From funny Eddy Murphy movies to Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown time and time again. Are we going to fall for the Obamacare in our tailpipe again like SS?
For a glimpse into the future of Obamacare, try reading any article or blog on the challenges, crises of SS and substitute "obamacare" every time you see "social security".
Increased costs, higher taxes, rationing(less benefits to fewer people), means testing. Social security should be more accurately called "government slush fund" has morphed from a 1% voluntary plan in the 30's to a monstrosity of funding for runaway government spending. Recent projections by Geithner of surpluses in the next decade have already shown to be a problem. Cash flow basis of SS show major erosion of inflow vs. outflow. The only solution is decreased benefits with increased taxes.
But even if Krasting’s commentators are right, this is more of a quibble than anything else. As of the 2008 Social Security Trustees Report, an $87 billion cash surplus was expected for this year. The fact that the program may barely break even on a cash basis shows how much the program’s finances have declined. The main culprit has been higher unemployment, which drives down total wages and payroll tax receipts. Even after employment recovers, however, Social Security’s finances will always be a bit behind where they would have been.
Some argue that this isn’t a big deal, citing the fact that the trust fund continues to be credited with interest on its assets. While this increases Social Security’s ability to draw on non–Social Security revenues, it does nothing to produce the resources needed to meet those demands. As the Congressional Budget Office put it,
"when receipts for such programs as Social Security fall below their expenditures, the legal authority to pay benefits will exist as long as their trust funds have balances, but the government will have to generate cash to pay benefits either by running a surplus in the rest of the budget—which would probably require cutting other spending or raising taxes–or by borrowing from the public."
If it strikes you that these are the same choices we would face if there were no trust fund at all, you’re catching on. http://blog.american.com/?p=9187
It always infuriates me when SS crops up the media(I bet you won't hear much during Obama admin) and our elected elites tell us about the SS "fund". There is no fund. They always refer to it as a fund when they need to take more money out of your wallet. They never tell you it is just part of the general government spending which should be cut to keep up with SS obligations.
Obamacare will be no different. Reports say Obamacare taxes will begin immediately but much of the program won't for 4 years. Does anyone really think that new tax money raised will be put in a "fund" for health care? It will be another Rahm crisis to take advantage of in 4 years. "Golly gee, Bush really caused health care costs to go up these last four years, the Obamacare fund is broke before it started! "
Negative COLA this year! Decreased benefit to seniors but didn't congress get a raise?
There was a onetime negative COLA adjustment that kicked in January 1. Rather than the usual increase, beneficiaries are getting smaller checks. The difference between the December and January payments comes to $475 million. That re-base means a reduced outlay for the full year of $6 billion. In the scheme of things that is peanuts. But this is going to be felt most in the Sunbelt states where the bulk of the beneficiaries reside. I believe that a significant percentage of SS payments goes right into consumption.
Rationing, higher taxes, less benefits, means testing, faux "funds". Obamacare will follow the same course.