http://www.nysun.com/article/50792?page_no=2 is one article that explains what went on with Social Security and that while people paid more for social security, the benefits deteriorated and continue to deteriorate. In short, the situation speaks less to the idea of a single payer (usually evasive-speak for governmental) and "entitlement" than it does to good old fashioned greed, secrecy and support of the rich by the not so rich.
Social security was revamped to include higher contribution rates and later retirement ages in an attempt to collect more taxpayer dollars to support the frightening prospect of the bankruptcy of social security. But why haven't things improved? Social security actually did have surpluses after these steps were taken to take more from citizens to support social security. BUT what we probably didn't realize was that social security was based on dollars in and dollars out for any particular year. Extra dollars taken in were used to buy government bonds and those bonds could be used by the government for whatever it chose (not social security). So unless in any given year the match between social security was perfect--dollars taken from citizens were paid out to citizens, every year there was either a surplus or a deficit. And surpluses were spent, they didn't go into an account to save for a rainy day when maybe the following year more would be paid out then came in, and therefore, the government used dollars collected for and in the name of social security for other things.
As people babble about the pros and cons of a single payer system for health care reform, whether you buy into universal health care coverage or not, the focus should be on oversight. Written in stone provisions that premium dollars in the form of straight forward premiums or in the alternative, taxes, must go to the purchase of health care services. Whether a die hard liberal or a die hard conservative, the ridiculous distraction away from the key issues of companies using citizen dollars without accounting to the very citizens who provided the money is a lose-lose situation---just look at social security.
Instead of listening to the dreamy ponderings of the candidates who promise to reform "health care" (meaning they plan to sell their version of health insurance by promoting a tax credit for premiums or funding of expanded governmental programming), we have been hopelessly diverted from paying attention to the corrupt system of health insurance we have based on lack of effective oversight.
Task a day insurance: Don't shy away from the subject based on a knee jerk reaction against big government or big business. Instead, look for the hard answers: What are the agency, staffing, and penalty provisions for business and government in the face of gross mismanagement ranging from wasted dollars to those that actually amount to more serious cases of price-fixing, corruption, collusion and fraud. Our government legally drained social security by essentially laundering the dollars collected from citizens in a given year through the loophole of being able to purchase bonds that could be used to benefit other government expenses with any extra dollars collected. This kind of loophole is not only available for the government.
Private insurers who are not for profit also have surpluses that they can spend. They can spend it to provide the health care lite menu of dietitians and office folk who will log in your hours at the gym. These subcontracted companies are usually for profit. The not for profit can include redoing the offices of their executives and raises for employees as increased expenses that eat away at any number that would otherwise count as a profit.
We've squeezed the consumer enough--less health care for higher premium dollars yet still we have a "crisis" is based on something that we are lacking and it's not individual citizen responsibility, it's OVERSIGHT.
