In the debate over Social Security, US President Bush’s handlers have already won, at least in the short term. Bush and Karl Rove, his deputy chief of staff, have succeeded in convincing most of the US population that there is a serious problem with Social Security, which opens the way for considering the administration’s programme of private accounts instead of relying on the public pension system.
The public has been frightened, much as it was by the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

The pressure on politicians is rising as leaders in the US House of Representatives hope to draft Social Security legislation by next month.

For perspective, perhaps it should be noted that Social Security is one of the least generous public pension systems among advanced countries, according to a new report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The Bush administration wants to "reform" Social Security — meaning dismantle it. A huge government-media propaganda campaign has concocted a "fiscal crisis" that doesn’t exist. If some problem does arise in the distant future, it could be overcome by trivial measures, such as raising the cap on the regressive payroll tax.

The official story is that the Baby Boomers are going to impose a greater burden on the system because the number of working people relative to the elderly will decline, which is true.

But what happened to the Baby Boomers when they were zero to 20? Weren’t working people taking care of them? And it was a much poorer society then.

In the 1960s the demographics caused a problem but hardly a crisis. The bulge was met by a big increase in expenditures in schools and other facilities for children. The problem wasn’t huge when the Baby Boomers were zero to 20, so why when they’re 70 to 90?

The relevant number is what’s called the dependency ratio of working people to population. That ratio reached its lowest point in 1965. It won’t reach that point again until 2080, according to Social Security Administration figures.

Projections that far ahead are meaningless. Furthermore, any fiscal problem that might arise in caring for the elderly "boomers" has already been paid for, by the payroll tax rise of 1983, designed for this purpose. And by the time the last "boomer" has died, the society will be far richer, with each worker producing far greater wealth.

In other words, we’re already past the crisis. Anything that comes is just a matter of one or another kind of adjustment.

Meanwhile a very real fiscal crisis is looming: namely, medical care. The United States has one of the most inefficient systems in the industrialised world, with per-capita costs far higher than other nations and among the worst health outcomes. The system is privatised, one reason why it’s so inefficient.

But "reforming" the health care system is not on the agenda. So we face an apparent paradox: The real and very serious fiscal crisis is no crisis, and the non-crisis requires drastic action to undermine an efficient system that is quite sound.

Rational observers will seek differences between the Social Security and health care systems that might explain the paradox.

The reasons are simple. You can’t go after a health system under the control of insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations. That system is immune, even if it is causing tremendous financial problems, besides the human cost.

Social Security is of little value for the rich but is crucial for survival for working people, the poor, their dependents and the disabled. And as a government programme, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. It benefits only the "underlying population," not the "substantial citizens," to borrow Thorstein Veblen’s acid terminology.

The medical system, however, works very well for the people who matter in a system where health care is effectively rationed by wealth, and enormous profits flow to private power for highly inefficient management. The underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.

The US Congress has recently enacted bankruptcy reform that tightens the stranglehold on the underlying population. About half of US bankruptcies result from medical bills.

Opinion and official policy are out of step. As in the past, most Americans favour national health insurance. In a 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 80 per cent regarded universal health care as "more important than holding down taxes."

Social Security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. The Social Security "reformers" would rather have you concentrate on maximising your own consumption of goods and subordinating yourself to power. That’s life. Caring for other people, and taking community responsibility for things like health and retirement — that’s just deeply subversive.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20050601.htm

Its a little dated hope you find it interesting

"As in the past, most Americans favour national health insurance. In a 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, 80 per cent regarded universal health care as "more important than holding down taxes."

This is factually untrue (no reputable poll has ever come to this conclusion that I'm aware of. If it is true, Americans are dumber than I give them credit for.), but I guess it's entertaining to some.

CBS) Americans think the U.S. health care system is in need of major repairs, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

Nine out of 10 say the system needs at least fundamental changes, including 36 percent who favor a complete overhaul.

Although most Americans say they are generally satisfied with the quality of their own health care, including 41 percent who say they are very satisfied, it's a different story when it comes to the cost of care.

Just one in five are very satisfied with what they pay for health care, while a majority (52 percent) are dissatisfied, including a third who are very dissatisfied.

U.S. HEALTH CARE SYSTEM NEEDS…

Minor changes
8%
Fundamental changes
54%
To be completely rebuilt
36%

Americans are even more critical of health care costs in the nation as whole: 59 percent are very dissatisfied with the overall cost of health care in the U.S. and another 22 percent are somewhat dissatisfied.

Most Americans believe government can play a role in fixing the health care system. Two-thirds say the federal government should guarantee that all Americans have health insurance — and a similar number says providing health insurance for all is a more serious problem than keeping health care costs down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the complete results of this CBS News/New York Times poll
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eighty-four percent of Americans favor expanding government programs in order to give health insurance to all uninsured children.

Less than one in three, however, say the government would do a better job than private insurance companies at actually providing medical coverage. Forty-four percent said the government would be worse as a health care provider than private companies.

SHOULD GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR ALL?

Yes
64%
No
27%


WHICH IS MORE SERIOUS?

Providing health insurance for all
65%
Keeping health care costs down
31%

More Americans do think the government can do a better job than private companies at helping hold down health care costs.

Health care promises to be a crucial issue in the 2008 presidential campaign. In a CBS News poll conducted last month, health care tied with jobs and the economy as the second-most important issue facing the country, following the war in Iraq. It was even more important to Democratic primary voters, ranking ahead of the economy and jobs.

In the new poll, the public gives the Democrats a big edge over the Republicans on handling health care issues. Asked which party they believe will best improve the health care system, 62 percent said the Democrats, while just 19 percent said the Republicans.

PARTY THAT WOULD IMPROVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

Democrats
62%
Republicans
19%

However, none of the top tier of Democratic presidential candidates has yet to gain a significant national edge on the health care issue.

Six in ten Democratic voters expressed confidence in Sen. Hillary Clinton's approach to health care, but more than half of voters nationally said they're uneasy. Voters overall were also more uneasy than confident about both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards on health care.

But all three Democratic presidential hopefuls rated higher than the current president on the health care issue. Only 17 percent of Americans said they were confident in President Bush's approach to health care, while 77 percent — including about half of Republicans — were uneasy.

Asked to choose which health care topics they'd like to hear the 2008 presidential candidates talk about over the next two years, 34 percent said providing coverage for the uninsured was most important, followed by 28 percent who said reducing health care costs. Eighteen percent said improving the quality of care and a similar number said improving the Medicare prescription drug benefit.


For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.


This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,281 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone Feb. 23-27, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml

I can do this stuff all day

Ok, how about defending the argument that social security is not in crisis when there is no money left in the trust?

You see, the crisis is not too much out and not enough in from the average man, it's the goverment borrowing that happens every year. when you borrow billions upon billions like the last few presidents have, you tap out the trust to what it is now - a large pile of IOUs. What they mean by it running out in a few years is that at this rate, the IOUs will have washed up in that time frame. There is no money left. It is completely bankrupt. All those IOUs are is a "permit" for the government to print money... because they sure as hell aren't saving to pay back their debt.

But, as usual, this is not your own logic, but a post from another. please defend it.

And by the way, nowhere in that poll does it show that 80% want healthcare for all... I'd like to see that poll please.

oh please

like he ever has an opinion that isn't copied and pasted from someone else

the reason the money is running short is that congress has been robbing it and putting it in the general fund

have you looked at how much is taken from your pay

do you really think the money everyone has paid in all these years just evaporated

when the teamster misappropriated the health and welfare fund they went to jail

should not congress get the same penalty for the same crime

i just said the reason it's in crisis is the government "borrowing" it lol. i mean, they're legally allowed to do it, but that does not make it right.

if only it was a loan

they have never paid any back

they want to convince everyone to change the deal so they do not have to pay it back




being very sheepish about it

like I said, it's technically a "permit" to print money.

The social security trust fund was built up with the idea that it would be drawn down when the boomers retire. It is a non crisis as another person said, they also do not wish to put back what was borrowed.

So, again, how is it a non-crisis that there is no money there to give and a whole pile of debt?