Again USATODAY misstates the Social Security/Medicare situation/solution

[papau]

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20041005/1a_cover05.art.htm

Solutions for debt crisis go far beyond tinkering
Needed changes could trigger other problems
By Dennis Cauchon and John Waggoner USA TODAY

"What if you didn't qualify for Social Security and Medicare until you were 73 years old? "

THREE ERRORS IN FIRST SENTENCE! THE FIX PROPOSED IS AGE 70 "NORMAL RETIREMENT" - NOT 73 - AND THAT NEED NOT BEGIN UNTIL 2052 - AND WHEN IT BEGINS YOU WILL STILL QUALIFY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AT AGE 62. HELL OF A START FOR AN ARTICLE - BUT THIS IS A GOP PR PIECE REPRINT! :-)

What if the affluent got limited government retirement benefits — and “affluent” was $50,000 a year?

FIX PROPOSED IN LIEU OF INCREASE IN NORMAL RETIREMENT AGE TO 70 IS TO END WAGE BASE LIMITS - WHICH GIVES AFFLUENT MORE BENEFITS - ALBEIT AT THE PRICE OF MORE TAX ON THE RICH! ONLY THE GOP WANT TO GO TO A WELFARE PROGRAM APPROACH AND "NEED BASED" DESIGN.

What if the government said it wouldn't pay for your $100,000 life-saving operation?

FINALLY - SOMETHING THAT IS SADLY LIKELY FOLKS IN THEIR 90's GETTING THESE OPERATIONS MAY NO LONGER BE ABLE TO COUNT ON THE GOVERNMENT PAYING.THIS IS FOLLOWED BY USATODAY REPEATING THE BUSH LIES THAT IT PRINTED ON MONDAY ABOUT THE REALITY OF THE "PROBLEM" - AND AGAIN A STIGLITZ QUOTE THAT CHANGES ARE NEEDED WHICH WILL INDEED REDUCE FUTURE PAYOUTS IS MIS-CONSTRUED TO MEAN GOP TYPE CHANGES TO A WELFARE PROGRAM WITH LIMITED BENEFITS! THE ONLY NEW ITEMS ARE BELOW:


"In general, Republicans favor solutions that encourage people to save money in tax-free investment accounts in exchange for giving up some Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Democrats generally favor solutions that ensure equal access to health care but give government greater power to control medical costs. Experts in both parties generally agree that:

•Retirement ages need to be raised for Social Security and possibly Medicare.

•Benefits should be reduced for the affluent.

•Everyone should pay higher Medicare co-payments and deductibles so people don't treat medical care as if it's free.

However, it is tricky to make even these changes without triggering other problems. <snip>

Conservatives and liberals also concur that Social Security's financial problems can be solved, if dealt with soon. But Medicare, which provides medical insurance from age 65 to death, cannot survive as we know it without a huge increase in the tax burden.

The USA now spends about 15% of its income on health care — about half paid by the government, the rest by private insurers and patients or their families. Other industrialized countries spend an average of 8.5% of national income on medical care — about 75% paid by the government.

As the population ages, the federal government will pay a growing share of that amount, perhaps as high as 80% in 40 years." <snip>