I was a little startled by Jim Shella’s statement that, in Indiana’s Fifth District, 30% of the voters are retired. Given the context of the blog post, I think that means that maybe that number are also on Social Security.
This is Dan Burton’s district; a reliably conservative district. It reinforces my sense that the talk about “small government” is usefully inexact. What is desired is not really less government; but, rather, government benefits that go to Us – the deserving and not government benefits that take from Us (the deserving) and give to Them (the undeserving.)
The utility of “small government” is that it tends to short circuit a close examination of who Us and Them might be and what it is that makes Us deserving and Them undeserving. When someone points out this or that part of government that isn’t small and that isn’t getting objected to by small government advocates, they can just protest, “we’re not anarchists!”
And don’t forget that they want the Gubbmint to get keep its hands off their Medicare, too!
I totally agree that taking Medicare and complaining about “Big Gobment” is about as stupid as it gets.
I do, however, understand how people that want small government can take social security without regret.
When they were working, they were told two things when the government was taking two separate amounts from their paycheck:
-These are taxes, they are needed to make the country run.
-This is FICA, and it isn’t tax. This money is just set aside for you later when you retire.
I can see where someone would say “My social security check isn’t coming from the government, this is my own money being returned to me”. There is a certain misunderstanding of the way SS works here, but the confusion is understandable.
All of that said, I agree that I’ve seen many people that take both SS and Medicare complain about big government, and I delight in pointing out the contraction to them. Unless it is my parents-in-law…
No offense, but attacks regarding accepting (and wanting) Medicare make little sense. Taxpayers have been paying into this system for decades with the promise that the government would provide for them. People relied on this government promise in making their life decisions. Now you want to attack them for not wanting that benefit taken away?
Second, this whole argument that if you like “small government” you have to dislike X (Social Security, Medicare, Defense spending, etc…) is logically false. A person that likes “Big Government” might want to spend more on A,B,C,D,E, and F. A person that likes small government might like A,B,C, and F. If they happen to like F, (or G, for that matter), that does not invalidate their position any more than a Big Government person has to like G.
My argument is more that “small government” is a misnomer. The argument isn’t really about “big government” and “small government”. (At least not for most). The argument is really about “this bundle of government services” versus “that bundle of government services.” But being upfront about that and abandoning the “small government” rhetoric means you have to answer tough questions about why you favor this but not that.
For example, I assume a lawmaker would rather talk generally about the evils of Big Government than discuss why he is in favor of farm bill crop subsidies but not unemployment benefits.
Yeah, wealth transfers are tricky. It is hard to explain why you are taking from Paul to pay Peter. Additionally, it becomes a game to make sure the recipient qualifies for the maximum benefit. That is one reason I dislike wealth transfer payments in general.
That being said, people do make strong appeals that wealth transfers are necessary. Example, the number of children in poverty makes me sick. You reflexively want to help them by giving money to their parents, despite the fact that it might be better for society to force the parents to obtain employment.
Medicare wasn’t supposed to be something you are owed. It is supposed to be a safety net.
If you are taking social security, you’re getting your money back. If you’re taking Medicare, you’re taking my money. If you can’t afford health care, I’m fine with that. If you can, then you’re stealing from me.
Are you making a distinction between Medicare and Medicaid? Medicaid is a safety net for poor people. I believe Medicare is more like Social Security, loosely based on the theory that you paid “premiums” for this health care during your working life through payroll taxes. Medicare is also based on the reality that health insurers aren’t terribly interested in insuring old people.
Ok, thanks.
So, why are we not doing the same thing as Medicare for everyone? Why do we discriminate against younger people?
In other words, how can someone be on Medicare and oppose universal health care?
Good questions.
As I recall, Congressional Republicans and a few conservative Democrats opposed the “public option” which, as I understand it, would’ve been essentially a Medicare policy for which you could pay premiums.
Medicare is for the aged. It is basically free health insurance, (with deductibles).
Medicaid is for the poor. There are very strict asset and income qualifications to receive Medicaid.
In both of the above, there isn’t much “stealing” going on. I think the way we implemented Social Security was a mistake, but Medicare and Medicaid make sense to me.
Social Security and Medicare are two of the largest government programs that exist. They transfer huge amounts of wealth and they are not systems that are “paid into.” They are contemporary wealth transfers from working people to the elderly and disabled.
That is big government. I do not accept claims from receipients of these programs that they favor small government. They favor government benefits that favor them.
I disagree. They are systems that are “paid into” by virtually all employees. While these programs are funded by current wealth transfers, that was a mistake in the setup. Your last sentence is not accurate as many of those that are receiving SS and Medicare “benefits” are only receiving what they have already paid into the program (and was paid out to those that retired before them).
In fact, if the Chicago Tribune is to be believed, those retiring today on average are receiving less than their lifetime contributions back. This makes for a bad (but mandatory) investment. I would excuse these people for expecting “their” Medicare and SS to be protected, as they paid into the (poorly designed) program for most of their adult lives.
I found the article. That is interesting. But I went to the Urban Institute study and could not find the figures that the article quotes. I could not find the demographic the article writer refers to. http://www.urban.org/publications/412281.html
Every demographic refered to in the study receives more in benefits that paid in the working life. But for many of them the returns are not stellar.
The article makes one salient point that must be considered.. SS contains a disability feature that is not contained defined benefit pensions. This has both a cost and a benefit. If it worth the investment and lower benefits requires additional analysis.
But with regard to Medicare, it is an extremely well designed and efficient plan. It has an administrative expense of 2-3%. No private American healthplan comes close to such efficiency. Nor do the state Medicaid programs, that are botched by many of the state administrations that operate them.
It can run so efficiently because its benefit pool is one of the largest in the world, Its benefit plan is relatively simple, static and predictable with coverage decisions, and does not incur high costs to determine eligibility. You have a number or you don’t. Coverage ends at death.
The benefits are administered by the largest insurers and third-party adminstrators in America with large administrative capacity. It is a public-private collaboration.
It is a far better deal than SS, but SS can be fixed. Taming healthcare costs requires political power that the provider, pharma and payor cannot overcome. That will likely not happen.
I needled my big gubmint-hating mother, who lives in the 5th District a literal stone’s throw from Mike Delph, when she showed me her YMCA pass, which came free thanks to Medicare. I asked her how she felt sucking from the government teat. I don’t think she got the joke.
The more I see what my mother gets from Medicare, the more I see why so many old people were loath to let the rest of us have it.
I recall George Will saying a few years ago that the American electorate is operationally “liberal” (they generally approve current role of government and the attendant benefits), but are idealogically conservative.
I tend to think most of the electorate is ill informed about the cost and distribution of government expenditures. And probably quite self-centered about who gets what.
I heard Marlin Stutzman say the other day that “farmers are risk takers” and would rather that the debt be paid down and the farm bill scaled back. Yet he still wants taxpayer funds transfered to a small constituency that has done very well in the last few years and needs no assistance.
No one is in favor of government waste, unless the government is wasting it on them.
On receiving social security benefits (and I do as a retiree): According to a recent article: in the past many paid more into social security than they lived to receive, but now due to longer lives and changes in eligibility for receiving, many/some will receive several times (article quoted average of 7x) more than they paid into the fund. This presents the possibility of a disaster in funding coming in the future, but will be very likely beyond my life .
I would like to see this article, Jack. I remember reading in the WSJ back in the early 1990s about the relatively disparity between what the then-retirees were receiving versus the future value of what they had paid in.
I would be very suprised if anyone that driaws benefits over the entire period that SS estimates their retirement life draws less than paid in contributions.
The irony of Social Security sustainability and funding is that the problem can be solved with political will. Decrease benefits, increase contributions, delay retirement age, or any combination of the three. It is not insoluble as many commentators claim, and benefits will not be gone “when I retire” as young people cry.
Social Security was modeled after the best extant model in the 1930s, a defined benefit plan, an annuity with a disability component. It is not rocket science or M-Theory making it work. It takes investment advisors, actuaries and benefit managers. And that most rare of American virtues. Political will and the spirit of reasoned thought and compromise.
The information you seek is located in the Chicago Tribune. I can’t provide a cite as I read it in their (free) app.
Thanks, Paul. Here is the article link in the WP
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/retiring-soon-you-probably-paid-more-in-taxes-than-you-will-get-in-social-security-benefits/2012/08/05/412b7a64-defc-11e1-8d48-2b1243f34c85_story_1.html
The study is http://www.urban.org/publications/412281.html
Just a couple of things:
1. Good article, Doug.
2. “Medicare is for the aged. It is basically free health insurance, (with deductibles). ” Medicare is not free. Paul C. is paying for his Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) while he is employed. He will then pay about $100 bucks a month for his Medicare Part B (medical insurance), he will then pay for a Medicare Supplement insurance and he will then pay for a Medicare Part D (prescription drug plan).
Yeah, that’s right. I was trying to keep it simple. Part A is free to the elderly person requesting it (or if you prefer, “prepaid”). Parts B and D are not free.