US Healthcare Reform - PPACA

[inked]

Democrats, IR, Democrats. They have no one to blame but themselves for their mistakes.

And this isn't the only one by a long shot.

They "forgot" the severability clause.

They are attempting unconstitutional powers in the first instance.

Like Nancy Pelosi said, "We'll just have to pass it to find out what's in it." And they are. Poorly conceived, worse written, and legally daft drafting. That's what they're finding.

Among "drafting mistakes" - and no doubt the health care, too.

see here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...t-does-it-mean

"A federal judge has ruled on behalf of the state of Virginia that a key part of President Obama's health care law, passed in March, is unconstitutional." ...

[The Gaffer]

Is it just me or are politicians of all hues, in all countries, getting more and more incompetent?

It strikes me that the Democrats couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, and neither could the Republicans.

Over here we have a conservative government that is forcing through completely inept and arbitrary reforms that, to paraphrase Treebeard, "don't even make the bad sense" of cutting costs.

You guys have a president, clearly elected with a mandate to reform health care (if nothing else) and he wastes his 2 year opportunity to get it done.

Take a look elsewhere: in Oz you've got Gillard, who can barely stand upright in spite of leading pretty much the only Western country that hasn't been screwed by the recession. The French have the arch-tool Sarkozy. In Italy, Berlusconi is a joke. Medvedev is a puppet. Merkel is just about the only one that is capable of serious leadership.

The rest are so in hock to the media circus that what you get in power are showmen and PR types.

All of which leaves the banks free rein to run our countries according to what best suits their bonus structure and tax efficiency.

Is this really what we want from our politics?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Is it just me or are politicians of all hues, in all countries, getting more and more incompetent?

Sadly, it is not just you. It appears competent politicians are a rare breed indeed these days.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

"A federal judge has ruled on behalf of the state of Virginia that a key part of President Obama's health care law, passed in March, is unconstitutional." ...

This will of course go to the supreme court (and would have no matter which way the lower court had ruled). My thinking is if being required to hold health insurance so that people dont become wards of the state every time they are sick and cost tax payers 800 times more in the emergency room then they would through insurance paid check ups is so very unconstitutional then shouldn’t we declare unconstitutional mandatory vehicle insurance? Shouldn’t we declare unconstitutional compulsory schooling for our children? Shouldn’t we declare unconstitutional the social security system, medicare, medicaid, etc? After all these are all mandatory must-pay-into programs that the teapartyers foam at the mouth about. Right? Declare them all unconstitutional!

Or… React with compassion and consistency and realize that a health system where 99% of the people are covered is going to cost considerably less per head then one where your only choices are risk death because you cant afford to make insurance company executives wealthy by paying their rates or do like 20% of America and do nothing when you are sick or hurt until its so bad that you are forced to go to the emergency room at a 3000% cost spike over the cost of prevention and non emergency care. And guess where the cost of that comes from inked… That’s right our pockets. So either way you pay. Time to be both smart and compassionate about it and not refuse to even consider the right choice simply because Obama came up with it.

[inked]

IR, it's not that I disagree with your cost-analysis or the need for programmatic addressing of the situation, it's just that there is this little thingy called the Constitution here in the USA that renders the mode of this plan incorrect, illegal, and substantive quashing of guaranteed rights.

The issue is not merely provision of health care, you see.

[Insidious Rex]

So on what grounds do you feel its unconstitutional? Are you alluding to the regulation of commerce versus the regulation of "economic activities"?

[Insidious Rex]

This is awful interesting:

Earlier this week, Virginia's Henry Hudson became the first judge to overturn part of the Obama administration's signature health care law.

He has a colorful background: He's a former deputy sheriff and GOP congressional candidate. He was an anti-pornography crusader in the Reagan years. And then there's this: He has an ownership stake in Campaign Solutions Inc., a Republican consulting firm that has advised conservative political candidates.

And one of the main issues they have been "advising" about in the past two years? Health care...

So in affect he has maintained a continued financial interest in a group pushing litigation in his own courtroom...

And this is no conflict of interest? No says the same republicans who insist Judge Kagan must recuse herself from any cases involving health care because she happened to be Obama's Solicitor General even though theres no evidence she participated in justice department work on the health care plan. Cake and eat it too? Seems like it.

By the way inked, according to a number of conservative legal experts, Hudsons logic on the unconstitutionality of the health care mandate is flawed. Thats why Im so curious why you are convinced it is unconstitutional exactly.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So on what grounds do you feel its unconstitutional? Are you alluding to the regulation of commerce versus the regulation of "economic activities"?

The Constitution contains NO provision for the FEDERAL government to force individuals to purchase anything.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

The Constitution contains NO provision for the FEDERAL government to force individuals to purchase anything.

Oh contraire mon frere... The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to take steps beyond those listed in the Constitution to achieve its Constitutional ends, including the regulation of interstate commerce.

[Valandil]

It's this very provision that got me to start the thread. At least that was one of the main reasons. It is indeed a new thing - for the US government to require its citizens to purchase something.

So - that's one of the problems I have with the health care legislation. Somehow, these things seem to work in Europe (by all accounts) - but in America, when the government gets involved in a problem, the problem just seems to grow (as a new bureacracy grows with it - and wants to sustain itself).

I'm no socialist by any means - but it does make sense to me that we should try to find a way to provide basic health care to all our people - and in a sensible way, something other than everyone without coverage going to the Emergency Room of the nearest hospital.

I just don't know if this legislation is the right way for us to go about it. It also feels like it was just pushed through for political reasons, rather than being well-thought out and well-considered before being put into action.

I don't know. We'll see how it goes though...

[Valandil]

Oh... another reason I started this thread.

I have heard that The Amish, Scientologists and Christian Scientists are exempt for religious reasons. I have also heard that Muslims are exempt for religious reasons. I looked that up and found confirmation online. All you need to do is google, "muslim healthcare exemption".

It just seems quite odd - and I wonder how all that will play out as well. Will these various groups still get the benefits of the new system, without being required to buy in? And - if they're able to 'opt-out' - can the rest of us, for reasons of personal conviction?

[Insidious Rex]

From what I understand there are some pretty strict exemptions that pretty much only allow hard core conservative Amish and Mennonites to be exempted from the law. In fact the exemption language is the same as for social security. Did you know that most Amish dont have to pay into Social Security? And we probably shouldnt have any problem with that since they refuse to accept funds from the United States government no matter what their situation.

Heres some information on the specifics:

Both the Senate and House bills use the old Social Security language (Sec. 1402(g)(1) of the tax code) to determine who will be eligible for a “religious conscience” objection to the insurance mandate. Specifically, the bills would provide exemptions for adherents of “recognized religious sects” that are “conscientiously opposed” to accepting benefits from any insurance — private or public — “which makes payments in the event of death, disability, old-age, or retirement or makes payments toward the cost of, or provides services for, medical care.” To qualify for the exemption, the sect would have to have been in existence continuously since Dec. 31, 1950.

The language is very limiting. Christian Scientists, for example, would not be eligible for the exemption because they are not conscientiously opposed to having health insurance. “Some [Christian Scientists] have health insurance, and most probably have life insurance,” says the FAQ page of the official CS church website. “Every Christian Scientist makes his or her own financial and health decisions.” It’s limited essentially to the Amish and Old Order Mennonites.

But the Senate bill adds a new religious exemption beyond what already exists for Social Security taxes and beyond what’s in the House bill. It would allow members of “Health Care Sharing Ministries” to be exempt from the requirement to have “acceptable” health insurance.

What exactly are “Health Care Sharing Ministries?” According to the bill, they are non-profit organizations that “share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed.” The Alliance of Health Care Sharing Ministries website explains that members pay a monthly fee that is pooled and shared to members that have medical bills. A monthly publication lists the medical bill needs of its members and tells who received payments that month. “The personal approach of need sharing ministries facilitates Christians to bear one another’s burdens in a very tangible way,” the site explains.

As for the Islamic rumor, well Ive seen that being forwarded around in emails and Im pretty sure thats just something teapartiers or anti-muslim individuals have come up with to rally the obama haters and trick the unwashed when theres nothing at all in the bill like that. Its certainly a convenient way of whipping up furor over the bill in a hateful political climate where the teapartiers love to say Obama is a Muslim and is trying to impose Sharia Law on the United States... Anything to undermine his agenda and ensure his failure no matter how outlandish the lie. Remember, a lot of people still think the bill allows for "death camps" no matter how many times Obama denies it. Hannity and Beck have said so and thats all that seems to matter. Unfortunately way too many americans will react to any lunatic notion if its mentioned on certain programs or if they receive it as a forward in their email.

The truth is there is NO provision for muslims to be exempt from the health care bill anywhere in the text of the bill. Some strict muslims look at insurance as a kind of gambling which is forbidden in Islamic Law. But these same muslims dont refuse insurance. Instead they only use as much insurance as they paid into. So like the Amish these folks would be saving us all money. Not causing us to expend money without having to pay into it. Quite the opposite in fact... And anyway ask yourself do states currently exempt muslims from buying car insurance? So why would this suddenly apply because its health care insurance? Its just hate inspired rumors. And this will certainly continue for the next few years at least as the republicans attempt to scale back the Obama bill.

[Valandil]

Interesting - because I did try to look it up, and kept seeing only things that backed up what I stated at first.

I'll look around a little more.

[inked]

Tick, tick, tick: The cost of Obamacare is a time bomb


By: Timothy P. Carney 01/16/11 8:05 PM
Senior Political Columnist

In fighting against Obamacare repeal this week, Democrats portray their health care law as a money saver, claiming Republicans would add to the deficit by abolishing the legislation. But in their franker moments, the bill's authors admit that "reform" could be something of a time bomb that will cause exploding health care costs down the line. One top Senate aide plainly stated last summer, "This is a coverage bill, not a cost reduction bill." The time-bomb nature of Obamacare was presaged by Mitt Romney's health care bill in Massachusetts, which also expanded health insurance coverage by mandating that all individuals buy insurance, prohibiting insurers from dropping customers, and subsidizing the insurance of those with difficulty affording it.

In Massachusetts, these subsidies, mandates and regulations quickly caused health insurance and health care costs to spike, compelling the governor and state legislature to impose cost controls on insurers and providers while raising taxes on the state's residents and businesses.

David Bowen, former health staff director of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is one of the Obamacare authors to admit the bill could be a time-bomb.

Three months after the bill passed, and after Bowen had left Capitol Hill, he gave a briefing at the K Street offices of the lobbying firm Sidley Austin -- an event the firm billed as a "unique behind the scenes look at the development of this landmark legislation and [an opportunity] to hear an insider's view about issues that the legislation left unresolved."

Bowen compared the federal legislation to the Massachusetts legislation on the score of costs. "In Mass., there was a very conscious decision to do coverage first, knowing that that would bring on a cost battle second," the former Ted Kennedy aide explained. "We certainly made the same decision. This is a coverage bill, not a cost reduction bill. There is stuff here that will begin to address the issue of cost, but this is not a cost reduction bill with a bit of coverage on it -- it is really trying to get coverage first."

"Buy now, pay later," is how Peter Suderman at the free-market Reason magazine describes this strategy, which was deliberate on behalf of lawmakers in both Boston and Washington.

In March 2009, as Congress was taking up the health care bill and Massachusetts was straining under its rapidly growing health care costs, the New York Times reported that the Massachusetts bill's authors saw that everything was going according to plan. "Only by deferring the big decisions on cost containment, [Massachusetts health care architects] said in recent interviews, was it possible to build a consensus among doctors, hospitals, insurers, consumers, employers and workers for the requirement that all residents have health insurance."

In the June 2010 briefing on K Street, one participant asked Bowen what will happen when Obamacare's bill comes due. "If the things that are in the bill fail to reduce cost, or they need more oomph," Bowen said, "then that is the next big phase of health care reform."

In Massachusetts that meant tax increases and price controls. In Tennessee, which faced a budget crisis 10 years after its 1994 state-run health insurance program, "the next big phase of health care reform" meant slashing 170,000 people from the rolls, according to Suderman.

What will "the next big phase" of Obamacare be? When the subsidies and insurance regulations drive a huge increase in demand for health care, how will Congress and the administration handle the rising costs?

The Obama administration's early actions hint at one tack: blaming the greedy insurers. The bill gives such broad discretion to the secretary of health and human services that HHS could unilaterally put the squeeze on insurers -- for instance, through tightening rules on medical loss ratios, which curb insurers' profits, executive pay and advertising spending.

With all the subsidies flowing to hospitals, doctors and drug companies, Washington is also in position to impose price controls on these industries. The new exchanges will control insurance prices, and by extension will influence prices on drugs and care.

This looming battle over where to trim costs is driving health care companies to hire up as lobbyists the lawmakers and staffers who gave us Obamacare. Already three top Democratic health care staffers have gone to K Street firms, and one has cashed out to a drugmaker.

Democrats will attack GOP repeal efforts as "irresponsible." Given the Democratic Senate, "repeal" is mostly political theater, but if you're looking for irresponsible, the Democrats' buy-now-pay-later gambit is a prime example.

Timothy P.Carney, The Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politi...#ixzz1Bxkq0OTH

This is what happens when the Democrats pass legislation that "“We have to pass it to know what’s in it.” - Nancy Pelosi.

[Insidious Rex]

Interesting that they attack Obamas health care plan by means of using arch republican Mitt Romney's health care plan as an example. Could it be that theres no easy way to do the right thing when it comes to health care and smart people on both sides see that? You mean it costs money to take care of peoples health? Shocker!! And what would the KILL THE BILL rabble have us do instead? Let people die I suppose (in addition to causing an immediate spike in our deficit at a time when the economy is still trying to wean itself off life support). Ask yourself which is the better choice then. Suffering and death for those unfortunate enough not to have health care like the governments? Or having us all share the burden a little more for everyone's sake? Oh thats right we always choose death before we choose anything that smacks of "socialism"...

And speaking of socialism, the very same things that are being said about the health care bill (too expensive, will fail in the long run) could also be said about oh for example... SOCIAL SECURITY. So Im eager to see the very same republicans who are crowing about how evil the health care bill lead the same charge against SS. When will they have that repealed as well? They can at least have a hollow grandstanding vote on it so that their stance becomes an official part of the record right? Hey where are they suddenly running too!

[inked]

Au contraire!

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...ficit-we-want/

January 20, 2011, 6:49 pm
The Deficit We Want
By DAVID LEONHARDT

"We have come to believe a story about the deficit that is largely not true.

It’s a comforting story, to be sure. It holds the promise of a painless solution, because it suggests that the country’s huge looming deficits are not really our fault. Instead, they seem to stem from weak-willed politicians, wasteful government programs that do not benefit us and tax avoidance by people we have never met.

In truth, the coming deficits are a result, above all, of the fact that most Americans are scheduled to receive far more in Medicare benefits than they have paid in Medicare taxes. Conservative and liberal economists agree on this point. After Medicare on the list of big, growing budget items come Social Security and the military.

The three programs are roughly as popular as tax increases are unpopular – which is precisely why solving the deficit problem will be so difficult.

The new Times/CBS News poll highlights the problem, by asking more specific questions about taxes and spending than many previous polls have. (See questions 33 through 45 here.) Not surprisingly, when given a straight-up choice between broad spending cuts and tax increases, Americans say they would prefer to reduce the deficit mostly through less spending. It’s not even close: 62 percent for spending cuts, 29 percent for tax increases.

A few questions later, though, our pollsters offered a different choice. Would people rather eliminate Medicare’s shortfall through reduced Medicare benefits or higher taxes?

The percentages then switch, becoming nearly a mirror image of what they had been. Some 64 percent of respondents preferred tax increases, while 24 percent chose Medicare cuts. The same is true of Social Security: 63 percent for higher taxes, 25 percent for reduced benefits.

Herein lies the political problem. We want to cut spending. We just don’t want to cut the benefits that the spending pays for.

“The United States faces a fundamental disconnect between the services that people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans,” Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, has said, “and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services.”

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office’s grim forecasts assume, realistically or not, that almost all forms of spending other than retirement spending will grow more slowly than they have been growing. So even if Congress does become more disciplined about the spending it controls, the big, looming deficits will still arrive. They come almost entirely from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. (The current deficit — a product of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush tax cuts, the new Medicare drug benefit, the Great Recession and the stimulus program – is indeed likely to shrink as the economy recovers in coming years.)

From a purely economic perspective, the deficit remains a manageable problem. Some smaller government programs truly are wasteful and could stand to be cut. Relatively modest changes to Social Security – like raising the eligibility age or starting to subject some income above $106,800 to the Social Security tax – would eliminate its shortfall. Military spending could be cut significantly and still be much greater than in the past or much greater than in any other country.

Even Medicare and Medicaid don’t look intractable. After all, every other country in the world, including some that get medical results as good as ours over all, spends far less on health care than we do. It is possible.

And if you really want to find reasons for optimism, you can do so in the public opinion data. When Americans are given a set of realistic choices, they are perfectly willing to prioritize.

The poll’s respondents, for example, said they would rather cut military spending than Medicare or Social Security (and several bipartisan groups have made specific suggestions for doing so). If Medicare and Social Security must be changed, people prefer increasing payroll taxes on high-income households or raising the Medicare eligibility age – not cutting back on Social Security paychecks or Medicare treatments. Within the tax code, a reduced tax break for mortgage interest looks more palatable than a reduced tax break for health insurance.

But none of these narrow, technocratic questions is the first one that needs to be answered. The crucial question today is, simply: Would you rather have your taxes increased or your Medicare and Social Security benefits reduced? “All of the above” is a reasonable answer. “None of the above” is not.

If there any politicians who can get us to accept this reality, they haven’t done so yet."

[Insidious Rex]

People may answer the least of two bad choices when forced to in surveys but its completely unrealistic most americans will agree to higher taxes and/or draconian cut backs in Medicare or Social Security and therefore no politician in their right mind will ever run on that platform because they know they will never get elected. Americans still arent ready to give up having their cake and eating it too when it comes to dealing with the deficit. Now as people age out and more and more people who will never see a full return from their social security contributions reach voting age, the third rail of social security may wilt somewhat. Especially as they watch their baby boom parents stuffing their face with the social security funds their kids are losing from their pay checks today. But that will still take a while.

One thing already in the pipeline and agreed to in a relatively bipartisan way is a huge reduction in military spending. That will help but much more will need to be done. And its hard to imagine that we will see any other massive austerity measures any time soon when just last month the republicans were willing to play chicken with the economy in order to insure that fat cats who make over a quarter million a year get more tax breaks. How can we ever take even a small step toward deficit reduction if we cant even agree that the super rich should be willing to pay taxes at a higher rate then the struggling middle class? Are living in a dream world?

It appears we are because the republicans, who ran on the pledge of reducing taxes and bashed obama for the past two years for making the economy worse by suggesting mild tax increases on the super rich turn around and in their Roadmap For Americas Future proposed tax increases on the imperilled middle class while proposing FURTHER tax cuts for their millionare cronies. The "Roadmap" would raise taxes on Americans making between $20,000 and $200,000 while slashing taxes in half for the wealthiest Americans. Corporate income taxes would be replaced with a 8.5 percent flat tax thus allowing the bonuses from profits paid to owners and shareholders to be TAX FREE. Meanwhile, some three-fourths of Americans would face tax INCREASES. Are they serious?! And this bunch washed into power on a wave of anti-spending anti-tax hysteria? And the proposal suggests dismantling Medicare and Medicaid and privatizing Social Security. They know none of that will happen (barring another "shalacking" in 2012). But it allows them to say see we tried.

Hypocritical insincere delusionists who like to speak out of both sides of their mouth pandering to the crazies while knowing full well what they propose wont get anywhere. Now do you see why I continue to have doubts?

[inked]

IR,
A disappointing State of the Union address per the WSJ.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011; 10:35 PM

PRESIDENT OBAMA entered office promising to be a different kind of politician - one who would speak honestly with the American people about the hard choices they face and would help make those hard calls. Tuesday night's State of the Union Address would have been the moment to make good on that promise. He disappointed.

It's not that everything he said in the speech was wrong; on the contrary, we agree with much of it. To remain competitive in the world, and to reverse the trend of rising inequality at home, the government will have to invest, as Mr. Obama proposed, in scientific research, education and infrastructure. To stay safe abroad, the country can't stint on national defense or foreign aid. Republican visions of dramatically smaller government are unrealistic and potentially dangerous.

But where will the money come from? "We will make sure this is fully paid for," Mr. Obama said as he grandly pledged to "redouble" road and bridge repair. With higher gasoline taxes? Traditionally, that has been the way. Mr. Obama didn't elaborate.

The president promised to freeze discretionary spending - exempting, that is, defense, veterans affairs, homeland security, Medicare and Social Security - for five years. Given that he'd already promised a three-year freeze, this was more incremental than earthshaking and, as he acknowledged, in any case affects only 12 percent of the federal budget.

The reality, as Mr. Obama understands, is that the country is headed for fiscal catastrophe unless it does some politically unpopular things: unwind the Bush tax cuts, including for the middle class; reduce projected Social Security benefits for future retirees, exempting the poor and disabled; rein in the cost of health care; limit popular income tax deductions. Mr. Obama knows this, but last night he did little to prepare Americans for any of it. The best you could say is that he left the door open to work with Congress on these issues.

In his first year in office, Mr. Obama said he couldn't confront the nation's long-term fiscal peril because of imminent financial collapse. In his second year, he said he needed health-care reform first, to "bend the curve" of rising health-care costs. He called for a bipartisan commission to study the debt and promised to pivot in his third year to fiscal reform.

Now that bipartisan commission has reported, but Mr. Obama didn't fully endorse any of its recommendations. To the contrary, he promised more jobs for teachers and construction workers. He warned against "slashing" Social Security benefits. Corporate tax reform is fine, but if it's revenue-neutral, it only postpones - and makes more politically difficult - the task of narrowing the nation's deficit.

So what happens now? Maybe some members of Congress will display the courage the president has lacked. Maybe Mr. Obama, in the budget he proposes next month, will grapple more realistically with the hard choices than he did Tuesday night. But even if he does, how can he expect public support if he hasn't made the case? From the man who promised to change Washington, it seemed all too drearily familiar.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012504573.html

Hope & Change - It was only a Campaign Slogan!

[Insidious Rex]

Im sorry how is posting some Op Ed piece basically boiling down to the usual republican response of "not enough" address what I said about the republicans fighting for the rich at the expense of the middle class? Trying to blame it ALL on bad old Obama doesnt fly. Theres plenty of republicans who want nothing to do with draconian cuts in entitlement funds who will be in opposition of any bill produced in the House calling for such. So between them and the democrats and the Senate it will likely never get deep enough in the gauntlet to risk a presidential veto. But please tell your tea party friends to twist any blame so it sticks to Obama whenever bills they know have no chance get squashed.

Distressingly enough, it looks like Obama's confidence numbers among the american public have been RISING steadily since November's "shalacking" despite the republicans efforts to blame him for future catastrophes whose motions they are sure to go through. Meanwhile congress's continues to drop. Heres where the focus shifts to the republican wave and if stuff doesnt get done theyll find themselves no longer immune from blame. Remember 94 now. So the party of No is feebly attempting to become the party of No But at least we offered something we knew could never be passed (thank god). Here is where the lines between the tea party routies with crazy ideas diverge further and further from the Republican fat cat veterans potentially leading to further gridlock and a show of internal acrimony on full display for a public who will find it infuriating very little is happening when they still need millions of jobs. If nothing gets done this year after a wirl wind of stuff got passed in the past two months by Obama what will the public think of their republican champions then? Clearly change (like clock work) will be in vogue yet again. Who will be left to replace the new bums with? We are going to run out of extremists and gutless pandering clowns. On both sides...

[inked]

IR, perhaps it was just me, but I thought the point of the article/Op-Ed piece was exactly what you are re-iterating.

It is not only a DEMOCRAT problem. It is not only a REPUBLICAN problem.

This is the entire country's problem, all of Congress's problem,each state's problem.

I have no expectation that Soc Sec will be around for me.

The opposite coast can see clearly:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7144572.story