First, Social Security is in trouble; we’re just not having to face up to it yet. The most recent annual report of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund notes that “Growing annual deficits are projected to exhaust Social Security reserves in 2041.”

Second, whatever the merits of Representative Stark’s proposal, a large part of its savings assume that provider payments can be capped at Medicare rates, while employers will be required to contribute 80 percent of premium amounts. Given the power of provider lobbyists and the likely reaction of businesses in the middle of a deep recession, it’s hard to see this as a viable plan.

Third, aside from the lobbying power of those most affected, it shouldn’t matter in the long run whether savings accrue to individuals or government. Last time I looked, it was mostly us individual taxpayers who fund government. However, Senators Wyden and Bennett might be well advised to modify their funding formula to appease folk like DrSteveB, if that’s what it takes to get more traction for their bill.

1. “Entitlement Reform” is mostly nonsense. Social Security is not in trouble. Despite the best efforts of Concrod Coaltion and Washington Post, honest analysis shows social security is fine. See Dean Baker and colleagues at EPI and CEPR on this. Unless you are wall street banker or hedge fund player, we already have less of a social safety net then other OECD countries.

2. Medicare would not be introuble if we had true expanded and improved Medicare for All, be it the Conyers HR-676 single payer, or the Stark version that leaves the for-profit insurance companies, managed care organizations and hositals in place. Either way, with a truly universal pool, everyboduy-in & nobody-out, cost savings from drugs, equipment and supplies from being monospony, and contrlling administratieoverhead, and yes, also controlling costs by rationalizing and planning services will do the job much better than other proposals.

3. Wyden-Bennettis perfect exampe of disengenuous CBO/OMB approach. Sure it saves the Federal government money, but total costs actually explode! It just dumps the responsibility to indviduals, famillies, employers and states. See the Commonwealth report comparing congressional plans for a more complete and honest look. Again, the Stark proposal, which Commonwealth says they used to represent Conyers as well, is the only plan that actually controlled total costs and also the only plan that acheived universal coverage. Therefore, apparently, it must be ignored.
See: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/13/8135/23887/977/683458

Of course Orszag’s peers have noticed and elected him to prestigious organizatins. Siddling up to power (head of CBO, now OMB) is usually considered to be a good idea.