An Anonymous commenter weighed in on the G2A FICA: Income vs Benefit post with a link that has a wealth of charts, ideas, etc. (Heritage: Federal Budget in Pictures) (Heritage: About Fed budget Pics)
Now it looks like the Heritage Foundation has been around for quite awhile. (About Heritage Foundation) So one may assume they are relatively reasonable and supported by someone, yet to me they definitely seem to be far off to the Right and somewhat Totalitarian. (Heritage: Issues) Which is where the Nolan chart would put them. (Nolan Chart)
Including one of my favorite inconsistencies. (Heritage: Obamacare) Where they complain about their Religious Rights being trampled on while trying to take away the Rights of those that are Pro-Choice. (G2A Abortion and Conservatives)
With this wealth of info and opinion, I am sure I'll be looking further into their web pages. Until then... What do you think about this Organization and their beliefs? Especially their plan to Save the Dream.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
It's a group created and supported by right wing groups, and takes their views. I wouldn't dismiss their work, but what would disturb me is that their views seem to change depending on the political interests of their supporters. The Heritage Foundation once supported the individual mandate. The logic for the mandate hasn't changed since then, what has changed is the politics of the Republican Party.
--Hiram
They are a think tank that includes many conservatives-- maybe all conservatives, I don't know. That doesn't make them wrong, nor does it make them inconsistent once you get past simplistic notions such as that "pro-life" is somehow a "totalitarian" position. I always thought that the "right to life" was pretty much of a freedom thing. I think their economic studies are even better-- thorough and eminently sensible.
J. Ewing
What I find inconsistent is their stating that forcing insurance plans to offer something as common as the birth control pill is a violation of religious rights. (ie evil)
While all the while wanting to use the government to demand that all fetus are delivered to live birth per their particular religious beliefs..
In other words... Do as I say... Not as I do...
From Dictionary.com
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
Seems somewhat in line with the concepts of Religious Conservatives...
Then again I suppose it describes a lot of Democrats also...
Here is a provocative piece to be published in next Sunday's New York Times magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/magazine/romneys-former-bain-partner-makes-a-case-for-inequality.html?_r=1&hp
--Hiram
How is freedom preserved by having government tell PRIVATE insurers and PRIVATE corporations what their PRIVATE contracts with PRIVATE citizens must contain? Sounds pretty dictatorial to me! Sure, if somebody decides their insurance should cover that, and is willing to pay extra for it, that SHOULD be their decision. If they're an old bachelor farmer, why would they not have the option to NOT buy it? If they have a personal religious objection, how is it government's job to FORCE them to pay their own money to violate their religious beliefs?
The "inconsistency" is in having government FORCE all children to be aborted before or during birth, and the more sensible position that says human life is sacred or at least important, and that children shouldn't be killed on a whim.
J. Ewing
J. Ewing
How is freedom preserved by having government tell PRIVATE insurers and PRIVATE corporations what their PRIVATE contracts with PRIVATE citizens must contain?
For one thing, is our goal freedom? Or security? In some circumstances we might well choose liberty over death, but are health care decisions one of them?
--Hiram
I don't think any Pro-Choicers are trying to mandate what individual people should do... That's likely why they put "Choice" in their title.
As for controlling what private Organizations offer, maybe that's the Totalitarian Democrats...
Though I am sure there are going to be a bunch of Catholic women who will be disappointed if their Private Insurance will not cover basic modern expenses.
I guess that means they can fund it themselves or find a new job.
It will be interesting to see how those Churches and orgs fare over time. Catholics in Crisis
There is a free market in ideas, just as there is (or should be) in health care and TV sets. How each of the competitors "fare" and whether they change their standards to fare better should be their individual choices.
As for the "pro-choice" label, that is one these folks have chosen for themselves. Nothing wrong with that so long as they permit others to be "pro-life" rather than "anti-choice." Personally, if you want consistency on the issue, I think you have to start with what Alan Keyes wisely said on the issue of abortion: "There can be no right to do that which is wrong."
J. Ewing
Do we have a right to do wrong things?
Sure, more often than not.
NY Times: Case for Inequality
I didn't get through the whole thing, however it was interesting and made some sense. My closet Liberal wonders though if effectiveness improvements reduce costs by 40% and reduce incomes by 50%... Are we ahead in the end? Or behind?
I think the anti-choicers are earning their new name all by themselves. (excellent name by the way) Look at all these control laws they are trying to get passed.
The problem with the Keyes quote is that it implies "someone" knows better. They are the only one who can define wrong. Somewhat condescending...
I am pretty sure that we all know that smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, sloth, etc are wrong. In fact we are pretty sure that it kills off many people. (probably more than abortion) Yet these are freedoms that the Conservatives continue to fight for... They deem Gov't control as Bad... Very confusing.
I think I am headed home for a beer, some pizza and my couch...
I did not mean to side track this... What do you all think of their Save the Dream plan?
I think it is a very scholarly work, no doubt solid in its numbers, and achieves the desired goal of quickly reducing the deficit. However, I find it too timid in spots-- lacking in imagination. Elements of it are good and necessary, like going from full Medicare fee-for-service to a capped premium support plan and letting free market competition work. Medicaid reform is similar.
Social Security reform, however, does too much to preserve the current system and ends up breaking the promises that were made to current and near retirees. That shouldn't be, and raising the retirement age is breaking the promises already made to younger folks. The system needs to be ended gracefully.
Their tax reform plan is a flat tax, much broader than most others proposed, and excludes savings and investments until withdrawn. All good, and maybe the boldest and most imaginative of their proposals.
Their proposals for cutting duplication and waste and reforming all of the "minor" programs are very good, and should be done immediately if not sooner. It's proof Congress hasn't been minding the budget at all.
A lot of their proposal has merit, and is much like part of the Ryan budget plan-- the Medicare and Medicaid proposals specifically. Their Social Security and Tax plans could both be achieved better, and with additional benefit to the economy as a whole, with the implementation of a FAIR tax.
J. Ewing
Social Security reform, however, does too much to preserve the current system and ends up breaking the promises that were made to current and near retirees.
Social Security reform is not a person, and as such, not capable of breaking a promise. Promises can only be broken by people. It's very important to understand that this isn't a passive sort of process. The decision to cut taxes, the decision to spend things on other things besides Social Security, is a decision to break the promises Ronald Reagan made in 1983. And maybe that's the right decision. Do we really need a lot of old people hanging around draining resources from productive younger workers? I mean they were useful once, taking care of us, and allowing us to use the car on Saturday night. But those times are in the past now. Maybe the right thing now is for all of them to recede into the shadows, allowing the rest of us to get iPods.
--Hiram
I find this to be one of the most interesting graphs. Tax Rev Devoured by Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in 2045 If it is correct, it definitely explains the problem very well.
I just don't see any of their assumptions regarding what GDP growth rate they are using. Though I'll take a look at their source when I get some time.
CBO Long Term Outlook
Check out pg 80 of the CBO report. I always find it fascinating how a few tweaks to a graph can give it a terribly different impact.
By looking at the CBO chart it becomes obvious that only Healthcare is the BIG BIG problem. Yet seeing that Soc Security hardly shifts wouldn't scare anyone adequately.
Plan : Medicare
Plan Medicaid
G2A Healthcare Drivers
Would it help to say that "promises were made" on BEHALF of Social Security, because they were, and continue to be. Heck, for a time, it was not only called a promise but an "investment" or "retirement plan" and it is still called "insurance" when it really is none of those things. Most of the money coming in immediately goes out to pay current recipients (exactly like a Ponzi scheme) and any surplus gets spent while putting a bookkeeping entry into the federal ledger and calling it a "trust fund." Every time that will come out of that trust fund will have to be raised at the time it is needed, because there is nothing there except a promise to pay.
John is right, though, that the unfunded liability of Social Security pales compared to Medicare and Medicaid. Fortunately those two programs can be reformed almost immediately without breaking many promises or creating hardships as instant reform would cause with Social Security. That said, I prefer the Ryan plan for the former and the FAIR tax for the latter, rather than the Heritage solution.
J. Ewing
That's "every DIME" not "every TIME."
Would it help to say that "promises were made" on BEHALF of Social Security, because they were, and continue to be.
It would help to say the American people made promises, to use the active, rather than passive voice. And these are the promises some politicians want to break.
Promises are made by and for people. You make a promise on behalf of a person, not a thing. Social Security promises were not made on behalf of Social Security, they were made on behalf of the American people through their elected representatives. That, in it's most fundamental way, is how representative government works.
--Hiram
Historically, Social Security has served three functions, as a pension plan, an insurance plan, and as a welfare plan. It partakes of all of these things, but none of them is completely accurate description of what Social Security does. I would say calling it an investment plan isn't helpful because it's performance and benefits isn't dependent or linked to the amount put in. There is no Social Security trust fund whose performance we can track in the same way that there is no Department of Defense trust fund.
--Hiram
The point being that SS is "broke" in any sensible meaning of the term, and "broken" in a programmatic sense in that it is unsustainable in its current form. It always was unsustainable, just propped up by one fix after another, exacerbated by more political pandering from time to time-- more "promises" that could not be kept.
The Heritage plan suggests, as I read it, more of the same, though they recognize that it is mostly (intended to be) a welfare plan and would means-test benefits, while raising the retirement age. Wealthy contributors would then get NOTHING for their "investment," putting the lie to the notion that it is an investment or retirement plan, while actually doing nothing to actually persuade these wealthy folks to set something aside. Everyone suspects they will, but why not extend that same logic to those who WILL receive SS benefits? Give EVERYBODY a (OK, mandatory) IRA account in exchange for a reduced SS tax? That's the "automatic SS reform" produced by the FAIR tax-- a smooth and seamless transition over 40 years.
J. Ewing
The problem is that we are getting older. How are we going to pay for that?
I while back, I heard an interesting piece of jargon. It was said that we "admire" the problem. I think where these issues are concerned, we seem to admire the problem as opposed to solving it.
--Hiram
"The Heritage plan suggests, as I read it, more of the same, though they recognize that it is mostly (intended to be) a welfare plan and would means-test benefits, while raising the retirement age."
Means testing with respect to Social Security has always been problematic. It breaks the promises that we have always made for the program. Also, there are political issues. The feeling has always been that since most Americans participate in the program, most Americans have a stake in protecting it. Even now, that's under challenge. You will see that most people in the media and in lobbying groups who criticize or what to limit Social Security are rich and do not think they will be dependent on it. A naive assumption by the way.
How many poor people were on the Erskine Bowles commission, do you think?
--Hiram
That was the same thought I was having. That medicare/health bill is coming due with the demographic shift and will have to be paid by someone. Whether the money comes via the government or out of our individual check books.
So it looks like we are back to the usual question, where is the waste in healthcare spending and how do we chop it out? (ie socialized, privatized or some mix)
G2A Cost Drivers
As for means testing SS, I definitely know some retired wealthy Conservatives who will be very angry if they don't keep getting their checks. They are already frustrated with some of that which is occurring.
Wiki NCFRR
As I have said, the problem with Heritage and other "conservative" plans is that they refuse to say that SS is a Ponzi scheme, unsustainable, a poor investment, just a welfare plan or any of the other lies constantly peddled about it. Those lies lead to people who say things like "it doesn't go broke until 2037" or "all it needs is a little tinkering around the edges." Who is going to pay for the retirement of the Boomers? It's too late now, but the correct answer for everyone 65 and under is "you will, and you had best start saving for your own, as well."
That's the problem. It isn't a government responsibility to provide a retirement income for everybody, or for ANYBODY, for that matter. That is something you provide for yourself, or your children provide for you, or you fall back on charity, OR you keep working. It is vastly more efficient than SS ever thought of being; nobody tells you when you must retire or should be able to retire or can retire.
The same old question has the same old answer: Get government out of the health care business entirely and costs drop 50%. The waste is in the very nature of the government-run health "insurance" model.
J. Ewing
Ok J,
You seem to be missing the point. The graph shows SS barely increasing. Why screw with a good thing?
Also, cough up some sources that back up this 50% cost drop number that you continually quote...
"As I have said, the problem with Heritage and other "conservative" plans is that they refuse to say that SS is a Ponzi scheme, unsustainable, a poor investment, just a welfare plan or any of the other lies constantly peddled about it."
How would saying that help address the problem? Does saying Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, somehow excuse us from keeping the promises we made with respect to it? In this or really any area of life, does labeling a problem really help us solve it?
"It isn't a government responsibility to provide a retirement income for everybody, or for ANYBODY, for that matter."
True. It's our responsibility. Government didn't make the promises, Ponzi-ish or not that constitute Social Security, we did. And we are the ones responsible for keeping them.
--Hiram
The same old question has the same old answer: Get government out of the health care business entirely and costs drop 50%
Is that because fifty percent fewer people get health care? Is that because old people no longer get health care?
--Hiram
It is because the combination of fee-for-service, third-party-payer, mandated coverage and first-dollar coverage which define Medicare and Medicaid create a "disconnect" between the people choosing those services they need and the government that pays the bills.
There is a Mayo study which concluded that was the number, and I can personally attest to it. When my company health plan was switched, my care improved and costs were cut by half.
J.
Not much of a source, and your Management must have had a really really bad insurance provider if they realized that incredible of a savings just by changing companies. On top of this, the new company would have been working under the same government bureaucracy /regs. So these could not have been the source of the savings.
Well I'll give it a try:
Unsustainable Cost
PBS Healthcare Costs
UPenn Paper
Bloomberg Mayo Medicare
The last one says that Mayo loses money because Medicare payments are lower than their costs. Or they can make more from Private Insurance. Kind of opposite of your statement.
I appreciate the effort, but you seem to have flaws in your facts and thus in your conclusions.
My company did not switch insurance companies, they switched PLANS. They switched to a plan that eliminated first-dollar coverage, mandated coverages and fee-for-service, so it was drastically unlike Medicare and Medicaid, and escaped the mandated coverage rules by covering only what was used. No old bachelors claimed a maternity benefit.
And Mayo is RIGHT. They can't get by on what Medicare pays, because Medicare as it is now pays only about 1/3 of actual charges, and not even Mayo can get costs down much more than 50%. And Medicare payouts will get worse under Obamacare, because it MUST. It is the wrong model-- government-run, one-size-fits-all-- for providing goods and services.
I'll credit Heritage for tackling the ginormous problem of the federal budget, but they haven't gone far enough in spots, IMHO. Government could do better with less.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment