If the Social Security funds are about to dry up, where will the money for universal health care come from?

Answer 1

Not addressing the issue (or non issue) of if the social security funds are to dry up, and the myriad reasons behind it, healthcare would need to be funded, probably through increased taxation. Bear in mind though, that at present, the money spent on health for the average US citizen is more than in democracies in western Europe, so if the USA adopted a national health care scheme, the average person would probably save money from not having to have private health care (when the insurers do not always fund treatment) even with the increase in taxation.

I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are worse than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.

In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.

I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Americans settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2167865,00.html

Answer 2

The money comes the same way as it will come after your house burnt. We call this fancy system "Insurance". - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In 1987 a powerful and popular politician from the Independence Party, Iceland’s biggest party, the finance minister Albert Gudmundsson, was replaced by his party leader, who was Prime Minister at the time. The reason was that Gudmundsson, the supreme official in fiscal matters who was campaigning against tax fraud at the time, did not declare his total income to the tax authorities. Previously he had been involved in a major case as a member of the board of the Icelandic Fisheries Bank, which had lent considerable amounts of money to a shipping company that went bankrupt. The bankruptcy of the company, Hafskip, shook Icelandic society and some of the leaders of the company, well-known businessmen some of whom had been active members of the Independence Party, were sentenced to prison. Charges were never filed against Gudmundsson. There is also a lesser known incident where Gudmundsson received money from two shipping companies to pay for a trip for his friend, a leader of a labour movement, who had in fact served as an MP for a left-wing party, the People’s Alliance. Gudmundsson received more money than the trip cost and pocketed the difference, according to reliable sources. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Yep, so far away as you colored the Ice Cream, it seemed truly just like so romantic yet, just like so Utopia. Dream on. Briefing for tomorrow: Should not corporates pay a part of their workers' health insurance - why so fixative with taxes?? The percentage they are supposed to pay then, may depend on the additional risk your health takes by working conditions.

Answer 3

Social Security was fine, with an increasing surplus until it was plundered for the last time and all SS "taxes" started going into the general fund. You can thank Reagan for that and a lot more idictic things.

As for "universal health care", nobody, not even Hillary has suggested that the U.S. have it. They all are pushing "universal health coverage". Mandatory health insurance with the government picking up part of the tab. All it would do would be to make insurance companies wealthier while increasing the cost of health care.

A system of true universal health care, as is in place in the Commonwealth Countries, provides better care at lower cost than the mess currently in place in the U.S.

Amazing that the shallow end of the gene pool has tried to make such an issue over health care. It takes a whole lot more tax dollars to have people going to emergency rooms as Bush said they should than it does to have them getting regular health care.

Answer 4

It really depends on what the universal plan contains and how it will be paid for. Now in my state of WI we (activists) have been fighting to get a bill through legislation that will guarantee all working families and early retires affordable secure health care. It would be paid for similar to social security and it came straight out of your paycheck. Only 4% but the thing was the more people who joined the pool the less money (individuals would have to pay. it also would hold large corp. accountable for their employees and make sure they are not abusing our government funded programs like badger care. it was an amazing plan which would work great and cover all the working people and early retires! Only problem is that the drug and insurance companies love the profits and would hate to see that go down so they are throwing millions of $ against us. Also the other wonderful thing was it is the same health care politicians have and it there are NO premiums! so you wouldn't have to worry about paying more and more as every year goes by! I think if we had something like that it would be great! and then we would still have badger care and medicaid for those less fortunate.

Answer 5

It may depend on who wins the White House. The next administration will have a big job ahead given that in 2017 the system begins paying out more than it collects in payroll taxes and the famed trust fund is projected to run dry in 2041.

Money Magazine canvassed the leading candidates and found the talking points familiar: mostly "privatization" (allowing workers to divert some Social Security payroll tax to private investment accounts) vs. hiking the wages subject to payroll tax (now $102,000).

But two buzzwords crossed party lines: bipartisan commission. One headed by Alan Greenspan saved Social Security from its last crisis in 1983.

The source of where money comes from to pay for anything....your pockets!

Answer 6

Social Security IS absolutely going broke. It is a Ponzi scheme, so it can't last because the funds payed in were not protected and the shift is coming with more retired than working. That's simple, uncontrovertible math.

As I pointed out in another response, there is NO guarantee to collect Social Security anyway:

"There is also a great misunderstanding about Social Security being an “entitlement” that is protected as though it were a contract between the worker and the government. However, the government’s official position is summarized in a famous court case on the Social Security Web site at history/nestor:
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled ‘RESERVATION OF POWER,’ specifically said: ‘The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.’ Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This was settled by Flemming v. Nestor." (Michael J. Laurence's Your Money Rules for Financial Freedom pp. 6-7).

Here are a couple of other tidings of great joy (also noted by Laurence--has lots of good info):
"I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?


Unless changes are made, at age 69 in 2040 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 26 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the 2006 Trustees Report.


I'm 26 years old. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?


Unless changes are made, when you reach age 60 in 2040, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 26 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2080 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 30 percent from today's scheduled levels. See the 2006 Trustees Report."
http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm
That is the official government web site--not the author's interpretation.

Why are those benefits being scheduled to end? Ponzi schemes eventually crash.

On to UHC, which would not depend on SS funds, but won't work in any case. NO COUNTRY is able to support it. Many falsely claim it works, they either don't know the facts of the system OR they are in a power-grabbing mood (politicians most likely fall into this category).

The US stood up to communism and freed many countries, yet the freest nation ever has been indoctrinated by leftists who still want to BE communist. Instead of finding a tired old system where it exists now, they want to foist it on us and are doing so, bit by bit. We have an unconstitutionally large government which has created a large portion of "working poor" in the US who are supposed to support NOT just US citizens, but the whole world AND every stupid leftist failure that people want to haul over here when the damage too much governmental interference begins to cause problems. (See health care, "higher ed," welfare, and more.)

It doesn't matter if you have a president, congress, etc. and elections. If virtually every cent you make is taken by the government, it's de facto communism. So the names and faces of those in power (living high off the hog I might add) change, who cares?

Individuals BUILT this country, but now those who "know better" want to do things to us for "our own good" because they pretend THEY know better than the majority of the US public. So long as they can continue to put forth their misinformation, those with kind hearts will fall for the bait.

Answer 7

Im amazed at how many people think that the 100 billion a year were spending in Iraq, will pay for universial health care.

Universial health care will cost about one trillion dollars every year.

The entire federal budget last year was only 2.4 trillion dollars.

As to SS, half the national debt, is US treasury bonds owned by SS, that will be cashed in starting around 2017,

When SS tax revenue, is no longer enough to fully fund SS benefits.

Answer 8

We are not going to have universal health care. SS will not dry up. People will continue to pay taxes to fund SS. Either the taxes will go up or the benefits will go down...or both.

Have you noticed Mrs. Clinton is fond of saying universal health care would cost about 110 billion dollars. What she does not say is that the 110 billion would be on top of what is paid in insurance premiums, now.

Answer 9

Don't drink the kool-aid. Social Security is just fine...it is a protected trust fund.

As for Universal health care, if you read up on the different programs, you will see that EVERYONE pays towards it. Each pays according to their income.

It's not a "free" program. It is a guarantee that those who need medical care get it.

Answer 10

Geez, I don't know, how about we stop the war in Iraq? That should take care of universal healthcare, social security, education and veterans benefits.

Just a thought.