Entitlement Rip-Off
By John Stossel (Archive) · Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones.

These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises.

But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things.

Those days are gone. The huge group of baby boomers has started to retire, and that means trouble. In 2008, for the first time, Medicare paid out more than it took in.

So instead of filling the government's coffers and hiding the real size of the budget deficit, the entitlement programs have now begun to drain the treasury. Part of the "problem" is that we live longer. When Social Security started, most people didn't live to 65. Now we average 78.

This means that baby boomers like me who expect to collect Social Security and Medicare are basically stealing from children.

Think of the burden: When I was a kid, there were five workers for every retired person. Now, there are only three. And soon there will only be two young workers to fund each baby boomer's Social Security and Medicare checks.

Veronique de Rugy, an economist at the Mercatus Center, points out that Social and Medicare right now consume almost half the federal budget. In coming years, if nothing changes, they will swallow nearly the whole thing. But since Congress will want to spend money on all the other things it now buys -- not to mention a new medical entitlement -- the government will either have to raise taxes to stratospheric heights, borrow like crazy or inflate the dollar. Whichever it chooses, we'll have serious problems.

Higher taxes are not a good solution because taxation suppresses economic activity by transferring capital to politicians. Yet our only hope is a sustained economic boom.

As Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., points out: "You literally cannot tax your way out of this problem. It's not mathematically possible. ... You wipe out the middle class."

Well, how about borrowing? That might mean raising interest rates, which, again, would depress economic activity. Even then, lenders such as China may soon be too nervous to lend Uncle Sam more money. Moody's recently announced it might downgrade America's credit rating.

The most likely outcome is that the Fed will print more money, inflating the currency, so that the creditors are paid with less-valuable dollars. Our purchasing power will disappear.

The architects of the welfare state sure have left us a big mess. Yet hardly anyone talks about entitlements, except to add new ones.

De Rugy asks: Why can't people take care of their own retirement by investing the money government now takes? Had we done this all along, the looming problem would have been averted. Instead, "We're about to witness the biggest, most massive transfer of wealth from the relatively young and poor people of society to the relatively old and wealthy people in society."

Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: "We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear." Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington.

COPYRIGHT 2010 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS, INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

The ‘Costs’ of Medical Care

By Thomas Sowell












http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | We are incessantly being told that the cost of medical care is "too high" — either absolutely or as a growing percentage of our incomes. But nothing that is being proposed by the government is likely to lower those costs, and much that is being proposed is almost certain to increase the costs.


There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes — or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.


Costs are not reduced simply because you don't pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER

Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.



Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive — but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.


Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance — and fewer people who can afford it.


Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.


If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.


What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.


Britain has had a government-run medical system for more than half a century and it has to import doctors, including some from Third World countries where the medical training may not be the best. In short, reducing doctors' income is not reducing the cost of medical care, it is refusing to pay those costs. Like other ways of refusing to pay costs, it has consequences.


Any one of us can reduce medical costs by refusing to pay them. In our own lives, we recognize the consequences. But when someone with a gift for rhetoric tells us that the government can reduce the costs without consequences, we are ready to believe in such political miracles.


There are some ways in which the real costs of medical care can be reduced but the people who are leading the charge for a government takeover of medical care are not the least bit interested in actually reducing those costs, as distinguished from shifting the costs around or just refusing to pay them.


The high costs of "defensive medicine" — expensive tests, medications and procedures required to protect doctors and hospitals from ruinous lawsuits, rather than to help the patients — could be reduced by not letting lawyers get away with filing frivolous lawsuits.


If a court of law determines that the claims made in such lawsuits are bogus, then those who filed those claims could be forced to reimburse those who have been sued for all their expenses, including their attorneys' fees and the lost time of people who have other things to do. But politicians who get huge campaign contributions from lawyers are not about to pass laws to do this.


Why should they, when it is so much easier just to start a political stampede with fiery rhetoric and glittering promises?

The very fact you guys are praising a politician's work in reforming health care is a bit scary. Who do you think created the health care problem in the first place? Health care companies cannot make policy or pass legislation. Politicians have that power and responsibility. Read Dr. Williams column addressing this very subject...."Who Poses the Greater Threat?"


A MINORITY VIEW

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010



Who Poses the Greater Threat?



Bill Gates is the world's richest person, but what kind of power does he have over you? Can he force your kid to go to a school you do not want him to attend? Can he deny you the right to braid hair in your home for a living? It turns out that a local politician, who might deny us the right to earn a living and dictates which school our kid attends, has far greater power over our lives than any rich person. Rich people can gain power over us, but to do so, they must get permission from our elected representatives at the federal, state or local levels. For example, I might wish to purchase sugar from a Caribbean producer, but America's sugar lobby pays congressmen hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to impose sugar import tariffs and quotas, forcing me and every other American to purchase their more expensive sugar.

Politicians love pitting us against the rich. All by themselves, the rich have absolutely no power over us. To rip us off, they need the might of Congress to rig the economic game. It's a slick political sleight-of-hand where politicians and their allies amongst the intellectuals, talking heads and the news media get us caught up in the politics of envy as part of their agenda for greater control over our lives.

The sugar lobby is just one example among thousands. Just ask yourself: Who were the major recipients of the billions of taxpayer bailout dollars, the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)? The top recipients of TARP handouts included companies such as Citibank, AIG, Goldman Sachs and General Motors. Their top management are paid tens of millions dollars to run companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy, were it not for billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Politicians preach the politics of envy whilst reaching into the ordinary man's pockets, through the IRS, and handing it over to their favorite rich people and others who make large contributions to their election efforts.

The bottom line is that it is politicians first and their supporters amongst intellectuals who pose the greatest threat to liberty. Dr. Thomas Sowell amply demonstrates this in his brand-new book, "Intellectuals and Society," in which he points out that: "Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies ... Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators each ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them."

While American politicians and intellectuals have not reached the depths of tyrants such as Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, they share a common vision. Tyrants denounce free markets and voluntary exchange. They are the chief supporters of reduced private property rights, reduced rights to profits, and they are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They are pro-control and coercion, by the state. These Americans who run Washington, and their intellectual supporters, believe they have superior wisdom and greater intelligence than the masses. They believe they have been ordained to forcibly impose that wisdom on the rest of us. Like any other tyrant, they have what they consider good reasons for restricting the freedom of others. A tyrant's primary agenda calls for the elimination or attenuation of the market. Why? Markets imply voluntary exchange and tyrants do not trust that people behaving voluntarily will do what the tyrant thinks they should do. Therefore, they seek to replace the market with economic planning and regulation, which is little more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by the powerful elite.

We Americans have forgotten founder Thomas Paine's warning that "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

Now, let me get this straight......we're trying to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief whodidn't pay his taxes, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

What the heck could possibly go wrong?

The following text was a post made on the WSJ web site which illustrates my point: "... I’ve paid into medicare all my life, now I’m 55 and my husband was laid off in January, he is 57. We both have advanced engineering degrees, we are looking full time for jobs, there aren’t any. Our cobra costs 21,000/year. How long do you think we can afford that? We have never been sick and I don’t believe we’ve spent over $1500 for the past 5 years. We have two kids one dean’s list in college the other an A student in high school. What would you like us to do? Being unemployed and at our age we can’t afford private insurance. Maybe you know of a group plan we can buy into."

This woman only now knows the true cost of healthcare because they have to rely on COBRA. When they were employed, they probably didn't know, and additionally, didn't give it much thought since they figured the employer was paying. People have to be made to understand how much they're sacrificing with employer-based healthcare. The question is, how do we as a country communicate that FACT to employees? How do we shake them out of their naive complacency?

The real barrier to achieving a single payer system is getting people who receive employer sponsored healthcare to understand how excessive their premiums are. Most employees don't really know much is paid in premiums because they don't see how much their employer pays, they only know their portion of the premium. Consequently, they can't see how healthcare costs are diminishing their potential for increased wages or retirement contributions from their employer. Some way has to be found to communicate the excessive costs of healthcare to those who receive healthcare from their employers. Otherwise, it will be an uphill climb to achieve a single payer system.

THANK YOU, Senator. In a congress that is absolutely saturated with corruption, there are a few members strong enough to refuse to participate in it. And even fewer willing to call it out. Honor, courage, intellect, and empathy have to all be present before change for the better can come, and you are reason to hope.

When there are those in the senate and congress bought and paid for and controlled by the corporate "new world order" (that Bush Sr. bragged about), there will be corruption of unbelievable scope that affects all of us. Democrats are not immune to bribery and selling of their souls for a dollar. Please go to this site to see a Democrat who is for the new world order:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=...

Please don't let this get under your skin!
The real road to helping fight evil:
Don't get implanted - Go to church on Saturday (the real Sabbath) and honor God! May God Bless you all and Bernie Sanders.

After seeing this my boyfriend, Harold, said to tell you, Bernie, that he would like to see you run for President. "I'd like to see someone who does something besides just talk."

Thank you, Bernie, for standing up and speaking out for those of us who do not want to keep supporting the private insurance industry. The idea of health care for profit is a waste of money and lives. We need single payer!

Thank you for all you do. Please work to expand the public option so ALL citizens can have access to this choice regardless of their employment status. As Congressman and like Federal Employees, you have choice -- give me the same opportunity to participate in a similar health exchange so I can have true choice. Give me portability so I don't have to change insurance companies when I change my employment status and let me take it into retirement or al least until I can get Medicare. I currently work for a large company and I have no choice in health insurance. My employer is interested in keeping costs down and because of that we have a very bad policy through United Healthcare. This company was taken to court in New York for how they were fleecing their customers in fraudulent out-of network schemes. The New York Attorney General case against United Healthcare discussed the game that insurance companies are playing by denyng, delaying and deceiving their customers. It takes me so much time to try to get fair reimbursement and I have to fight almost every bill that I submit which takes time away from the job that I am currenlty employed at. This is a drain on our economy - economists refer to this as "deadweight." The average citizen needs more protection against these huge Goliaths by also reforming current practices by these companies. The "usual, customary, and reasonable" known as UCRs need to be reformed so customers can be fairly reimbursed when they go out of network. Why do we even need out-of-network and in-network - -the whole thing is a scam. In one instance, the insurance company was only reimbursing me $20 out of a bill for a one hour session with a doctor that cost me $165.00 because I went out-of-network. I thought it was supposed to be the other way around where my co-pay is $20! They based it on the UCR rate but I have never been able to get them to explain how they derived this code. We need transparency in the system so when I access healthcare, I will know what I truly have to pay and not Russian Roulette by the insurance company in whatever they decide as a whim to reimburse me. I want to pay a "true" premium. Right now they lowball the premium and make it look good but in actuality I end up paying double or triple when they deny or hardly reimburse me anything on claims.

This company also insists that I mail in my claims and does not allow me to do it electronically in this day and age! I think they hope that they can slow down payment being saying that the claims got lost in the mail - then it takes me additional time and expense to send everything by certified mail. In this current health insurance system, one needs to be healthy, wealthy, or lucky.

Please also work to overturn the anti-trust act that insurers are now using to continue their fraudulent pricing practices and exorbitant profits. I don't mind paying for health insurance as long as I am getting the services that I am entitled to.

It is a shame that I have worked for 30 years and have a graduate degree and yet feel so much anxiety and that I am being ripped off by these insurance companies and wonder how I will survive if I live until 90 in dignity. I am 55 and I am scared of being forced out of a job, not qualifying for any of my 401-K savings or social security, and then having to worry about how I will be able to pay health care on top of this without becoming bankrupt. Who can afford COBRA without a job? If we can have fair affordable access to healthcare, this will take a load off of people's mind and also help to provide more new employment in the economy.

Dear Senator
I feel like I have been fighting an up hill battle with my own Democrat party to get a good insurance reform. I am also self employed and with the down turn in the housing industry [we have a residential remodel business] we have lost half of our income. We are paying our health insurance, but truthfully if either my husband or I were to become ill it would not pay for our care. I really never realized until now that even with insurance you are doomed to possible bankruptcy. We need better from our representives, I voted for change and I do not see it. Where is the heart in these Senators, Nelson,Landrieu,Baucus,Conrad and even Reid??? I am so frustrated!! I never considered that when the Democrats gained control in the White House, Senate and House they would not do what is right and moral for all Americans, I guess I was naive. Thank You for all you are doing and I also would like to see a single payer system.

"we may end up with legislation that will allow states to go forward with single-payer if they want to. "
and what if the states don't want to? I am confused. I thought we voters voted for real reform and insurance for everyone. If single payer is up to the states, how will anything change from what we have now? what about states that choose not to go forward with a single payer? This will determine where people live. If my state doesn't go forward with it... then I guess I would have to move. If only one state decides to go forward with it.. then there is gonna be alot of folks living in that state for sure.

I absolutely agree with your statement. We should establish a Single Payer System in the USA. All the proposals hide the fact that the Insurance Industry lobbyists are getting their way (in spite of their false claims of opposition to the legislative proposals being considered). But the problem goes beyond the Single Payer. We should look seriously into disallowing for-profit corporations to run our health care provider Hospitals, Clinics, Laboratories and Research Centers. There it is where our money gets diverted into the pockets of corporate tycoons giving them obscene profits. We can provide the same quality of service, or better, with non-profits under local control and monitored by the States. We need only the will to get it done.