1. Social Security & Medicare -- What Should We Do With Them?

[alaskanseminole]

Since most of our political discussions turn into pissing matches rather than focusing on the actual issues w/ each side using the most extreme position from the other side as a weapon, let's try something different. I'm going to do a series of 10 political issues, putting three perspectives side-by-side: DSA | mine | Project 2025.

The point isn't to decide which "team jersey" is right. The exercise is to identify what each of us actually believes on each issue, explain why, and maybe find some common ground along the way. You might agree with one side on one issue and the other side on the next...and that's okay.

Issue	DSA -- Official Position	alaskanseminole -- My Position	Project 2025 -- Official Position
Social Security	Protect and expand Social Security; increase benefits and require higher earners to contribute more. Opposes converting Social Security into an individual defined-contribution system.	Preserve a guaranteed Social Security benefit, but gradually add a personally owned, portable investment component, somewhat modeled on the military's Blended Retirement System -- maintaining a guaranteed floor while allowing workers to build additional retirement assets.	No specific overhaul proposed. Does not call for privatization, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits. Trump/GOP platform used because Project 2025 is silent: protect Social Security with no cuts and no retirement-age changes; pursue long-term sustainability.
Medicare	Medicare for All: universal coverage with no premiums, copays or deductibles; move toward a single public healthcare system.	Preserve Medicare as a government-run retirement health-insurance program, while addressing long-term costs and sustainability. Open to reforms that improve efficiency, choice and affordability.	Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option, increase competition and beneficiary choice, give beneficiaries greater control over Medicare spending, and repeal the IRA's Medicare drug-price negotiation provisions.

Where do you fall? What would you do? Keep them as they are? Change the retirement age? Adjust benefits? Raise the payroll-tax cap? Add a personal investment component? Move toward Medicare for All? Keep healthcare primarily private? Create a hybrid?

One note: I'm using the official DSA platform and Project 2025's official policy document wherever they address an issue. I am not substituting what critics claim they believe or what individual members/supporters have said. If Project 2025 doesn't take a position on a particular issue, I'll use the official Trump/MAGA position instead and clearly identify it as such. Feel free to challenge my interpretation of any of these positions. If I've misrepresented one, make the case and provide evidence.

Rules
- No personal attacks.
- No trolling.
- Attack the argument, not the person.
- If you disagree, explain why.
- Bring facts/data when making factual claims whenever possible.
- Leave the team politics at the door.
- Changing your mind is allowed.

The Series
1. Social Security & Medicare YOU ARE HERE

2. Immigration & Border Security
3. Abortion
4. Guns & the 2nd Amendment
5. Healthcare
6. Taxes, Wealth & Government Spending
7. Energy, Climate & the Environment
8. LGBTQ Rights, Religion & Individual Liberty
9. Military, NATO & America's Role in the World
10. Government, Presidential Power & Constitutional Limits

 

[jimneffer]

Since most of our political discussions turn into pissing matches rather than focusing on the actual issues w/ each side using the most extreme position from the other side as a weapon, let's try something different. I'm going to do a series of 10 political issues, putting three perspectives side-by-side: DSA | mine | Project 2025.

The point isn't to decide which "team jersey" is right. The exercise is to identify what each of us actually believes on each issue, explain why, and maybe find some common ground along the way. You might agree with one side on one issue and the other side on the next...and that's okay.

Issue	DSA -- Official Position	alaskanseminole -- My Position	Project 2025 -- Official Position
Social Security	Protect and expand Social Security; increase benefits and require higher earners to contribute more. Opposes converting Social Security into an individual defined-contribution system.	Preserve a guaranteed Social Security benefit, but gradually add a personally owned, portable investment component, somewhat modeled on the military's Blended Retirement System -- maintaining a guaranteed floor while allowing workers to build additional retirement assets.	No specific overhaul proposed. Does not call for privatization, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits. Trump/GOP platform used because Project 2025 is silent: protect Social Security with no cuts and no retirement-age changes; pursue long-term sustainability.
Medicare	Medicare for All: universal coverage with no premiums, copays or deductibles; move toward a single public healthcare system.	Preserve Medicare as a government-run retirement health-insurance program, while addressing long-term costs and sustainability. Open to reforms that improve efficiency, choice and affordability.	Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option, increase competition and beneficiary choice, give beneficiaries greater control over Medicare spending, and repeal the IRA's Medicare drug-price negotiation provisions.

Where do you fall? What would you do? Keep them as they are? Change the retirement age? Adjust benefits? Raise the payroll-tax cap? Add a personal investment component? Move toward Medicare for All? Keep healthcare primarily private? Create a hybrid?

One note: I'm using the official DSA platform and Project 2025's official policy document wherever they address an issue. I am not substituting what critics claim they believe or what individual members/supporters have said. If Project 2025 doesn't take a position on a particular issue, I'll use the official Trump/MAGA position instead and clearly identify it as such. Feel free to challenge my interpretation of any of these positions. If I've misrepresented one, make the case and provide evidence.

Rules
- No personal attacks.
- No trolling.
- Attack the argument, not the person.
- If you disagree, explain why.
- Bring facts/data when making factual claims whenever possible.
- Leave the team politics at the door.
- Changing your mind is allowed.

The Series
1. Social Security & Medicare YOU ARE HERE

2. Immigration & Border Security
3. Abortion
4. Guns & the 2nd Amendment
5. Healthcare
6. Taxes, Wealth & Government Spending
7. Energy, Climate & the Environment
8. LGBTQ Rights, Religion & Individual Liberty
9. Military, NATO & America's Role in the World
10. Government, Presidential Power & Constitutional Limits

this pretty great overall...thanks for presenting this (even if I don't think it's fair to necessarily equate DSA platform with Project 2025)

but are you intending "medicare" to be "health care policy"...or just specifically "medicare"?

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

OP, great idea for a series…although it seems to overlap with @scotchtiger a bit.

Anyway he proposed a solution to SS in the other thread that seems practical and workable to me. So I would probably go with that.

On Medicare I would offer preventative care and catastrophic care under an M4A plan. I have run the numbers before and I believe once you consider the employer portion of healthcare costs the math does in fact math on this. You allow people the opportunity to buy into private insurance for other needs or to skip the line, but you make sure everyone can get basic preventative care while avoiding medical bankruptcy.

I’m currently on a 100 mile through hike so don’t have the capacity to show my work, but will come back to it in a week or so with more detail when I have a consistent connection.

 

[alaskanseminole]

this pretty great overall...thanks for presenting this (even if I don't think it's fair to necessarily equate DSA platform with Project 2025)

Ya, I waffled back n forth on using DSA and Project 2025. I wound up going with that format because they're the two things this board seems to use most often as shorthand for the "extremes" of each side. That may have been a misstep given what I'm actually trying to accomplish here. We'll see how it goes. I may tweak rounds 2-10.

but are you intending "medicare" to be "health care policy"...or just specifically "medicare"?

I'm intentionally keeping healthcare policy separate for #5. I think there's enough to discuss w/ SS and Medicare on their own.

 

[alaskanseminole]

OP, great idea for a series…although it seems to overlap with @scotchtiger a bit.

Anyway he proposed a solution to SS in the other thread that seems practical and workable to me. So I would probably go with that.

On Medicare I would offer preventative care and catastrophic care under an M4A plan. I have run the numbers before and I believe once you consider the employer portion of healthcare costs the math does in fact math on this. You allow people the opportunity to buy into private insurance for other needs or to skip the line, but you make sure everyone can get basic preventative care while avoiding medical bankruptcy.

I haven't seen Scotch's thread, but I think your Medicare idea is exactly the kind of thing I'm hoping this series brings out. I like a hybrid approach (see mine on SS). Essecntially, you're saying nobody skips basic preventive care because they can't afford it and nobody goes bankrupt because they got seriously sick. I'm definitely interested in seeing your numbers when you get back to civilization.

I’m currently on a 100 mile through hike so don’t have the capacity to show my work, but will come back to it in a week or so with more detail when I have a consistent connection.

Dude! Go have fun and leave this place in hte dust! Plenty of time for this stuff later. Be safe!

 

[Rifler]

On Medicare I would offer preventative care and catastrophic care under an M4A plan. I have run the numbers before and I believe once you consider the employer portion of healthcare costs the math does in fact math on this. You allow people the opportunity to buy into private insurance for other needs or to skip the line, but you make sure everyone can get basic preventative care while avoiding medical bankruptcy.

This seems roughly inline with an approach that I've long supported...

Given that a primary goal is to provide at least basic healthcare access to all American citizens, I would start at the bottom and initiate a single payer program that covers a defined list of basic healthcare services,.. This list would need to include all of the more common services and procedures such as, prenatal care, deliveries, pediatric care, immunizations, general office visits, emergency room procedures, etc., etc., etc.,.. basically most of the things that everyone encounters at some point in their life,.. The size of this list would ultimately be based on how much we, the taxpayers, want to spend on the program,.. An annual accounting of all program costs and services would be used as the basis for determining any adjustments to be made to the list of covered services,... Over and above this basic services single payer program is where private insurance would be allowed to operate by selling supplemental plans covering services not included in the basic program,... These supplemental plans could then be purchased individually or offered by employers as an element of their group benefits programs.

Using this approach everybody gets basic coverage,.. While anyone who wants and can afford more, still has access to that higher level of coverage.

 

[Tom Paris]

 

[scotchtiger]

I’m following the idea of very basic coverage for everyone. But how are you guys funding it? Income taxes? Employer taxes (they pay the majority of premiums today)?

If you shift from personal premiums to personal income tax, you shift from equal payment to redistribution of funding for the program based on income.

Insurance isn’t supposed to be based on income. I don’t pay 2X for car insurance on the same car as a guy who makes half of what I do. Likewise on homeowners insurance.

I’m not really interested in a disproportionate increase in my taxes to fund this program.

 

[jimneffer]

This seems roughly inline with an approach that I've long supported...

Given that a primary goal is to provide at least basic healthcare access to all American citizens, I would start at the bottom and initiate a single payer program that covers a defined list of basic healthcare services,.. This list would need to include all of the more common services and procedures such as, prenatal care, deliveries, pediatric care, immunizations, general office visits, emergency room procedures, etc., etc., etc.,.. basically most of the things that everyone encounters at some point in their life,.. The size of this list would ultimately be based on how much we, the taxpayers, want to spend on the program,.. An annual accounting of all program costs and services would be used as the basis for determining any adjustments to be made to the list of covered services,... Over and above this basic services single payer program is where private insurance would be allowed to operate by selling supplemental plans covering services not included in the basic program,... These supplemental plans could then be purchased individually or offered by employers as an element of their group benefits programs.

Using this approach everybody gets basic coverage,.. While anyone who wants and can afford more, still has access to that higher level of coverage.

congrats - you're now a communist!

welcome aboard, comrade

 

[Rifler]

congrats - you're now a communist!

welcome aboard, comrade

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I would love to know where she comes up with those numbers.

 

[Rifler]

I would love to know where she comes up with those numbers.

Numbers are easy when you only have to show one side of the ledger....

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

I’m following the idea of very basic coverage for everyone. But how are you guys funding it? Income taxes? Employer taxes (they pay the majority of premiums today)?

If you shift from personal premiums to personal income tax, you shift from equal payment to redistribution of funding for the program based on income.

Insurance isn’t supposed to be based on income. I don’t pay 2X for car insurance on the same car as a guy who makes half of what I do. Likewise on homeowners insurance.

I’m not really interested in a disproportionate increase in my taxes to fund this program.

Nor should you be. Because having health insurance doesn’t mean positive healthcare outcomes. Why should citizens of this country pay into a system where millions of obscenely fat, overweight people are going to suck the system dry because they have no incentive to get healthy? At least most “free” college education proposals have some basic requirements for maintaining a certain GPA. Government healthcare “for all no matter what” would be like giving 18-20 year olds free reign to party and do whatever the f#ck they want in college with no regard for GPA or purpose in pursuing a major.

There has to be incentives tied to accessing government healthcare, especially when you are getting it for “free” since other people with higher incomes have to pay for your premiums and you sucking the system dry. Single moms with a sh*t ton of kids on Medicaid are the worst. They feed their kids junk food, take them to the doctor 50 times a year for a basic case of Mr. Sniffles, and get doctors to put all their kids on 5 different costly medications for sh*t like ADHD. And guess what? Mom pays zero dollars. Tax payer pays 100%. And you know what? Most of the time the kids are not any healthier.

That’s the fundamental problem with this Medicare for all discussion—positive health outcomes are not part of the conversation involving how other people’s tax money will be used frivolously. The fact private insurance companies are evil is beside the point.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Since most of our political discussions turn into pissing matches rather than focusing on the actual issues w/ each side using the most extreme position from the other side as a weapon, let's try something different. I'm going to do a series of 10 political issues, putting three perspectives side-by-side: DSA | mine | Project 2025.

The point isn't to decide which "team jersey" is right. The exercise is to identify what each of us actually believes on each issue, explain why, and maybe find some common ground along the way. You might agree with one side on one issue and the other side on the next...and that's okay.

Issue	DSA -- Official Position	alaskanseminole -- My Position	Project 2025 -- Official Position
Social Security	Protect and expand Social Security; increase benefits and require higher earners to contribute more. Opposes converting Social Security into an individual defined-contribution system.	Preserve a guaranteed Social Security benefit, but gradually add a personally owned, portable investment component, somewhat modeled on the military's Blended Retirement System -- maintaining a guaranteed floor while allowing workers to build additional retirement assets.	No specific overhaul proposed. Does not call for privatization, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits. Trump/GOP platform used because Project 2025 is silent: protect Social Security with no cuts and no retirement-age changes; pursue long-term sustainability.
Medicare	Medicare for All: universal coverage with no premiums, copays or deductibles; move toward a single public healthcare system.	Preserve Medicare as a government-run retirement health-insurance program, while addressing long-term costs and sustainability. Open to reforms that improve efficiency, choice and affordability.	Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option, increase competition and beneficiary choice, give beneficiaries greater control over Medicare spending, and repeal the IRA's Medicare drug-price negotiation provisions.

Where do you fall? What would you do? Keep them as they are? Change the retirement age? Adjust benefits? Raise the payroll-tax cap? Add a personal investment component? Move toward Medicare for All? Keep healthcare primarily private? Create a hybrid?

One note: I'm using the official DSA platform and Project 2025's official policy document wherever they address an issue. I am not substituting what critics claim they believe or what individual members/supporters have said. If Project 2025 doesn't take a position on a particular issue, I'll use the official Trump/MAGA position instead and clearly identify it as such. Feel free to challenge my interpretation of any of these positions. If I've misrepresented one, make the case and provide evidence.

Rules
- No personal attacks.
- No trolling.
- Attack the argument, not the person.
- If you disagree, explain why.
- Bring facts/data when making factual claims whenever possible.
- Leave the team politics at the door.
- Changing your mind is allowed.

The Series
1. Social Security & Medicare YOU ARE HERE

2. Immigration & Border Security
3. Abortion
4. Guns & the 2nd Amendment
5. Healthcare
6. Taxes, Wealth & Government Spending
7. Energy, Climate & the Environment
8. LGBTQ Rights, Religion & Individual Liberty
9. Military, NATO & America's Role in the World
10. Government, Presidential Power & Constitutional Limits

Non-serious response: Shoot the Baby Boomers and encourage more women to get an abortion.

Serious response: We always knew the system would become insolvent once Boomers started retiring. The fact government has “borrowed” over 2 trillion dollars from it doesn’t help either.

In short, there is no solution beyond scrapping it and having the system privatized.

Thankfully, I haven’t had to pay into SS for years because my district opted out in the 1980s and has a separate system, free of the standard 6% FICA deduction, where the district pays into this separate retirement fund with the employee only having to contribute about 1%. It’s a pretty sweet deal. And best of all, when some smart azz Boomer mouths off, “Hey, thanks for funding my social security,” I get to snap back, “Well, actually, bro…”

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

Numbers are easy when you only have to show one side of the ledger....

Well, that, and anytime someone starts throwing out percentages (with no context and no sources), I tune out.

 

[WDDT]

Burn it to the ground.

 

[Aardvark86]

While I don’t really know the social security aspect as well, I’ve been a Medicare lawyer for 30+ years.

on the ssi side, my reaction is essentially one of expectation management. Those who have contributed and planned based on it with limited time to pivot, should continue to get it. Those who have time to pivot, the reality is that modern vehicles have undercut the need for it.

Medicare has two problems. First, it’s gone well beyond a safety net to something that covers everything. Scale back to more core benefits. Second, it (and Medicaid) has to rethink its approach to end of life. We shouldn’t warehouse people, and we should not cover everything end of life therapy that provides minimal life extension without quality of life.

 

[m.knox]

Clearly the limit needs to be raised. I mean, liberals like Jimmy Kimmel and Bruce Springsteen are done paying SS after their first check. They should pay more.

That said, I enjoy getting a 6% raise during the year. Always sucks coming back on Jan 1 to bring home less.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

alaskanseminole -- My Position: Preserve a guaranteed Social Security benefit, but gradually add a personally owned, portable investment component, somewhat modeled on the military's Blended Retirement System -- maintaining a guaranteed floor while allowing workers to build additional retirement assets.


How does this differ from a 401K or or an IRA or a Roth? These get special consideration under tax law. Are you saying a portion of your SS contributions should go into such an account? Here's what I found on the "military's Blended Retirement System" site:

The new military Blended Retirement System is more complicated and less guaranteed than the old system. That means it will be more important than ever for service members to make smart, informed decisions at every step of their careers in order to be successfully prepared for the future.

And we're counting on regular people "to make smart, informed decisions"?

Our Advisors are specialized in financial planning for military retirement. They can help you develop a strategy that will ensure you pursue the retirement lifestyle you've always dreamed about. Our Financial Advisors will explain tax-advantaged investment options, establish a plan that leverages military retirement benefits, and meet with you regularly to monitor your progress and make necessary adjustments.

Who are the financial advisors in the civilian world? Not saying it won't work but there are questions.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Thankfully, I haven’t had to pay into SS for years because my district opted out in the 1980s and has a separate system, free of the standard 6% FICA deduction, where the district pays into this separate retirement fund with the employee only having to contribute about 1%. It’s a pretty sweet deal. And best of all, when some smart azz Boomer mouths off, “Hey, thanks for funding my social security,” I get to snap back, “Well, actually, bro…”

We have a funded retirement system and SS. I retired the day before I was eligible for full SS. Between my pension and SS, I bring home more than when I was working. My 401K and what I get paid for any work I do is gravy. That's a sweet deal.

 

[firegiver]

My main concern is solvency for the programs. Thus I would raise the ceiling on contributions for SS. Its just such an easy win for the future and is needed.

 

[scotchtiger]

My main concern is solvency for the programs. Thus I would raise the ceiling on contributions for SS. It’s just such an easy win for the future and is needed.

Why raise the ceiling instead of my idea of simply raising the % from 12.4 to 14? That covers the current shortfall. It’s everyone’s problem - everyone should pitch in to fix it.

Raising the cap is only an easy win for the people below the cap… The rest of us have to do the hard work of actually paying to save the program for everyone else.

 

[firegiver]

Why raise the ceiling instead of my idea of simply raising the % from 12.4 to 14? That covers the current shortfall. It’s everyone’s problem - everyone should pitch in to fix it.

Raising the cap is only an easy win for the people below the cap… The rest of us have to do the hard work of actually paying to save the program for everyone else.

If its everyones problem, then use the flat tax theory everyone on the right loves and apply it here.
" The rest of us have to do the hard work of actually paying " dude, I'll never respect this argument. Its just a nonstarter for me and theres too much to unpack in a text forum to even try.

 

[scotchtiger]

If its everyones problem, then use the flat tax theory everyone on the right loves and apply it here.
" The rest of us have to do the hard work of actually paying " dude, I'll never respect this argument. It’s just a nonstarter for me and theres too much to unpack in a text forum to even try.

My proposal means a family making $100k pays a mere $800 per year to save the program. My family pays $3K. Significantly more, but fair enough.

Removing the cap means the family making $100k pays nothing extra. My family pays roughly $40,000 more.

It’s absurd.

 

[firegiver]

My proposal means a family making $100k pays a mere $800 per year to save the program. My family pays $3K. Pretty fair.

Removing the cap means the family making $100k pays nothing extra. My family pays roughly $40,000 more.

It’s absurd.

whats absurd in that argument is it does not address the substantial wealth inequality in this nation and you know it. Also, all you think about is yourself, which is the whole problem. The person making 100k doesn't need to pay more, those that are above the cap need to. boo hoo.

 

[scotchtiger]

whats absurd in that argument is it does not address the substantial wealth inequality in this nation and you know it. Also, all you think about is yourself, which is the whole problem. The person making 100k doesn't need to pay more, those that are above the cap need to. boo hoo.

Ah yes. The exceptionally logical take that billionaire wealth inequality should be addressed via FICA taxes.

You are so filled with bitterness that it’s impossible to have a logical discussion with you on this topic.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

Why raise the ceiling instead of my idea of simply raising the % from 12.4 to 14? That covers the current shortfall. It’s everyone’s problem - everyone should pitch in to fix it.

Raising the cap is only an easy win for the people below the cap… The rest of us have to do the hard work of actually paying to save the program for everyone else.

Tell you what, if you're making money above the cap, part of that is the growing disconnect in wages. So when you agree to raise the wages of those now below the cap at your expense, we can talk.

SS taxes captured 90% of income in the 80's and 90's. It's at 83% now and falling. Fix that first. You can either divert some of that income downward or you can raise the cap. Choose.

 

[Aardvark86]

God you're giving me nightmares of July 1985 in Leningrad. Had way too much Georgian wine with my dinner, and tried to do that on the dance floor of a public restaurant, with very limited success.

 

[scotchtiger]

Tell you what, if you're making money above the cap, part of that is the growing disconnect in wages. So when you agree to raise the wages of those now below the cap at your expense, we can talk.

SS taxes captured 90% of income in the 80's and 90's. It's at 83% now and falling. Fix that first. You can either divert some of that income downward or you can raise the cap. Choose.

What a flawed way of thinking. “When I agree to raise wages…at my expense?” That’s the free market’s job, not my individual responsibility.

 

[Rifler]

Glad to hear you say that,.. A majority of the free market wants to raise the cap.

 

[FLaw47]

I couldn't really care less what the DSA or Republicans want to do with these programs but I'll give my thoughts (that are getting pulled out of my butt in mostly real time)

• Medicare (I'm nowhere close to being on medicare so excuse me if there's stuff I'm getting wrong here)
  • Don't get rid of medicare, maybe lower the age to 59.5 or 55 to coincide with when you get access to retirement funds
  • Ensure there is a co-pay for all non preventative services
  • Ensure that providers are allowed to charge no show and late cancellation fees
  • Use the enormous leverage of Medicare to force providers and insurers into a more streamlined and less overhead intensive state (what that is, I don't know but maybe we can ensure that Medicare insurance codes become the default for all providers)
  • Allow individuals under 55 to buy in at a less subsidized rate but commiserate with their age (and therefore relatively reduced rates)
  • You probably need to increase reimbursement rates
  • Raise taxes however much is necessary to achieve the above
• Social Security
  • Eliminate the earnings tax cap
    • ScotchTiger can have forever increasing rates with his tax cap lifted but it will not scale anywhere close to taxed income
  • Impose a social security tax on capital gains and security backed loans above a certain level that makes sense
  • The most conservative idea I'm willing to entertain here is having a portion (half, one third?) of social security go into the same sort of set up as Thrift Savings Plan where the individual can chose from an extremely limited set of funds. An absolute hard no on this being something that we let private industry handle.

 

[tarheelbybirth1]

What a flawed way of thinking. “When I agree to raise wages…at my expense?” That’s the free market’s job, not my individual responsibility.

LOL... you think the "free market" is responsible for soaring productivity and flat wages? We don't have anything approaching a free market. We have a market tilted heavily toward the wealthy... tilted by the wealthy. The$1.60 minimum wage in the late 60's would be worth $20/hour today so spare me this "free market" BS.

 

[scotchtiger]

LOL... you think the "free market" is responsible for soaring productivity and flat wages? We don't have anything approaching a free market. We have a market tilted heavily toward the wealthy... tilted by the wealthy. The$1.60 minimum wage in the late 60's would be worth $20/hour today so spare me this "free market" BS.

Who makes minimum wage besides high school kids?

Soaring productivity has a lot to do with technology advances.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Since most of our political discussions turn into pissing matches rather than focusing on the actual issues w/ each side using the most extreme position from the other side as a weapon, let's try something different. I'm going to do a series of 10 political issues, putting three perspectives side-by-side: DSA | mine | Project 2025.

The point isn't to decide which "team jersey" is right. The exercise is to identify what each of us actually believes on each issue, explain why, and maybe find some common ground along the way. You might agree with one side on one issue and the other side on the next...and that's okay.

Issue	DSA -- Official Position	alaskanseminole -- My Position	Project 2025 -- Official Position
Social Security	Protect and expand Social Security; increase benefits and require higher earners to contribute more. Opposes converting Social Security into an individual defined-contribution system.	Preserve a guaranteed Social Security benefit, but gradually add a personally owned, portable investment component, somewhat modeled on the military's Blended Retirement System -- maintaining a guaranteed floor while allowing workers to build additional retirement assets.	No specific overhaul proposed. Does not call for privatization, raising the retirement age, or cutting benefits. Trump/GOP platform used because Project 2025 is silent: protect Social Security with no cuts and no retirement-age changes; pursue long-term sustainability.
Medicare	Medicare for All: universal coverage with no premiums, copays or deductibles; move toward a single public healthcare system.	Preserve Medicare as a government-run retirement health-insurance program, while addressing long-term costs and sustainability. Open to reforms that improve efficiency, choice and affordability.	Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option, increase competition and beneficiary choice, give beneficiaries greater control over Medicare spending, and repeal the IRA's Medicare drug-price negotiation provisions.

Where do you fall? What would you do? Keep them as they are? Change the retirement age? Adjust benefits? Raise the payroll-tax cap? Add a personal investment component? Move toward Medicare for All? Keep healthcare primarily private? Create a hybrid?

One note: I'm using the official DSA platform and Project 2025's official policy document wherever they address an issue. I am not substituting what critics claim they believe or what individual members/supporters have said. If Project 2025 doesn't take a position on a particular issue, I'll use the official Trump/MAGA position instead and clearly identify it as such. Feel free to challenge my interpretation of any of these positions. If I've misrepresented one, make the case and provide evidence.

Rules
- No personal attacks.
- No trolling.
- Attack the argument, not the person.
- If you disagree, explain why.
- Bring facts/data when making factual claims whenever possible.
- Leave the team politics at the door.
- Changing your mind is allowed.

The Series
1. Social Security & Medicare YOU ARE HERE

2. Immigration & Border Security
3. Abortion
4. Guns & the 2nd Amendment
5. Healthcare
6. Taxes, Wealth & Government Spending
7. Energy, Climate & the Environment
8. LGBTQ Rights, Religion & Individual Liberty
9. Military, NATO & America's Role in the World
10. Government, Presidential Power & Constitutional Limits

DSA all the way for me. Which should come as no surprise to anyone.

Not saying that going all in on those DSA positions will be instantaneous or easy, but those should be our targets. Steady progress to phase them in. You know, like Bernie has been saying for a long time.

BTW, for those who care, the DSA and Green poisitions are virtually the same. But the mainstream Democratic Party position is lame.

[per Claude]

Quick framing note: DSA is an activist/socialist organization that mostly runs candidates through Democratic primaries rather than a separate party; the Green Party is an actual third party; "mainstream Democratic Party" here means the official party platform and current caucus consensus, which is well to the right of the progressive wing (Sanders, Jayapal, etc.) that sits inside it.

Social Security​

	Mainstream Democratic Party	DSA	Green Party
Payroll tax cap ($184,500 in 2026)	Mixed: official platform favors "asking the wealthy to pay their fair share," but no unified position; a Sanders-Hoyle bill to tax earnings above $250,000 has 39 House cosponsors, all Democrats — a minority of the caucus	Calls for removing the cap on income subject to the Social Security tax entirely, framed as sufficient on its own to secure the program's finances	Longstanding position of "raising the cap, or going beyond that and raising benefits" rather than cutting them
Benefit levels	No official expansion pledge; some members back the Sanders-Hoyle bill, which would boost payments by roughly $2,400 a year and increase the annual cost-of-living adjustment	Explicitly cites and endorses that same expansion approach, arguing Social Security reform should expand benefits rather than cut them, contra decades of bipartisan assumptions that "saving" the program requires cuts	Expansion favored over cuts; treats it as a universal social-insurance program to strengthen, not trim
Retirement age / privatization	Party rejects raising the retirement age or privatizing accounts, but this wasn't always true of its own leadership: even Barack Obama once proposed cutting benefits and raising the retirement age to 69 as part of a budget deal with Republicans	Firmly opposed to privatization; cites Bill Clinton's push to cut benefits, raise the retirement age, and partially privatize the system as a cautionary example even from within the Democratic Party	Opposed to privatization; historically critical of proposals like the MyRA-style individual retirement accounts, which are "managed by financial institutions that profit from them," unlike Social Security itself

Medicare / health care​

	Mainstream Democratic Party	DSA	Green Party
Official structure	Public option layered on the ACA, not single-payer: the 2020 platform sought to secure universal health care through a public option rather than "Medicare for All," asserting private insurers "need real competition"	Single-payer, no private insurer role: "Medicare for All with no premiums, co-pays or deductibles," paired with expanded public hospitals and clinics and free medical education and training	Single-payer Medicare for All has long been a core plank, run repeatedly by Green candidates as the centerpiece of their campaigns
Role of private insurance	Preserved and regulated, not eliminated	Eliminated for basic coverage; DSA frames this as ending "private profit in health care" alongside restoring higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy	Eliminated for basic coverage, functionally identical to DSA's ask
Intra-party tension	This is the fault line: progressive Democrats (Sanders, Jayapal) have pushed Medicare for All bills for over a decade, but the platform reinforced divisions between the party's moderates and liberal wing, which was disappointed the official platform didn't support Medicare for All; some delegates refused to vote for the platform in protest	N/A — DSA has no internal moderate wing on this question; M4A is treated as a floor, not a ceiling	N/A — same as DSA

Bottom line​

• On Medicare, DSA and the Green Party are essentially identical: full single-payer, no private insurers, no cost-sharing. The mainstream Democratic Party's official position is meaningfully to the right of both — a public option, not single-payer — even though a large minority of elected Democrats personally back Medicare for All.
• On Social Security, the three converge more than they diverge in direction (expand, don't cut; make high earners pay more), but differ in how far: DSA and the Greens want the payroll cap eliminated outright, while the mainstream party's actual legislative vehicle (Sanders-Hoyle) only raises earnings subject to the tax above $250,000 and has cosponsors from under a third of House Democrats — not a party-wide commitment.
• The more useful lens than "party platforms" is factional: DSA and the Green Party occupy roughly the same policy space, and that space overlaps heavily with the Sanders/Jayapal wing inside the Democratic Party — the real gap is between that wing and the party's centrist leadership and official platform language.

 

[TennNole17*]

Educating myself a bit here:

* Why is there a cap on income for SS tax? Like 180K or something?
* Do I understand that the government has used or borrowed against SS funds and thats part of the issue? Shouldn't that money be left the eff alone?

 

[scotchtiger]

Educating myself a bit here:

* Why is there a cap on income for SS tax? Like 180K or something?
* Do I understand that the government has used or borrowed against SS funds and thats part of the issue? Shouldn't that money be left the eff alone?

$185K this year and $190K next year.

Also important to note that the benefit is capped as well. These redistribution proponents who want to raise the contribution cap generally want to do so while NOT raising the benefit cap. In other words, they want to take more money from people already paying high tax rates (approx. the top 5%, who pay ~60% of all income taxes) and offer zero incremental benefit in return. It's absurd.

 

[RagnarLothbrok]

We have a funded retirement system and SS. I retired the day before I was eligible for full SS. Between my pension and SS, I bring home more than when I was working. My 401K and what I get paid for any work I do is gravy. That's a sweet deal.

Yeah, I have a state pension, 403B, and district retirement account.

I paid some into SS up into my 20s, but I don’t expect anything from it in 20 years.

 

[ArtRadley]

Burn it to the ground.

I have paid about $250k over my lifetime, matched by my employers, for a total of about $500k. And a lot of that income was from self-employment, so the employer half was paid by me.

So...at 70 years old you propose my benefits just stop?

 

[ArtRadley]

Why raise the ceiling instead of my idea of simply raising the % from 12.4 to 14? That covers the current shortfall. It’s everyone’s problem - everyone should pitch in to fix it.

Raising the cap is only an easy win for the people below the cap… The rest of us have to do the hard work of actually paying to save the program for everyone else.

Where did you get your numbers? I believe raising it to 14.5% only reduces 50% of the shortfall.

My suggestion is to do two things:

1 - Rather than a cap on contributions, start collecting on all wages. Reduce benefits on contributions above the "cap" as follows: Years 1 through 10: 20%. Years 11 through 20: 40%. After 21: 50%.

2 - Phase in an increase to 7% - 7% over the next ten years

That largely gets rid of the shortfall.

 

[scotchtiger]

Where did you get your numbers? I believe raising it to 14.5% only reduces 50% of the shortfall.

My suggestion is to do two things:

1 - Rather than a cap on contributions, start collecting on all wages. Reduce benefits on contributions above the "cap" as follows: Years 1 through 10: 20%. Years 11 through 20: 40%. After 21: 50%.

2 - Phase in an increase to 7% - 7% over the next ten years

That largely gets rid of the shortfall.

ChatGPT said the 2025 shortfall was $160M and raising from 12.4% to 14% would raise $175M based on 2025 wages.

I had a separate post going into more detail. In that, I acknowledged that wasn't sufficient to solve long term solvency. For that, I recommended adjustments to benefit amounts and eligibility ages with plenty of lead time and no impact to current beneficiaries.

Not sure I'm following you on #1. I'm 100% against anything that raises the contribution cap though. It's not necessary if everyone chips in a bit more and we adjust ages and benefit amounts slightly.