Yes, that too! And then it is not solely a matter of priorities, but that is significant piece of the problem. On a national level I am talking about essentially two things, medical and defense expenditures. Bring those expenditures into line with what other industrialized countries spend per capita and you have essentially solved the debt problem. Health care must be a high priority item, but here the problem is lack of competition and choice -- maybe health care is a bad fit to the capitalist mold. (I don't mean to suggest that their isn't some unwise expenditures elsewhere in government.) On a state and local level it is medical costs again. But there are plenty of opportunities to revise priorities. For example, do you want to continue spending one fifth (20%) of each tax dollar on prisons, or do you want to end the failed experiment in for-profit prisons, get rid of mandatory sentencing, and go back to state run prisons. This will raise the cost per prison bed, but cut overall prison expenditure by at least 50%. You may have to choose between somewhat smoother streets and rough schools, or better schools and rougher streets. Do you want to continue spending your money creating burglars and thieves and high prison and law enforcement costs? If you do, then continue insisting that illicit drug use is a crime problem, otherwise recognize drug abuse as a health problem, legalize it, take the profit out of it, and cut your prison and law enforcement costs, and the crime rate to a small fraction of what it is now. You'll still have a drug problem, maybe a little less of one, but you'll have saved a billion dollars or more that could be spent on schools (or roads), and cut the amount of petty crime to near zero. The money is there. It's where it is that needs to be altered. Money moves when priorities change.
medicare bad. medicaid good Legalize It crooked people on the take don't like my ideas 50% of all Americans should be on food stamps get the government out of the health care business Government should pay the medical bill for anyone who is too poor to pay it themselves We made a decision a long time ago that people who were too poor to pay for their education would be doomed to a life of poverty and decided that was not good for you or me or the country defense? how bout a defense tax. You want us in Japan? You pay us tribute. Same for Germany. Same for Israel. Same for Canada. Same for Switzerland. Otherwise you can just start your own army up and defend yourself, not our problem. and don't even get me started on taxes, other than all bribes travel at some point through the tax code
maybe they'll figure it out when cancer patients start knocking off liquor stores to pay for their chemo
Oldtime, where would you draw the line? What is "too poor" ? What do you do with those on the cusp making too much to qualify for medicaid but not enough to afford medical insurance without being thrown back into poverty? There are millions who fall into this category. Are medical costs double or more than that of any other industrialized country an acceptable justification for swelling the ranks of the poor?
ECONOMY September 21, 2012, 8:02 p.m. ET Pension Crisis Looms Despite Cuts Almost Every State Trims Public-Employee Benefits but $900 Billion Retirement Funding Gap Remains By MICHAEL CORKERY Almost every state in the U.S. has made cuts to its public-employee pensions, seeking to dig out from the economic downturn, but so far the measures have fallen well short of bridging a nearly $1 trillion funding gap. Since 2009, 45 states have rolled back pension benefits for teachers, police, firefighters and other public workers, including cuts by Michigan and California this month. Next week, Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich is expected to sign legislation requiring, for example, that certain teachers work longer and pay more toward their pensions. The state measures show how economic forces are reshaping traditional rivalries, convincing lawmakers and labor leaders that past public pension plans are unsustainable. In Ohio and elsewhere, politically potent unions have locked arms with state officials over the pension cuts. image image But the new laws have trimmed just $100 billion out of the $900 billion gap between what the states and their workers put into their retirement plans and what the states owe in retirement benefits, according to estimates prepared for The Wall Street Journal by researchers at Boston College. Unfunded liabilities in many states grew to troubling levels after investment losses in the 2008 financial crisis depleted pension assets. While most states have approved some form of pension cuts, many have opted to apply those changes only to workers who have yet to be hired. That means most of the savings won't be realized for decades, when the most expensive retirement benefits come off the books. Changes made to the retirement plans of newly hired workers are expected to reduce pension costs by 25% over the next 35 years, according to Boston College estimates. For years, part of the attraction of public service jobs has been guaranteed pensions and other benefits. That remains largely intact for current workers. Only a handful of states have replaced some guaranteed pension benefits with 401(k)-style retirement accounts that are commonplace in U.S. corporations. Experts say the differences between public and private retirement benefits will eventually narrow as cuts to new workers' plans take hold. Many states have avoided reducing benefits for current workers or retirees, saying the plans have legal protections. Courts in Minnesota and Colorado have ruled that cost-of-living raises can be reduced. "There is a lot of gray area,'' said Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. More states could try to cut future benefits for current workers because the laws aren't clear, she said. Earlier this month, California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed pension reductions he called the "biggest rollback to public pension benefits in the history of California pensions." The changes, mostly for newly hired workers, are expected to save the state retirement system as much as $55 billion over the next few decades. But the measures won't immediately reduce unfunded liability, said spokesman for Calpers, the state pension fund. A spokesman for the California department of finance said the pension changes would achieve some immediate savings, but they are largely designed to address the long term sustainability of the retirement system. He said pensions of current workers were "vested rights" that can't be altered The $100 billion reduction in unfunded liabilities comes from such states as Rhode Island and New Jersey, which suspended annual cost-of-living raises for retirees, according to the Boston College estimates. States also have shifted more pension costs to employees. As of 2010, state workers were paying 10% more toward their retirement plans compared with three years earlier, according to Boston College. These increased contributions will gradually reduce unfunded liabilities. Some states say they need more immediate relief. On Friday, the Teachers Retirement System of the State of Illinois said its pension bill to the state would increase by about $300 million in the fiscal year that starts next July. The higher costs derive from a pension board decision to lower its assumed rate of investment return, citing the "volatility of the world economy." The lower the expected return, the more the pension's unfunded liabilities growââ¬âunless the state fills the gap with higher contributions from employees or taxpayers, or tries to cut benefits. Illinois lawmakers had a chance to address the deepening hole last month but they couldn't agree on a bill to limit cost-of-living adjustments. "Changes of some sort are necessary and everyone expects them to happen,'' said Richard Ingram, executive director of the Illinois teachers' pension fund. In Ohio, lawmakers this month passed a series of changes that touch current and retired workers, along with new hires. Many of the state's public-employee unions supported the pension cuts less than a year after they fought a bruising battle with Republican lawmakers to retain their current rights to collective bargaining. But on the pension issue, many state labor leaders agreed that their members' retirement benefits needed to be trimmed. "It is a tough pill to swallow,'' said Kevin Griffin, who is president of the local teachers union and an English teacher in Dublin, Ohio. An educator since 1994, Mr. Griffin will now have to retire later and pay more of his salary to receive a smaller pension. "We had to make the math work," he said. "It came down to the question of whether there will be a pension there for me when I retire or not." Not all unions are cooperating. Rhode Island, for instance, shifted some workers into a retirement plan that combines traditional pension benefits with 401(k)-style accounts that leave investment choices to employees. A group of labor unions and retired public workers have filed lawsuits in state court challenging the pension changes passed a year ago. Write to Michael Corkery at michael.corkery@wsj.com piezoe + old time live in a dream world. the US is broke. the rest of the world is beginning to recognize it. there are 50 greeces in the US known as states. the price of gold is up 4X in ten years. it should tell you something.
like I said, the limt for food stamps and medicaid should be raised so just about 50% of the population qualifies. For crying out loud, we are talking about food and health care for the needy. We can fight a war anywhere you name, but we can't take care of just basic needs? It isn't that much money. My mother gets all her medical bills paid by medicare. It is just plain crazy. She can pay until she reaches the poverty level and we can pay for it from then on. All she is going do with that money is leave to me. So, in a sense, they are taking money out of your paycheck so I can inherit more money. medical insurance, If I was dictator I would outlaw it. But I understand the purpose of insurance is to protect from financial ruin. Single payer won't get it in my opinion. I use to hit a lot of deer and I saw how the body shop treated the whole thing, because they were never billing me, they were billing the insurance company. If more people had no insurance and paid their own bills and knew in case of something really bad they would be paid by the government, everything would be more in equalibrium. But this idea that the government must pay because I don't want to sell everything and be reduced back down to the poverty level is just too damn bad. After all, it is your life, and if your life isn't worth your net worth I don't want to spend my money saving it.
I'm in a lifelong learning about health so I can be healthy. I don't want to pay the bills for people that eat at McDonald's. The government should hand the healthcare bill to purveyors of alcohol, fast food, big pharma, big tobacco, etc.
not the purveyors, the consumers who abuse the substance. So many people I know that are in the hospital all the time are so overweight I wonder how their body can even support them. It's like hauling bricks in a volkswagon all the time. I don't eat at McDonalds, but if I did, I shouldn't be chaged more because somebody else eats there everyday. And there is nothing wrong with a small amount of beef, some bread, lettuce tomatoes and onions. Actually that is a very healthy meal. Now stacking them up, drowning them in fattening sauce, adding french fries and a soft drink on a daily basis is a problem. I went on a fat free diet when I was young and quickly realized it isn't the food, it's the fat that people crave. The more you have the more you want. Now tobacco? I've probably paid enough in cigarette taxes to put several poor kids through school, k thr 12, and maybe a few years in college.