Yes, absolutely.
You have to see this from two sides. At one point, the government decided to impose higher premiums than what was required, as suggested by the chief actuary. As a result, we have a "balloon" of over $54 billion.
We need to consider two things: the money we would need to stabilize the system in the long term, and the additional money being paid by employers and employees. That amount is seen as a payroll tax, even a regressive tax, because the premiums collected from workers and employees only apply to the first $40,000 of income. That's a problem.
The $54 billion, therefore, contain these two things, in my opinion. I think we should view them differently and rethink the whole system.