Will the Republican plan of Privatizing Medicare and Social Security just never win debate on the facts?

[Fly In the Ointment]

Republicans can not explain how privatizing would make it better finanacially or structurally. It would make insurance companies a new middle man and at a huge cost and a reduction in benefits. There is no benefits yet shown by Republicans beyond theories, there is no historical precedent they have given us. In fact there is a lot of facts against it.

Democrats agree we need to fix it but there is absolutely no credible need to privatize it. There are plenty of things that can be done such as means testing, increasing income limit, caps etc.

I would love to hear how private market could do a better job and at less cost. Maybe if Republicans could give us some real world examples and details Americans might agree to seriously debate the issue but so far I haven't seen or heard a credible response to this.

The question isn't if it needs to be fixed, the question is who is the Party that would do a better job making sure the elderly get the same quality Medicare they get now.

[jaker]

There is NO such plan and anyone who says there is is lying.

[commish]

The trustees said Medicare will go broke by 2022 and Social Security by 2036, but probably much sooner. Even the Republicans cant screw this up.

[RJC]

Sure....google the "Galveston Plan" for an education

Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.

[John W]

SS is broke, so we are going to have privatization either way

[brenton s]

The Republicans have no plan. You wouldn't care if there was one or not. You really want to create a straw dragon to hide the fact that the Democrats have no plan. As Geithner said, "we don't have a plan, we just don't like your plan."

The answer to your question is simple. The private market would ensure that people's benefits were dictated by what they have contributed not their political clout. This is what Social Security is supposed to be. But you aren't listening.

You are simply out of touch on what Social Security and how it operates. First, Social Security has been means tested since 1984. Let me repeat 1984. Increasing the caps does not fix Social Security, it rewrites the principles of the system. It is a CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS system not welfare where one person pays for another. There are plenty of govt programs welfare programs. Maybe if you could tell us why you want to rewrite Social Security as welfare instead of arguing to increase existing the programs which actually do a better job.

[sillybath940]

As you can see they have nothing, they repeat the same thing over and over ?"it's going broke" ...We know that but we also know it can be fixed and without privatizing it. We raise the income limit to the first million, we means test. I do not think millionaire need it. They can be given tax credits instead. The solution is not at all difficult, AARP says that just pushing up the income limit alone would add 17 years to Medicare.