Monday, July 12, 2010

My Version of Social Security Reform (January 2009)

Social Security is a legalized pyramid/ponzi scheme, similar to what Madoff pulled off for so many years in that new investors are promised a return at a later date as long as they pay into the promised return for the earlier investors. The only difference is that it’s transparent (meaning we know where our money is going), but that doesn’t change the fact that it is what it is. You are unwillingly MADE to invest into the system as soon as you get your first paycheck. (Got to love freedom of choice, huh?) The reason why it shouldn’t fail is because the supply of new investors should always exceed the number of investors before them (following the birth rate models, more born every generation). The problem is that the Government can take from this fund when they see fit, which depletes the amount that is supposed to be supplied to future retirees. Like Madoff, some of the investors are being paid back, but the Government is using that same money ($5 trillion) to fund its own endeavors. Notice the hypocrisy?

I’m putting a suggestion out there, further explaining/expanding how to wean us off of the current system in place.

For right now, we’ll call this program the Personal Retirement Account (PRA). Similar to the Social Security system, the PRA will take a percentage of your paycheck and hold it into a holding account of your choice (IRA, IRA Roth, savings account, etc). The idea is that the money would be “locked” until one’s retirement. One could also designate beneficiaries to this account in case of incident through a personal will or by power of attorney. 100% of your account would be able to be distributed at your discretion instead of being absorbed back into Government.

Key points:
  1. The percentage transferred into your PRA is adjustable. As long as you do not go below the pre-determined minimum contribution (more research and discussion needed), you can deposit as much as you’d like into the account
  2. Beneficiaries would be designated at your initial introduction into the PRA. This can be changed at anytime (as wills can be adjusted)
  3. Government intervention is taken out of the equation. That’s less tax dollars used on enforcing the current system, thus putting the needed tax dollars on more important affairs
  4. Distribution among multiple PRA accounts is open for discussion

Those from ages 16 to 25 would take part in a new system where the minimum amount that would normally be taken and placed into the Social Security system, would go into the PRA. Additionally, this age group will no longer contribute into the Social Security system as it’s now fixed.

Age 26 - 39 would get a portion of both the old and new programs (based upon age of course): a portion of the Social Security fund and the PRA program. The Social Security fund would be distributed based upon age in that, the closer you are to retirement, the more of the fund is set aside for your retirement. In addition, you will have your PRA just as the younger age group. Conversely, the further you are from retirement, the more you will have saved in your PRA. There would no longer be any contribution into the Social Security system.

Over time, the current Social Security system would dry up and everyone (after a generation or two) PRAs would have replaced it. It’s Social Security within your personal control.

This takes care of a few things:
  1. The government can no longer dip into the Social Security funds that should be set aside for us because there would no longer be a fund to steal from
  2. Politics would no longer use this as a means to use fear to obtain the elderly vote
  3. The individual citizen can actually see that they have a retirement secured for their future. In addition, there is more of an incentive to work when a citizen can actually see how much one can set aside for the future. (The more you work, the more is set aside for retirement). This may aid in decreasing unemployment and increasing self-drive/motivation
  4. This may inadvertently replace the burden of life insurance for those that can’t afford it. For those that can afford life insurance, it may become an additional security blanket to go towards beneficiaries

I probably missed something here. Any suggestions, needed additions, questions? I’ll open the floor to you.

My Rant about the Healtcare Debate (August 2009)

I'm all for reform but based on the crap they've tried to pass thus far, they may end up making things worse rather than better. By no means am I advocating that healthcare is a human right. I believe that everyone, who is able, should be responsible for the choices they’ve made especially regarding their well-being. That being said I’m going to attempt to explain how health insurance works before tackling the Public and Private solutions (Took me all day to write this up. Missing quite a bit so far, but its worth a look/discussion. It is a bit long, so bear with me….):


We know the basics of what insurance is. Whether it is for your car/home/health/etc. it is coverage “in case” something bad happens. Obtaining coverage, you must go through a screening in order for the insurance investor (lets be real, they are investing that nothing will happen to you while you are paying them, that’s how businesses make money). Your rate is determined by “pre-existing” factors. For cars: your driving history, tickets, accidents, etc. For homes: environmental factors (flood, earthquakes, etc), condition of home, etc. For health: lifestyle habits (smoking, eating, drinking), family history, etc. Let’s be clear, you can be denied access to coverage for any type of insurance if you present that you will cost the investor. You can be denied auto insurance. You can be denied home insurance. You can be denied life insurance. You can be denied health insurance. That being said if you ARE covered, you are essentially in a pool with other individuals being covered. The cost you pay for covered is based on the information you’ve given plus the cost of the goods and services required for keeping you healthy. When someone in your pool becomes sick, the cost for covering that person is spread amongst the other members of the pool. There are ways to drive costs down, and all it takes is volunteering to adjust your lifestyle by living healthier. That means: exercise, eating habits, smoking, drinking, sexual habits, etc would have to lean towards improving your personal health. If we each take a little more care in how we take care of OURSELVES and instill those habits into our children, prices are more than likely to drop. There are other factors (prescription costs, inflation, etc), but I’ll try to cover them ahead.

We do have a public (Government) plan in place. Medicare and Medicaid. Medicaid and Medicare have its shortcomings. There are cases of the government rationing benefits in order to save money but at the cost of your health. It should not be that way. Imagine cases like this on a national scale and you can see why the opponents to the Healthcare Bill are worried. (Hint: it isn’t about color of the skin of our President) For this government system to work, EVERYONE who works and collects a paycheck has to pay into the system (which you already do for Medicaid, Medicare & Social Security by the way and are set to increase for everyone for the program to work. No taxes on the middle class my ass…). Similar to how the insurance system works, everyone is a part of the pool. This program should work as a “safety net” for the public. It should cover those people who could not be covered by the private system, which it does, but it LIMITS COVERAGE to keep costs down. The more people in the pool needing coverage, the more costly it is to cover them, which means the more money will be needed to cover the people needing help. A board looks at your case and determines if you should have that operation. They don’t care if you pay them back, but they care if this operation will affect the national deficit. Another credible reason why opposition to the Government plan fears it: increasing the deficit. Ways to keep the costs down are similar to the private option. Changing your personal lifestyle is the first step. The difference is, the Government can “force” you to change your habits by influencing you. The cigarette and sugar taxes aren’t just for revenue people. It is just the beginning of controlling lifestyle habits through taxation. Also, it is one of the ways that the middle and poor classes will be affected. The second, of which we covered earlier, is by limiting coverage. (You should wonder why some hospitals don’t accept Medicaid as a form of coverage: it doesn’t cover costly procedures)

The private plans are your “evil” insurance companies. Let’s get this straight; businesses are in it for making profit. Similar to the Government plan, the private companies are trying to save money anyway they can by rationing coverage (yes, we already have a system where coverage is rationed…lets be real Republicans). A board looks at your case and determines if you should have that operation. They look at the type of career you have and determine if you have the ability to pay them back if the procedure has been approved. (I’m going to get chewed out for this next one) The business has a right to deny coverage because they are investing in you NOT to get sick. The empathic part of me understands the anger towards the private market because a lot of the problems stem from greed, plain and simple. The bad kind. (There is such thing as good greed) This is where decisions are made to make the company profit, but at the cost the service it supplies to its customers. Companies should follow suit as we should as individuals, stated in our Bill of Rights and our Constitution: you have the freedom to do whatever you like, with the exception that it does not infringe upon the welfare of others.

Another negative aspect of the private system falls upon private practices run by doctors whose duty it is to help their patients, have been clouded by "bad greed". There are cases in which certain doctors will authorize unnecessary procedures/test because of the finacial gain it brings to the practice. The motives could range from personal debts, cost of supplies, malpractice insurance rates, etc. So how do we control this? The options are being floated around: lowering the inflated cost of the supplies, doing away with the no-limit malpractice suits, subsidizing/lowering the costs for medical school, etc. (Quick way: FairTax baby...) Of course there will be some that will seek to take advantage, even if these problems didn't exist, but we shouldn't need the Government to step in to find a solution on how to deal with criminals, or do we?

Washington has recently pulled the public option from their draft of the Healthcare Bill. The Democrats control all three branches of government and have removed the public option the day before our President said he’d sign what ever they bring him a week ago. The Republicans were not responsible for the defeat of the Healthcare Bill back in 1994, despite what the President said last night. The people in this country read the bill the Democrats (they ran ALL three branches of Government in 1994) attempted to pass during that time and called their representatives to demand that it doesn’t pass. the people then knew the danger and so should you here in 2009. Democratic Senators have said in the last few weeks that they don’t even know what’s in this bill because it’s too confusing. Do you feel safe that they AREN'T READING/COMPREHENDING THE BILLS THEY PASS?! You think this is about helping you? You aren’t worried of the future implications?

We need real discussion before passage of ANY bill of this magnitude. Plowing forward and making “bold” moves can shackle future generations to a possible mistake that we know NOTHING about because our leaders know less about it than we do.