On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 02:20:53 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:16Â*pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
>> but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
>> these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. Â*BOTH Medicare "B and
>> "D" were passed as general revenue supported programs. Â*Those programs
>> WERE NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.
>>
>> http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicare4.htm
>>
>> In his lust to **** all over social insurance the author of this rag
>> fails to distinguish this fact. Â*And as these programs were never
>> intended to be supported by the Medicare Tax then there are no
>> "unfunded" liabilities any more than defense is an "unfunded"
>> liability. In essence, based on the actual LEGISLATION that created
>> these programs,THERE IS NO GAP. Â*The projected income form Medicare
>> taxes and premiums is $57.4T (his numbers), but there was never any
>> intent for Medicare taxes to fund parts "B" and "D" in any way. He has
>> wrapped up the Medicare tax and the paid in premiums in a toxic
>> enchilada designed to be employed by Republican pig prancers to sew
>> their seeds of fear and distrust of government. Â*I have no numbers on
>> How much of his toxic enchilada is STOLEN Medicare taxes that are
>> supposed to be placed in the Medicare trust fund specifically for
>> Medicare "A", and how much is paid in premiums. But the article is
>> nothing other than the continued assault by Republicans on social
>> insurance systems and government in general.
>>
>>
> Nice try, but this has nothing to do with part D.
>
> "The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the trust
> funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance program are
> depleted: "
>
> "Medicare's hospital insurance program"
>
> http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-
NewTrusteesReport.htm
All of that looks to me that the new Democratic government is looking
very closely at the problem and actually doing that which others in the
past have paid lip service. This, no doubt, infuriates the rightarded.
>
> Here's this is from the report itself, the have it a little confused.
>
>
> http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
>
> "The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the Hospital Insurance (HI)
> Trust Fund is now 3.88 percent of taxable payroll, up from 3.54 percent
> projected in last year's report. The fund again fails our test of
> short-range financial adequacy, as projected annual assets drop below
> projected annual expenditures within 10 years€”by 2012. The fund also
> continues to fail our long range test of close actuarial balance by a
> wide margin. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2017, two
> years earlier than in last year's report, when dedicated revenues would
> be sufficient to pay 81 percent of HI costs. Projected HI dedicated
> revenues fall short of outlays by rapidly increasing margins in all
> future years. The Medicare Report shows that the HI Trust Fund could be
> brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by changes
> equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in the payroll tax (from
> a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an immediate 53 percent
> reduction in program outlays, or some combination of the two. Larger
> changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year
> horizon."
I have already addressed this. The Medicare tax should be assessed on
_ALL_ income and not just on _WAGE_ income, because the benefits are not
tied to wages as are Social Security benefits.
Problem resolved.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson