when will Social Security / Medicare be privatized / dismantled?

[Antonio the Sixth]

"When" ?

You make no sense.

[opebo]

... unless the society is willing to experience a major (admittedly temporarily) mortality spike among the elderly.

While the spike might be temporary, the new life expectancy would much shorter without Social Security and Medicare.  The lower orders would experience around a 10 year shorter life span.

[Lief 🗽]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

There is a little thing in the Senate called the filibuster that would make that almost impossible even if those events did happen. 

The GOP will abolish the filibuster as soon as they gain a majority in the Senate. Count on it.

That's not going to happen.  Do you think Republicans want to risk Democrats passing single payer health insurance when they get a Senate majority?

After seeing the amount of damage they were able to do with the filibuster to a party that had a 60-seat majority, the GOP will surely abolish it or dramatically weaken it if they regain a Senate majority. The Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocrites on the issue before, and I have no doubt that they would do so again. Plus the idea of the Democratic Party ever finding 50 votes for single-payer health insurance is laughably unrealistic.

[dead0man]

Before the end of the decade.

So, how would it happen (and what would it entail? Care to provide a scenario?

Dems lose the House and Senate in 2010; a Republican defeats Obama in 2012, winning even larger majorities in both houses in the process; and Social Security and Medicare are promptly dismantled (or they'll do the two-step, "means-testing reform then dismantling/privatizing a few years later" approach).

There is a little thing in the Senate called the filibuster that would make that almost impossible even if those events did happen. 

The GOP will abolish the filibuster as soon as they gain a majority in the Senate. Count on it.

That's not going to happen.  Do you think Republicans want to risk Democrats passing single payer health insurance when they get a Senate majority?

After seeing the amount of damage they were able to do with the filibuster to a party that had a 60-seat majority, the GOP will surely abolish it or dramatically weaken it if they regain a Senate majority. The Republicans have proven themselves to be hypocrites on the issue before, and I have no doubt that they would do so again. Plus the idea of the Democratic Party ever finding 50 votes for single-payer health insurance is laughably unrealistic.

I support the filibuster being abolished.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Social Security and Medicare will be privatized when we get a President with common sense and who actually plans to follow through with what he/she promises on the campaign.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

When the country goes bankrupt, which isn't too far off into the future.

^^^

I'm guessing something along the line's of Paul Ryan or W style privatization by the middle of this decade. Don't just look to the Republicans either.. There's plenty of Clintons and Kerreys in the party who were receptive to the idea before and could easily get on board when the party inevitably decides to 'moderate' and pursue 'bipartisanship' through 'austerity' measures.

Which idea? Stopping social security payments cold to the current elderly? I'd bet that even if every single Democrat were to disappear from the Congress and the White House tomorrow, Republicans wouldn't be able to pass it. Borrowing like drunken sailors to finance the transition (paying the benefits to the current seniors, while shifting to private solutions for the future generations)? And who is going to be lending, especially under the current conditions?

The fact is, whatever you think of the current system, it has a lot of inertia. Stopping it cold isn't feasible politically, and transitioning to another system would cost a lot of money and require humongous temporary expansion of the public borrowing. Long-term adjustment is another matter - I could easily see adoption of policies that would slowly transition, say, to individual private accounts, while letting the traditional Social Security wither through inflatoin. But it would take many, many decades for this to happen.

And, as for Medicare, though cutting costs is an urgent necessity, abolishing it is outright impossible (and "privatizing" would either save nothing, or would be tantamount to abolition), unless the society is willing to experience a major (admittedly temporarily) mortality spike among the elderly. Since many non-elderly voters have elderly parents, and since, if Medicare were to be abolished, they'd be solely responsible for their care, and since, given the tax incidence at present, for an overwhelming majority their expenses would dwarf whatever tax savings they'd be able to enjoy, the uproar wouldn't be limited to senior citizens. Florida would secede ))

Unfortunately, you are pretty much right. SS is a giant Ponzi scheme, and no one wants to be the one who is left with the bill without getting their share of the profits. The thing is, it has to end sooner or later, and the fallout of the end of SS will be much worse if it happens later. Nothing short of a giant economic crash or the Medicare/Social Security system becoming more expensive than the US military will be ending it.

[opebo]

Unfortunately, you are pretty much right. SS is a giant Ponzi scheme, and no one wants to be the one who is left with the bill without getting their share of the profits. The thing is, it has to end sooner or later

What nonsense.  It isn't a Ponzi scheme, and calling it such tends to follow the old canard that one's contributions are 'invested' in someway.  They aren't.

SS is a transfer payment from the young to the old, which formalized in a government scheme what used to happen somewhat automatically ('privately') in the old days.  There is no reason we can't continue the program even with the current slight imbalance towards an older population, simply by taxing the privileged more.

If the birthrate were very slightly higher and the increase in lifespans slightly less rapid, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.   In point of fact I doubt very much that lifespans will continue to increase over the next century nearly as much as they have in the previous.

[Storebought]

... unless the society is willing to experience a major (admittedly temporarily) mortality spike among the elderly.

While the spike might be temporary, the new life expectancy would much shorter without Social Security and Medicare.  The lower orders would experience around a 10 year shorter life span.

Nonsense. Drops in life expectancy are caused by drugs, HIV, and gunshot wounds. Nothing to do with Medicare.

[Torie]

Never

[opebo]

While the spike might be temporary, the new life expectancy would much shorter without Social Security and Medicare.  The lower orders would experience around a 10 year shorter life span.

Nonsense. Drops in life expectancy are caused by drugs, HIV, and gunshot wounds. Nothing to do with Medicare.

Arguably many more olds would die of starvation or exposure without Social Security.  Some would also die of violent victimization while homeless.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The Republicans will try to starve them until they truly are insolvent and cannot be fixed.  Then they will convince 51% of Americans that it needs to be firstly privatized.. so that the profits can be milked by the top 1%... before it is just done away with completely.

[LBJ Revivalist]

The Republicans will try to starve them until they truly are insolvent and cannot be fixed.  Then they will convince 51% of Americans that it needs to be firstly privatized.. so that the profits can be milked by the top 1%... before it is just done away with completely.

That's because Republicans including and post Reagan are horrible people.
Reagan was a bastard.