Everything else is immaterial, and a smokescreen. SS is criminal.

I have never seen any estimates, but the surplus generated by the 1982 reforms is huge and has as a piece of accounting fiction been counted as an asset of the federal government, thus masking the true size of the debt. The Federal government now has the obligation to repay these funds. Ergo, as long as the federal government does not default on its debts, SS is sound. With the death of the baby boomers, payroll deductions and benefits should return to historic levels.

I have no problem with the fact that the surplus funds are (SS witholding still produces a surplus) invested in T bills. They are considered one of the safest investments in the world. They are an investment that cannot be used to any political or economic favoritism. The practice of investing SS surpluses in T bills also lowers the cost of government borrowing. The only thing damaging has been the use of this accounting fiction to mask the true size of the nation's debt. It should be illegal and so should any idea of SS recipients or payers giving up benefits or increase in rates of taxation to replenish SS coffers.

Employers started offering health insurance during WWII as a way to get around the wage and price freezes mandated by the government. It increased employee compensation at a time when wages COULDN'T be increased. Altruism wasn't the motive of the employers, but it's a lot better than a sharp stick in the eye.

Companies don't exist to be altruistic. Companies exist to make a profit. The altruism comes as a result.

However, the laugh of the thread is this by larry,…

"Employers provide insurance because employees expect it,"

Yep, that's because employers do exactly what their employees want. Funny.

Employers provide health care, and are willing to do it, because they save freaking money. The cost of the health insurance is made up by keeping wages decreased….and the employer doesn't have to pay their share of the payroll tax on health care costs per employee.

Always funny when employers are portrayed as altruistic….especially big employers.

If there really was a trust fund, there would be an enormous amount of money earning interest, the SS payroll tax could have stayed at 1% forever, and annual federal deficits would make absolutely no difference. Your argument about deficits only confirms the fact that SS ISN'T a trust fund. SS payroll taxes are treated as general revenue. That should be illegal, as it would be in the private sector. It's an example of our gangster government that I wrote about yesterday.

Heritage espouses their own opinions as well. There is no doubt of that.

I don't always agree with Krugman or Conason, but I know whose opinions they espouse. Their own.

I've already tried to explain several times why private competition with the government isn't possible. You just aren't listening. So be it.

I have no idea where you got that bilge about SS. I assume some liberal spin website, since you affixed the time SS stopped being pay-as-you-go as 1982, when Reagan was in office, and then blamed the rest on Republicans without saying a harsh word about the Democrats. Astounding.

But you miss the essential ingredient of what makes SS an immoral Ponzi scheme (which should be illegal and properly categorized as THEFT). It's that the government takes in our payroll taxes, pays retirees, and then SPENDS THE REST OF THE MONEY. There is no trust fund and no investment, because you can't save money and spend it at the same time. It's an impossibility. The only good thing I can say about it is, FDR didn't design it that way. It was about three years into the SS program before Congress decided to steal our money. And now we're supposed to entrust 16% of our economy to that same Congress by handing them health care ? Count me out.

I can see how you might think that employer based insurance is an artificial construct, but with the failure of FDR, Truman, LBJ, and Clinton to achieve alternatives, insurance became a benefit for employers to offer. Because of the volume of their employees, they supply insurance cheaper than raising wages for the individuals to buy their own policies.

You claim that government cannot participate in the free market. Sez who? Isn't a free market one which doesn't limit its participants?

You also take your usual tirade against Social Security. SS was a Ponzi scheme for nearly 50 years. Since government was able to set the rates of money coming in and going out and had a stable population, it was successful. In 1982, it was changed from a pay as you go system, to one which accumulated surpluses to accomodate the baby boomer bubble. Once again, it worked as it was supposed to. So there's nothing wrong with SS. What is wrong is that the federal government ran deficits year after year until it has become difficult to now repay what it has borrowed from the SS surplus. So, it is not SS's fault. It has performed as expected. But when Republicans made fiscal integrity a lesser priority than rewarding their wealthy contributors, they spent it.

Good point about GM's health care costs carrying over to it's ability to compete globally. That's true for all our businesses. You're right about that, which is why I advocate getting rid of employer based health insurance. Health insurance should be the responsibility of the individual, not their employer. There is NO reason the employer should carry that burden. It's an artificial construct, and it's counterproductive, as you pointed out. It's also part of the dynamic of individuals not being concerned with health care costs that I pointed out before. I also agree with you that employer-based health care holds down wages. Employers can't afford to give out higher wages when health care costs are exploding. I bet if you looked at employee wages and added in all the benefits that employer's are required to provide, then wages will have gone up. They just aren't in cash form.

And again, the free market does not consist of private enterprises trying to complete against the government. That's ANTI-free market thinking. You can't have it both ways.

Once an entitlement program is started, it's almost impossible to end it, no matter how badly it is run. Look at Social Security. It's the single worst program the government has ever devised, a direct ripoff of the taxpayer and the largest ponzi scheme scam ever, but if someone tries to change it, there's an uproar. The reason these sorry programs stay around forever is because THEY MAKE PEOPLE DEPENDENT on them, and dependent people are scared people. If we make the mistake of going for nationalized health care, it will never end. It will only get worse and worse and worse.

You say that "we aren't in a global competition for health insurance". I disagree. GM's products bore an additional $1500 cost that manufacturers in countries with public health care didn't. But the competition here is part of the "free" trade paradigm we have accepted, it's the race to the bottom in wages, compensation, etc. Most governments of industrialized nations have already absorbed that cost, and it is crippling US manufacturers.

I think the defense analogy is apt. Most people think of defense as an existential struggle against an enemy. I can think of nothing more existential than the health care that saves and extends lives.

The public option simply adds a layer of competition to the industry. According to free market economics, it is the only way to reduce costs. Those who cannot produce those cost savings go out of business. Sort of like what happens to American workers when forced to compete with child labor, slave labor in other countries.

You start with two biases; government cannot do anything as well as private enterprise and that government run healthcare is a nightmare everywhere it is tried. It seems a contradiction to say that government by its nature has advantages that private insurance can't compete with and then claim that they can't do anything well. Again, according to free market economics, the one which provides the best service at the lowest price will thrive.

If government run healthcare has been a nightmare everywhere it's been tried, please tells us which countries have ditched public care for a private system.

Like hell they aren't. Krugman is PAID by the liberal NY Times to write a liberal op-ed column. He's also arguably the biggest liar I have witnessed among op-ed columnists, but that's another story.
Ditto for Conason (about the paid liberal part. Not the liar part).

frank says, "One of the main reasons for founding the country was for the common defense. We don't limit that to mean foreign armies at our borders. For the common defense we have government involvement in defense against fires, business frauds, crimes, and even in health through government paid research, the CDC, disaster relief, etc. In the globalized economy, we no longer have the option of shifting these costs to the private sector."

Because the subject is health care, the common defense analogy does not apply. We aren't in globalized competition for health care insurance. We can't even pursue health insurance options outside of our own states, due to government interference in the market. If we could, the price would go down. And your statement about "we no longer have the option of shifting these costs to the private sector" is downright scary. It's a call to communism, though I assume you didn't intend it to be.

franks says, "Perhaps the best feature of the public option is that oldest of conservative desires, letting the market decide. If the public option does not deliver better care cheaper, it will die."

I have tried to explain many times on this blog why the public option will kill the private options. It has nothing to do with better care or cheaper care. It has nothing to do with the market. Not at all. Just the opposite. It has everything to do with the government being able for force people into adhering to it's wishes. The government MAKES THE RULES. You can't compete with that. Public versus private isn't about better or worse. It's about force versus voluntary (remember that whole "free country" concept we used to cherish ?). But if it was about better or worse, let's look at the few areas where government competes with the private sector. Which schools are better, public or private ? Who does a better job of delivering packages, the U.S Postal Service or UPS ? There is nothing the government can do better than the private sector, though there are areas where it makes more sense to let the government handle them (such as the military). The government is a slow-moving tangled web of massive bureaucracy that changes politically every two or four years. They are the last ones we should be entrusting large segments of our economy to. They aren't equipped. Government run health care becomes a nightmare virtually everywhere it is tried. And if you want to know why health care is so expensive in this country, it's because we have gotten AWAY from free market principles. Today, people aren't even concerned about costs, because everything is insurance driven. The consumer is completely disconnected from costs. If we used a similar method for other things, say to purchase food, where the consumer was completely disconnected from costs, everybody would be eating steak and lobster every day. Then the costs of food would skyrocket too. It's basic economics. You can't remove the free market from health care, as we have done, and then say the free market doesn't work. How could it ? It isn't there.

I see nothing dishonest about my interpretation of health care as part of the common defense. I see nothing in the Constitution or tradition to limit defense to external enemies. I gave examples of how the government has in the past and in the present provides defense against other threats and even in the area of health. What I find dishonest is nearly a trillion bucks a year spent ostensibly on defense and no border security.

But the issue is not whether its fair compare Medicare's overhead costs to industry figures. The issue is cost vs. service. It's obvious that the insurance industry considers government competition as an existential issue worth spending over a $1 million per day to defeat or water down.

And they should. If government competition is successful, insurance companies will be on the fringe of health care, if one compares our relative cost to service to countries which provide government programs.

One of the main reasons for founding the country was for the common defense. We don't limit that to mean foreign armies at our borders. For the common defense we have government involvement in defense against fires, business frauds, crimes, and even in health through government paid research, the CDC, disaster relief, etc. In the globalized economy, we no longer have the option of shifting these costs to the private sector.

Perhaps the best feature of the public option is that oldest of conservative desires, letting the market decide. If the public option does not deliver better care cheaper, it will die.

My objection to your portrayal is, you never address the source of Heritage's numbers, which are compiled from Medicare's own figures and the U.S. Census Bureau's figures. You just dismiss Heritage out of hand because it's right-wing. That isn't fair. I take it as a given that you aren't going to get the info I presented from any left-wing news source. The left is going to keep using Medicare's 2-4% overhead cost number, and I have provided several reasons why that number is not accurate.

Who IS giving out unbiased data without any agenda these days, anyway ? I used references to Joe Conason and Paul Krugman in my post. Are THOSE the people giving us the straight info ? How about the NY Times or the Obama administration ? Is their data unbiased ? Do they promote an agenda ?

In answer to your question about why the insurance industry is against the public option, that should be obvious. It's because private industry cannot compete with the federal government (and it has nothing to do with administrative costs). One reason among many is that government doesn't play by the same rules as private industry. They can, for instance, set their insurance rates anywhere they want, far lower than private industry can, and then just make up the difference with various taxes (like the cigarette tax that funds SCHIP). Or the government can run in the red for a long period of time, or they can print money. They can drive the private sector out of business easily, and that's what the insurance companies are afraid of. That's also the ultimate goal of the Obama administration, in my opinion. The public option is the Trojan Horse to bring it all about.

Employers provide insurance because employees expect it, except those who work for minimum wage, etc.

The argument that the government will be more efficient on the one hand but won't put insurance companies out of business doesn't make a lick of sense, Reverend. Neither does the SS analogy, unless you're saying the government is going to provide coverage that is woefully unsatisfactory.

"If a business can get away with not providing insurance to its employees because the government will, many will do so no matter what the costs are to the government. Over time, almost all will do so. How is that so difficult to understand?"

You're saying that unless insurance companies can keep their monopolistically high prices…..employers will just have to bail on providing health insurance benefits to their employees?

The only reason many employers provide coverage now is because it saves them money by reducing the share of payroll tax the employer pays.

Many businesses, right now, get away with not providing health insurance. So that dog won't hunt.

Now, pray tell, why would employees rush to buy government coverage rather than purchase private insurance? Better deal?

Did Social Security eliminate, you know, in a rush, the purchase of IRA's and private retirement accounts?

Surely you know that business already "can get away with not providing insurance to its employees".

If a business can get away with not providing insurance to its employees because the government will, many will do so no matter what the costs are to the government. Over time, almost all will do so. How is that so difficult to understand?

So if you accept Mr. King's contention that the overhead disparity is being overstated, won't private insurers be better able to survive? You do realize that no one is proposing to put the insurance companies out of business, don't you? No one is even talking about limiting your choice. If they fail it will be because they are unable put out a competitive product.

As far as Heritage, I've never been to their website or read any of their literature and don't see what they have to do with anything, frank.

The insurance industry is spending money because they don't want to be put out of business by a rogue federal government. That's a pretty easy one.