But let’s analyze your proposed model. Let’s say that we had no medicare or social security, and that people paid only taxes on other budget functions (national defense, general government, net interest on debt, etc.). The dollar amount of their federal tithes that most people (that is, people making less than 100K a year) would see back is actually rather small. Still, they could then could use that money to buy into retirement funds, based on the stock market, I presume. Most people are not very savvy when it comes to the stock market, so they will go through money managers and investors (let’s let alone the fact that those people themselves are hardly unimpeachable), which costs some (probably small) percentage of the money. But even if they made what seems to be a good choice in stocks (by their own research, or though money managers), the stock market is quite risky. On the average, it tends to be fairly even… but individuals can win big or lose big playing the stocks. The big winners, we don’t need to worry about; likewise the big losers who nevertheless have a good stockpile of wealth; but there will be a fairly significant number of people of modest means who, through no fault of their own, lose big and have no chance of recovery. What do we do under your plan? Do we let them go under, or do we help them? If we help them, where does the money come from? Not from the people who were already doing well financially. And let’s be realistic, many people simply don’t plan successfully for retirement; what do we do about them?

All that said, the models for health-care reform and social security are completely different, so you’re carrying the analogy way too far. Social security did indeed turn into a policy of one generation supporting the one before (though that’s not how it started), and that is only sustainable as long as each successive generation does a well enough to cover the kitty for their generation of dependents. I’m not going to dwell on the simple idea that taking care of our elderly is a worthy goal (though I think it is). But the health-care plans Hillary and Obama are putting forth work much more like the insurance industry, averaging the medical needs of all payers in a multi-generational, not inter-generational, manner… it’s just a little less cutthroat and greedy than insurance companies.

But universal health care is only one thing I like about Obama. His plans for education are great, regarding the failed No Child Left Behind, and providing tuition programs for colleges. His early and continued opposition to the Iraq war, and his reasons behind it, are sensible. And, of course, the fact that he isn’t yet in the pocket of lobbyists and special interests will give him flexibility in how he can approach solutions.

The advantage to a populist politician like Obama is that he may be more subject to the will of his constituency. But the very real danger is that that constituency reads into him what they want to see, that they follow him without thinking, and that they don’t subject him to oversight. I agree that should he be the nominee, we need to extract real promises from him, and hold his feet to the fire should he be elected.

The thing I don’t like about it other than it’s fiscal irresponsibility, is the fact that is taking peoples money from them short term to do something for them long term. People could be taking all the money going into social security today and invest it in a retirement fund, but instead the government is stealing it from them so that when they finally retire, they will all be Dependent on the Government to give them their benefits.

And any time along the way, politicians or parties can change the rules and totally rip us off. Which is a great way of scaring people into voting for them.

These programs are a lot like credit cards or loan sharks– they can keep you afloat for a while, but they are going to catch up with you as long as your expenditures outweigh your income. Very short term thinking like this plays well with those who ‘don’t get math’ and ‘want to help people’, but if it’s unsustainable it is suicide. Policies like these are like industrial pollution — quick gains today at the expense of future generations.

Consider that, while social security is falling apart now, it did serve us very well, operating with budget surpluses, for 40 years, until it started going south in the late 70s. Even today, it supplies vital life expenses to people who wouldn’t otherwise be able to pay their bills (though of course, it’s not enough); that it will run out by the time I’m eligible to draw my share sucks, but doesn’t invalidate the good it’s doing today, and I don’t begrudge paying into it to increase the quality of life for those who need it.

40 years. That’s an awfully long time for a system to be unequivocally effective. That’s at least 5-10 administration changes. Add to that another 30 years (3-7 administrations) of moderate effectiveness. I don’t think that’s a very bad record at all. Universal health care would actually breathe more life into social security, too, because it would lower health-care costs and emphasize preventative care.

But you’re right that policy ping-pong is an issue. Part of the solution is in decreasing corruption in government, and part is in getting multiple parties to see how it’s in their best interest, as well as the interest of their constituents and the nation as a whole, to work on a system that is sustainable across administrations and ideologies. Obama seems to have that inclination, and hopefully the skills to do it. No other candidate does. If we can lay a solid groundwork for a health care solution, to some degree momentum will sustain it through party changes… social security, while widely reviled by conservatives since at least the 60s, has nonetheless survived through a handful of conservative administrations (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Good Bush, and Bad Bush).

The current health care system is so foully controlled by special interests that any disruption of their momentum and influence (in the computer industry, we call their tactics FUD… Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) would be a big win. We’d still need to implement the solution gradually (even once a bill is passed, it will take a decade or so to really implement it properly), but I suspect we’d start seeing small wins right away.

“Incremental steps toward better and better health care, with clear indicators along the way of progress and benefit, and correctional measures considered and implemented periodically. Nobody ever wrote a great computer program the first time they sat down at a computer.”

If a logical, methodical system like this had been set up for social security, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re currently in.

Sadly, our Government isn’t that good. Programs get funding, then 4 or 8 years later someone else with other totally different Big Ideas to Make Our Lives Better gets elected, and the original program is ignored, but continues to grow randomly, wether or not it is really workable, efficient, or helping anyone.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and with the short term, instant gratification pandering that most politicians use to get elected to our system of government, taking on a project of that expense and complexity seems, simply put, beyond them.

For what it’s worth, of the two plans on the table (since McCain doesn’t have a plan), I prefer Obama’s, which is only mandatory for children. Clinton’s hard-line on the “universal” part, with mandatory opt-in, is less likely to fit the bill right now… especially since many people would choose to forgo insurance coverage, and prefer to pay the penalty, for whatever reason. Though I earn a reasonable salary, I don’t have insurance myself, in effect gambling that any costs of covering the health care will be smaller than the unreasonable costs of insurance over many years; but I don’t have any chronic health problems. I certainly hope that some health care plan under Obama makes it a better bet for me to opt-in than opt-out… I ain’t getting any younger!

As for it being the “same knuckleheads”, there is almost no continuity between Democrats or Republicans, as far as policies or rhetoric, going back more than a few decades at most. Some of Nixon’s legacy is more liberal than anyone in the Democratic party today. And let’s hope it keeps changing, but in a direction more beneficial for all citizens.

Seeing as how the government has handled “Free Retirement for Everyone” via social security which seems doomed to bankrupcy in the very near future, do you all really think it is a good idea to let these same knuckleheads take over our healthcare? Maybe we should force them to make social security solvent before even allowing them the option of putting universal heath care on the table.