:

OK

I will take a shot at what we can do.....

1. Tort reform.....one of the biggest problems with medical care and cost is malpractice costs. Doctors are so damn afraid of being sued, they are running every test possible not because they think it is needed....but because it reduces possibility of lawsuits.

We need to address reform in our law system....and that will be a start to tackling the health care cost problem.

We have to address SS benefits along with the medicaid/medicare system. Here we are going to HAVE to increase the age where benefits are paid out. In the 40's when these systems were put into place.....lifespans's were not as long. If someone was paid benefits for 10-15 years, that was abnormal at that time.

Now with people living iinto their high 80's and low 90's , 30 years of benefits are becoming normal. THAT CAN NOT CONTINUE

We need to increase the beginning age for getting basic benefits....and then relook at again increasing the age modifiers as time progresses....and life spans increase. I know....not popular....but it has to happen

What do you think?

With respect to tort reform, as I used to work as a defense medical malpractice legal secretary, more transparency is needed with respect to rooting out the bad doctors. It is very, very difficult to get a physician's license yanked. There are a few in my years of working there that were being sued over and over. Although most of the cases ended up with defense verdicts there are certain doctors, where I recognize the name, would never, ever allow to touch me. And at least one of my physicians became my physican because he was an expert in a lot of cases. I just saw him a few weeks ago. He has to deal with "medical/legal bullshit" by having to document everything. I don't get unnecessary tests or anything like that but, since everything is now being computerized and medical records are becoming portable, a new doctor can put your name in and see every prescription prescribed (witnessed that when taking my son to a new neurologist for migraines). I think that will help.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 10:48:08 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PI, new technology would require new prices. Profit would remain the incentive. Single payor would be sucessful. My insurance co only pays so much. If something isn't covered, I often get the rate they would pay, just through negotiation.
I would opt for made in USA everytime. Foreign clothes just don't fit. I will not buy any food items from China, and recently decided I don't want any stink bugs, so try to avoid clothing from there.
Not exaggerating about the crash. Many plans would have been ruined by the crash. Work a little longer? Older folks are routinely discriminated against, regardless of the law. Just wait until you get there and you will see.
Now stop being negative and search for solutions!

What people are willing to pay also sets a profit motive. The government never negotiates, they just dictate a price. Why would a company go through all that is needed for any advancement when there is a good chance that what they see as the value and what the government sees as the value will be 2 different numbers?

As far as plans being ruined by the crash, I still say it's an overexaggeration for the reasons I've mentioned. You make it sound as if people never put off retirement for a few extra years to save a little more....this would have been no different. Again, if they had been investing their whole working life, they would have still come out ahead. I don't really understand why you are so against a hybrid system that has both a government controlled portion and a privatized portion.

[Bluerobin]

PI, willing to pay??? Doesn't play into it at all. I am not willing to pay $100 k for a heart attack. I get no choice when the event happens. If I don't have insurance the best deal they will make is a 40% discount. Insurance gets about 80% off.
A hybrid system? Just leave SS as is, but encourage private saving or investment (via tax breaks, etc). I am against letting the government have anything to do with investing. When you get older, you will understand about having a "choice" to work a few years longer.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 10:59:56 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

PI, willing to pay??? Doesn't play into it at all. I am not willing to pay $100 k for a heart attack. I get no choice when the event happens. If I don't have insurance the best deal they will make is a 40% discount. Insurance gets about 80% off.
A hybrid system? Just leave SS as is, but encourage private saving or investment (via tax breaks, etc). I am against letting the government have anything to do with investing. When you get older, you will understand about having a "choice" to work a few years longer.

I understand perfectly well, and some people might end up "on the short end of the stick," but still end up with a better ROR than what is being currently offered through SS. A program such as the one I mentioned would be better for a majority of people. People might have to downgrade their retirement plans, but saying everything is ruined for most people is just not true. Personally I think a privatized system would be best, but thought of a compromise. Most of our disagreement revolves around your view that the government does everything better vs. privatization offers the best rewards in the long run.

[Bluerobin]

Saying everyone would have a better ROR is just not true. Only those skilled at investing will have a good ROR. Just look at the IRA investments. Those who understand the system do well. Others don't. Give them the SS fail safe, and heavy encouragement to invest privately. I don't think the govt does everything better. I just think they can be the fail safe.

[magichat]

1) It is unconstitutional, end it tomorrow.

[busymom]

2) Needed improvements in the health care system:

Doctors should NOT require "approval" from health insurance companies for needed medical procedures or medications. If the patient and doctor agree on a course of action to attack, for example, cancer, the doctor should be able to treat his patient with the drug cocktail that best meets the needs of the patient. Insurance company should not be able to deny suggested treatment, & only endorse a different (probably cheaper) treatment than the doctor & patient agreed on.

If insurance companies deny a course of action agreed upon by doctor & patient, and patient dies, say within 2 years, insurance company should be required to pay patient's surviving family members between $2-$5 Million Dollars (call it insurance malpractice penalty).

Insurance companies should not be able to limit needed therapy (physical or OT) that doctor & patient agree is needed.

What other big holes to you see in health insurance coverage?

[fairlycrazy23]

May 11, 2011 10:26:35 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Privatization would have wiped out many folks during the recent crash. That is not the answer. Keep SS as is and encourage private investing / saving.

I don't believe this is true, I believe the Galveston plan still outperforms SS, even after our financial downturn.
jutiagroup.com/20100713-galveston-vs-social-security/

SS is not fine as is because there won't be enough new employees entering the plan to finance the ones drawing on it. So at the very least age requirements need to be tweaked, and probably some means testing, although that is inherently unfair.
Remember we are now today at the point where SS needs to start drawing on the trust fund, and we all know that the trust fund is just IOU's from Federal Government, so from a certain point of view SS is find for a long time because the trust fund is huge, but as it redeems treasures the federal government needs to get the money somewhere.

I just like the idea that the money you put in is yours, even if the government supplements some lower income peoples new private model SS fund, that money is put in today and is not a future liability to the government.

[rockon]

1- Social Security and Medicare are funded by with holdings from each employee's paycheck. The benefits should be restricted to the people who were supposed to have received this benefit, estimate the cost and adjust the with holding amount. Keep it away from the general fund or politicians fingers and this problem is solved.
2- This was never a health care cost debate. This debate was centered around insurance and legislating restrictions and requirements on these companies. If we want to reduce our nations national annual health care cost then we have to start with some very core principles that are lacking today. Personal responsibility and competition. Personal responsibility would allow people willing to address their habits, diet and exercise programs. It has been estimated that we could reduce our national annual health care cost by 70% simply by addressing these issues. Without borrowing another trillion dollars or passing any legislation!
3- Any Federal Social Safety Program should be designed for temporary and very limited application in the most serious cases with any and all other programs controlled and supported by the local community.
4- Number one would be to get the Federal Government out of controlling or supporting our education system. Again allow local control and support for our children's education with the possibility of some standardized testing to track achievement. Secondly we should not allow any union negotiations for teachers or any other public servant. Preferably their pay would be based on performance but would be up to the local district to decide.
5- Job growth has to start by reviewing our trade agreements to see if the trade partners have the same ideals, tax structure and regulations in place as us and adjust them as necessary. Enforce our existing monopoly laws that should limit the size of our large corporations instead of allowing unlimited mergers and acquisitions. Manufacturing jobs are the only type of job that can create a sustainable economy. Increased jobs in health care, teaching, infrastructure can be essential in establishing or maintaining a capable base but true economic health depends on producing product. So no objection to fair and reasonable taxation or regulation but we have to make sure ours is similar to partners we decide to have free trade with or our standard of living will drop down to equal theirs before we can compete with them. That happens to be the spot we find ourselves in today.

[Deleted]

I think we should try the George Costanza plan. Whatever we are doing... do the opposite.
Ok not really real, sorry.

[deziloooooo]

The problem with this thread politically, and the idea of it is right on, I applaud you for putting it up, but to be honest with you, and I have skimmed some replies and most are well thought out, well written, BUT, it shows how complicated it is to really get a handle on it.

Every one of these suggestions/ topics/issues is deserving of thread just on that particular topic/issue , and not really knowing all the real particulars of each topic/issue, and there are so many, how this affects that, how many affected, is it really necessary, do we have a obligation, if not legally , how about morally and on and on..for me it's to much, sorry.

Have to wish you well with it though.

[floridayankee]

May 11, 2011 10:26:35 GMT -5 Bluerobin said:

Privatization would have wiped out many folks during the recent crash. That is not the answer. Keep SS as is and encourage private investing / saving.

I say rubbish. My funds have completely recovered from the crash...and then some. I'm hardly wiped out.

Not exaggerating about the crash. Many plans would have been ruined by the crash. Work a little longer? Older folks are routinely discriminated against, regardless of the law. Just wait until you get there and you will see.
Now stop being negative and search for solutions!

Older folks should not be heavily invested in high risk funds....pretty easy solution.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

May 11, 2011 14:29:09 GMT -5 deziloooooo said:

The problem with this thread politically, and the idea of it is right on, I applaud you for putting it up, but to be honest with you, and I have skimmed some replies and most are well thought out, well written, BUT, it shows how complicated it is to really get a handle on it.

Every one of these suggestions/ topics/issues is deserving of thread just on that particular topic/issue , and not really knowing all the real particulars of each topic/issue, and there are so many, how this affects that, how many affected, is it really necessary, do we have a obligation, if not legally , how about morally and on and on..for me it's to much, sorry.

Have to wish you well with it though.

So pick one issue at a time and post some possible solutions that may work in your opinion.