Social Security and health care

[Votto]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

 

[Votto]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

The problem is, there is no one above government to hold them accountable. That is why it is scary having government take over everything.

The way it was suppose to work is, the government was to be limited to play referee so that private institutions could be held accountable.

And before you feed me the BS that government is held accountable by the voters, have you seen government lately? Congress has had an approval rating of about 10% for decades.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the problem's fault, bub.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

The problem is, there is no one above government to hold them accountable. That is why it is scary having government take over everything.

The way it was suppose to work is, the government was to be limited to play referee so that private institutions could be held accountable.

And before you feed me the BS that government is held accountable by the voters, have you seen government lately? Congress has had an approval rating of about 10% for decades.

Actually the point I was making was the private companies aren't good, and govt isn't good either.

As for the govt being held accountable by the voters, in the US this certainly is not the case. In other countries it is more so the case.

The point being that everything is about short term-ism, but a retirement fund is a long term investment.

 

[Votto]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

The problem is, there is no one above government to hold them accountable. That is why it is scary having government take over everything.

The way it was suppose to work is, the government was to be limited to play referee so that private institutions could be held accountable.

And before you feed me the BS that government is held accountable by the voters, have you seen government lately? Congress has had an approval rating of about 10% for decades.

Actually the point I was making was the private companies aren't good, and govt isn't good either.

As for the govt being held accountable by the voters, in the US this certainly is not the case. In other countries it is more so the case.

The point being that everything is about short term-ism, but a retirement fund is a long term investment.

Everyone needs to be held accountable because corruption is everywhere.

However, when you have no where to turn the feeling of hopelessness is magnified, which is how I feel about the Federal government.

With health care, I would like to see citizens be able to accumulate tax free dollars into their own health care accounts that can be passed to those whom they love. Over time, it could free a sizeable number of Americans who might have had a lucky streak with employment and health and their families for generations to come.

But no, Americans seem forever slaves of the corporate/government task masters, cuz that's how they like it.

 

[Votto]

That's the problem's fault, bub.

Dinking again Jake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's the problem's fault, bub.

Dinking again Jake?

Nope and not drinking either. That's Congress's problem, particularly Boehner and his buddies.

 

[Freewill]

Funny (sic) thing about SS is that people are always concerned that SS can't pay for itself although SS trust fund is not in the red, yet. But the same people never makes mention of welfare and how that is funded. Welfare recipients get COLA raises every year, SS not so lucky.

At least with SS a person puts money in and gets out some amount in relation to what they put in, seem somewhat fair. But, if a person makes it to 65 without drawing on SS then dies, their money goes no where except back to the system. Quite the program, one I don't believe, a private company would be allowed to run.

 

[Votto]

That's the problem's fault, bub.

Dinking again Jake?

Nope and not drinking either. That's Congress's problem, particularly Boehner and his buddies.

Stop it! Just stop it Jake. Can't you see how this man hurts inside?

Now do you want him running your health care? Nope.

 

[Votto]

Funny (sic) thing about SS is that people are always concerned that SS can't pay for itself although SS trust fund is not in the red, yet. But the same people never makes mention of welfare and how that is funded. Welfare recipients get COLA raises every year, SS not so lucky.

At least with SS a person puts money in and gets out some amount in relation to what they put in, seem somewhat fair. But, if a person makes it to 65 without drawing on SS then dies, their money goes no where except back to the system. Quite the program, one I don't believe, a private company would be allowed to run.

You really have no idea what they are going to do next, which can be pretty scary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boehner is amazing.

 

[Votto]

Boehner is amazing.

Amazingly what Jake?

 

[JoeB131]

... Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

Not quite.

Yes, what happened with the VA is we fought a 15 year war and didn't put enough money aside to deal with the aftermath.

But as usual, you mislead people. Medicare has to deal with a much larger group of sick people than private insurance does. The fact is, most medical spending IS done on people older than 65, which the private insurance industry won't touch unless the government pays them to. (The Medicare Part C scam.)

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

The problem is, there is no one above government to hold them accountable. That is why it is scary having government take over everything.

The way it was suppose to work is, the government was to be limited to play referee so that private institutions could be held accountable.

And before you feed me the BS that government is held accountable by the voters, have you seen government lately? Congress has had an approval rating of about 10% for decades.

Actually the point I was making was the private companies aren't good, and govt isn't good either.

As for the govt being held accountable by the voters, in the US this certainly is not the case. In other countries it is more so the case.

The point being that everything is about short term-ism, but a retirement fund is a long term investment.

Everyone needs to be held accountable because corruption is everywhere.

However, when you have no where to turn the feeling of hopelessness is magnified, which is how I feel about the Federal government.

With health care, I would like to see citizens be able to accumulate tax free dollars into their own health care accounts that can be passed to those whom they love. Over time, it could free a sizeable number of Americans who might have had a lucky streak with employment and health and their families for generations to come.

But no, Americans seem forever slaves of the corporate/government task masters, cuz that's how they like it.

You feel like that, but 95% of the country will do what they're told and vote the main two parties.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Boehner is amazing.

Amazingly what Jake?

And you are as well. You would like each other a lot I think.

And you are

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

It will be difficult to answer any question when your understanding of Social Security is so far removed from reality. For the first 45 years, there was nothing to steal - it was a purely pay as you go system. 100% of revenue collected was distributed to beneficiaries. Since inception, 82% of revenue collected has been distributed to beneficiaries. Of the remaining 2.8 trillion in the Trust Fund, more than 60% comes from self-financed interest. That is the cost of time. What is left over isn't enough to pay for the subsidies to the system. As of 2013, Social Security became a net-taker from the government rather than something the government stole from.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Funny (sic) thing about SS is that people are always concerned that SS can't pay for itself although SS trust fund is not in the red, yet. But the same people never makes mention of welfare and how that is funded. Welfare recipients get COLA raises every year, SS not so lucky.

At least with SS a person puts money in and gets out some amount in relation to what they put in, seem somewhat fair. But, if a person makes it to 65 without drawing on SS then dies, their money goes no where except back to the system. Quite the program, one I don't believe, a private company would be allowed to run.

Social Security is a contributory benefits system. Welfare is an appropriated expense. These processes have nothing to do with each other. Yes there are companies like that. They are called auto insurers, health insurers, and home insurers. If you don't have a wreck, you don't get your premiums back.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

I kind of think that social security isn't the death pot that it is because a lot of people choose to have a non-government solution to retirement such as stocks, home, etc, etc. If everyone was forced to be on it then it will become a nightmare. This is the only way government systems can survive because people are free to choose a non-government option and since so many people are choosing the non-government option the government option doesn't get any complaints.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

I kind of think that social security isn't the death pot that it is because a lot of people choose to have a non-government solution to retirement such as stocks, home, etc, etc. If everyone was forced to be on it then it will become a nightmare. This is the only way government systems can survive because people are free to choose a non-government option and since so many people are choosing the non-government option the government option doesn't get any complaints.

Social Security is a mess because the first 50 years of retirees voted for Congresses that underpriced the cost of benefits. In the 1950s, SS was not far from selling dollars for dimes. No one today chooses Social Security. It is mandated upon them.