US is not ready for Medicare for all

[Bruce_T_Laney]

US is not ready for Medicare for all.
Democrats, do not over play your hand when you are running against the worst President in our history.
US voters favor a hybrid system that includes a government that anyone can buy into along with a private option.
Do not let ideaology override practicality.

We will likely end up with it no matter who wins in 2020.

Trump has always been a supporter of universal healthcare.

If the idea comes from him 3/4 of his followers will think it is the greatest idea ever and the rest he will not care about as he will not have another election to win.

If Trump had a lick of sense he would go to Nancy Pelosi and tell her to give him the Nixon/Kennedy plan to replace the ACA with...

Again, if he had a lick of sense which is something I have yet to see...

 

[ElmerMudd]

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.
Both Social Security and Medicare are necessitated because people end up getting too old to work and have not saved enough money to live on or they are older and cannot or do not have insurance. What do you do with the older person who does not have enough retirement savings to live on or money to pay for medical needs.
Please give me your solution.

Sure.

So first, I would question the presupposition. You say that Social Security is a necessity. But is that true?

One of the things I learned in reading about the history of Social Security, is that prior to Social Security, there was no demand for it. Demand for social security had to be manufactured by slick marketing and political campaigning.

But how did old people survive prior to Social Security? Did all of them just roll over and die when they were too old to work?

No. And there were a number of reasons for this.

One: Family. In times past, there was a sense of family. Children were expected assist their parents, and families were closer together relationally because they really needed each other.

Two: Community. Churches and community routinely helped those who were older. It was normal, and health, that communities were closer, because they needed each other. Churches always helped the elderly when required, because it was normal, and part of basic church operation. An example of this is the trade associations. You often joined trade associations, because if one of the members was hurt, the association would help them out.

Third: Saving. In times past, saving for retirement was a given. A defacto standard. I even found a historical teachers manual. A manual given to new teachers at the public schools, in a particular state which I don't remember. But in the manual given to new teachers, they directly said that all teachers should save 15% of their salary as a teacher, specifically so they are not a burden on society when they become old.

Many of the people claim we need Social Security because people do not do any of the above.

But the reality is, it is specifically because we have Social Security that people do not do any of the above.

Churches overwhelming quit doing direct charity work, because why provide for people, if they have Social Security providing for them? Why provide meals to people, if government has food stamps for them? Why provide lodging for people, if government has section 8 housing for them?

Children have now grown accustom to the idea that they have no obligation to their parents, because that's government job. Why should I have to help my parents, when government will take care of their needs?

And people themselves make no attempt to save, because "I'll just get social security in a few years, so I don't need to". That is a verbatim quote, form a lady I was working with a few years back.

The reason people are dependent on government, is specifically because government has allowed itself to be there fore people to become dependent on.

Before government started taking care of people, people lived responsibly to take care of themselves.

So what do we do today?

Medicare is more difficult of a question, simply because there are so many bad policies in place, that all need reformed.

For Social Security, I would look to the Singapore model.

Now granted, I would prefer just a free-market system... but I know that is not going to happen, so....

The Singapore model, is brilliant compared to the US model.

There is no pyramid scheme. Instead, it's more like a plain IRA savings account, except forced.

So 20% of your check goes into the CPF. However, unlike SS, the CPF allows you to control where your money goes, and unlike SS, you actually own the investment.

One of the options they allow, is that you can use your retirement fund, to buy your house. This is particularly brilliant, because you are basically buying a house, with your retirement benefits, which has nearly a guarantee return on investment, since homes generally go up in value. Equally, if manage to run out of money somehow, the government picks up the cost in exchange for the house. Meaning, if you somehow manage to blow all your money, you can live off the government, and when you die, they just take the house, and call it good.

However, if you have more money in retirement than value of your house, you can choose to invest into various approved investments. Some are bond investment, which are low risk, low yield. Others are higher risk, with higher yields. Regardless of your investment choice, from the two dozen approved investments, the government guarantees a minimum return on investment. That guarantee is like 4%, so it's not a massive amount, but if I remember right, at the time I read about it, the government had never needed to make good on that minimum ROI. All the investments you could pick, did better than the guarantee.

As a result, all pensions in Singapore are fully self-funded. Zero cost to the tax payers. No worker, is paying for the retirement of an elder in Singapore... at least not generally.

Now they do have a few people who end up on government welfare, but very few. Typically they have a problem with people who get undocumented jobs. Selling fruit from a stand for example. People operating off the books. Because they are operating off the books, or self-employed and unreported... their money isn't saved in their own retirement, and thus they usually don't end up with much money in retirement. Thus they end up wards of the state. But this is generally a tiny fraction of the population. Like people who wash your windows at the street light or something.

I would greatly prefer that system over ours. Singapore has no unfunded liabilities, or any need to borrow money to pay for pensions.

The medical care system in Singapore also operates in nearly an identical fashion, but that would be far more difficult to implement in the US.

For the Social Security, we've actually already done it here once. In the 1980s, people in Texas were allowed to put their Social Security into private funds, and those funds did far better than Social Security did. Unfortunately, the politicians didn't like that hte private plans did better than the government system, and the idea was quietly dropped.

But it would work, and it would be far better.

Let's start what they did 100 years ago before social security. One big difference is you could live off the land if you had to. That does not work today.

Second, the Singapore's retirement is a compulsory comprehensive savings plan fairly close to social security. Google it.

Try again.

I've read up on Singapore's retirement system for decades, literally for over 20 years now. It nothing..... listen to me sir.... NOTHING... like Social Security. Google it.

Singapore CPF - your money is saved in a private account with your name on it, that you have legal right to.
Social Security - Your money is spent by the Federal Government, and gone.

Singapore CPF - Your money is invested in a method that you control, such as a stock fund, a bond fund, or used in purchasing your home.
Social Security - Your money is spent by the Federal Government, and gone.

Singapore CPF - Your benefits are paid out, from the investments that you made using your money.
Social Security - Your benefits are paid out, from the government borrowing money, leading to impoverishment of future generations.

Singapore CPF - No matter what the government does, you are legal owner of your retirement, and can never lose it.
Social Security - You have no legal right to Social Security, because it is a welfare program.

If you think that an 80 year old in the 1800s was living off the land, you are a little nuts. I'm sure elderly old people, were out tilling the ground.

I do not disagree with most of what you said.
But the similarities with Social Security is it is mandated by the government that all participate and workers must put around 20% of earnings in the "savings program". Just like Social security where workers and employers are mandated by government to participate. It is not optional.
In singapore you can direct investments or let the government do it for you. You are limited on what investments you can invest in. You can borrow on the money for education or buying a house but nothing else.
I have no problem with a program like that.
But the good and bad of social security is government guarantees a certain payout based on what you pay in no matter how long you live.
The Singapore program is based on the success of the investments and I do not think the government guarantees anything if the money runs out. That makes it more fiscally responsible than SS but what do you do with old people and the mandated savings runs out?

Right, and I prefer a more freedom based system.

However, I grasp that Americans are now too pathetic and childish, to man up and take ownership of the responsibility for providing for their own retirement. I get it. We have become so emasculated and spoiled as a nation, that now we simply unwilling to let people own their own choices.

So I understand that we will never simply give the money back to the people, and let them choose what to do with it. That's really sad, and the founding fathers of this country would roll over in their graves to see how immature we have become as a nation.

But I get it.

I've posted numerous times about this guy who showed up at a charity ball, and you could tell he was out of place. All these snobs with their white Manhattan dresses, and tuxedos, and here's Bob in his overalls. So a reporter sat down with him, and started asking him where why he was there. Turns out that Bob was a Janitor, and Janitor Bob donated a million dollars to the charity. They started researching this guy, the dude saved up $8 Million dollars over his lifetime as Janitor Bob. (I made up the name. It's not Bob).

But here's the fact.... Janitor Bob that is a real man, who owns the responsibility for his own retirement, is now a minority of real men, surrounded by the mass of spoiled brat boys, who want government to take care of them, so they don't have to own the responsibility.

So, I understand we'll never have true freedom to keep our own money, and use it as we need.

Therefore..... Given all that, I at least want to have legal ownership of that money. Given I have no choice but to lose 15% of my income, I at least want to put that money into a real investment that will give good returns, and keep that money in something I own, rather than giving it to government.

Do you realize how bad the math is on Social Security?

I am now 42 years old. I started working at age 16, and have worked a job every year of my life since then.

I calculated it out. Right now... NOW... if all the money I have poured into Social Security over the past 26 years, if all that money had been put into the mutual funds I invest into today.... I would have more than $2 Million dollars in investment.

That isn't an estimate. That is mathematical fact. My mutual funds tell me exactly how well they from the inception date. I can tell exactly how big the return was year over year, and calculate how much money was flushed down Social Security over that time period based on my tax returns.

In short.... right now, I'd be a multimillionaire if I was in control of my own money.

Instead, if we assumed that I had no IRA or 401K, and I had to retire on Social Security.... I would end up living in object poverty until I die.

Social Security is horrific. Absolutely horrific. It keeps people in poverty while they work, by taking 15% of people's income, and leaves them in poverty till they die when they retire. Right now the AVERAGE Social Security check, is $1,400 a month. The average...... is $17,000 a year. That's the average. Meaning, 50% of all people living on Social Security are collecting LESS that $17,000 a year. That practically poverty. I have not earned less than $17,000 in a year, since high school, and that's the AVERAGE for Social Security.

If we privatized it, like Singapore, I would do infinity better.

In fact, let me control my money completely, and I'd retire a millionaire.

And this is what they found in Texas, when they allowed people to put their money in private investments. All of them did better. ALL OF THEM. Not one private retirement account did worse, or even equal, to Social Security.

In fact... want to hear something even more ridiculous? If you put all of your retirement money into US Savings Bonds..... You will do better than Social Security. Think about the irony there? You will end up better off, putting your money into Government Bonds, than in the Government program.

That's how bad Social Security is on the math. It is literally you putting your money into a system to guarantee your own poverty.

The problem we face is what to do with the people who do not save for retirement when the get old and cannot support themself.
What to do with those who do not buy health insurance and get sick.
Most could have saved for retirement but chose to spend it. Most could buy health insurance but chose to spend money on something else.
Do you let them be accountable for their actions and let them die?

 

[Grumblenuts]

That is the Republican health care plan. Don't get sick. If you do get sick. Die quickly. However, Mac hasn't studied it enough yet.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The problem we face is

, and always was, employer / for profit based health care. If all simply went to a doctor or hospital and paid cash (no other choice) that system would easily beat anything we've seen in the past 50 years. Forced labor for shitty, for-profit health care is the con. You can't quit, no one will insure you! Little Johnny might break his leg next week and then you'll be sorry! Forcing everyone but the lucky few who benefit to pay through the nose for crap service is practically the definition of impractical.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you let them be accountable for their actions and let them die?

You let them be accountable by making basic health care affordable. Not for profit.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I feel you and I represent why Trump may get reelected. The anti-Trumpers are not as united as the pro-Trumpers.
If he gets reelected, we get what we deserve.

I'm not so anti-Trump as anti-evil. Pro-improvement. Anymore, I vote for the independent progressive or none regardless. When either half of the corporate duopoly begins earning my support that may change. We all deserve much better than continuous choices between evils. "We get what we" capitulate to.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I feel attitudes like yours got us Trump to begin with. Even Bernie capitulated to fucking Hillary after she and the Dems fucked him over last time. If he'd simply run as an Independent from the start we'd be looking at an entirely different set of candidates today. The people know our healthcare system has been FUBAR for decades at least. They just need to get activated and out making noise before next year's election.

I feel you and I represent why Trump may get reelected. The anti-Trumpers are not as united as the pro-Trumpers.
If he gets reelected, we get what we deserve.

Let's hope so.

 

[ElmerMudd]

I feel you and I represent why Trump may get reelected. The anti-Trumpers are not as united as the pro-Trumpers.
If he gets reelected, we get what we deserve.

I'm not so anti-Trump as anti-evil. Pro-improvement. Anymore, I vote for the independent progressive or none regardless. When either half of the corporate duopoly begins earning my support that may change. We all deserve much better than continuous choices between evils. "We get what we" capitulate to.

At the very least, there are degrees of evil. There has never been a President as evil as Donald Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think we're more than ready.

I dunno. I think we need to beat people down a bit further. Passing some more stupid regulations that further inflate health care prices ought to do the trick. Then people will be begging for state health care!

Yep, that's just what our founders intended, for the state to put us in a position to beg the government to solve the problems they created.

 

[debbiedowner]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system has worked very well and is very popular. It includes a strong free market competition/innovation component and provides choice. The system could easily be scaled up for all.

Most Americans don't really know how the system works, although they think they do.
.

Nominal "choice" and "competition" among state chosen vendors is NOT a free market. It is the opposite. It's a captive market with consumers as livestock.

The free market does not work well for healthcare insurance. Companies in the free market have goals of maximizing profits and minimizing risk. In applying those principles to healthcare insurance, many people are left without coverage or no coverage at all.
Without a socialized insurance pool for those over 65, Medicare, private insurance would have to charge substantially higher rates or be out of business.
I believe in personal accountability. If you are a lousy driver and do not change your ways, you do not deserve insurance,. If you over use your home owners insurance, you deserve higher rates or to be cut off.
A majority of health issues is based on circumstances you cannot control. Getting older puts you in the highest risk category. You cannot apply free market standards and cut old people off or raise their rates to equal the increased risk.

Which is why Medicare should be replaced by a private insured lifelong policy. Like SS and Medicare, you pay into it your entire life, and are promised X amount of benefits. You can collect at age 62, 65, or 67, depending on how we decide to have it.

There is nothing private about Social security or Medicare. Both are government programs creating socialized monetary pools to cover retirement and medical benefits. If those pools cannot cover costs the government will back up the short fall.
If this was a private insurance policy, once the claiums surpassed the funds in the pool the company would go bankrupt leaving all those who had paid in with no insurance.

I'm not sure if you understand what you are claiming, because neither of those descriptions are accurate to reality.

Private insurance is very different, that's true. Private insurance uses the money you pay in during the years you do not collect benefits, to invest the money in to things that yield a return on investment. Those returns are then used to offset future costs, and have a profit to keep the company going.

However, Medicare and Social Security, are nothing like that. Where do you get the idea that they are pool? There is no pool of money anywhere, in either of them. There are no investments.

The amount of money in Social Security right now is..... Zero. The amount of money in Medicare is.... Zero. Government pays out all benefits for all programs, from taxes.

I'm not sure if you are operating on a false mythology.... but all tax money goes to the same place. The tax you pay on your gasoline, goes to the same place that your Medicare tax goes, which is the same place estate tax on that guy that died last week goes, which is the same place your Social Security tax goes, which is the same place your income tax goes, which the same place the Corporate tax goes.

All taxes go to the same place. There is no pool of money somewhere for Social Security or Medicare. There is no "medicare bank account", or "social security bank account".

This is why in 2011 I believe, Obama said that unless the debt ceiling was raised, that Social Security checks would be cut drastically.

This was not a lie, or a threat, this was a mathematical fact. Social Security has no money.

And also don't believe the mythical lie that "congress borrowed the Social Security Trust fund, and spent it". The "trust fund" has operated the exact same way, as it always has since Social Security was created.

Money is collected in taxes. Money is spent by government. There was never a fund, somewhere between taxes collected, and government spending the money. Never. It never existed, and does not exist to this day.

If there was some sort of economic crash, and a crisis in the bond market... or if China were to completely flood the market by selling off all US bonds in a mass auction......

If the US government were to be unable to borrow money, even for a month, Social Security across the entire country would be cut immediately.

There is no pool of money. There is no fund for Medicare or Social Security.

Where Social Security Taxes Go
The bulk of the FICA tax revenue goes towards funding the United States government's Social Security trusts. These trusts are legally "earmarked," or solely designated, to fund the programs administered by the Social Security Administration:

1. retirement benefits
2. survivor benefits
3. disability benefits

Do You Know Where Your Social Security and Medicare Taxes Go?

 

[dblack]

Do you let them be accountable for their actions and let them die?

Believe it or not, that's not he only way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

In any case, the "let 'em die" conceit, is one of those emotional quips designed to introduce assumptions without scrutiny. First, it assumes that opposition to socialized medicine is the same as wanting people die. That's a lie. Second, it assumes that government is the only way to help people in need, another lie. BTW, how many people did you let die today?

 

[Mac1958]

That is the Republican health care plan. Don't get sick. If you do get sick. Die quickly. However, Mac hasn't studied it enough yet.

Huh? Do you know what plan I support?
.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Do you let them be accountable for their actions and let them die?

Believe it or not, that's not he only way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

In any case, the "let 'em die" conceit, is one of those emotional quips designed to introduce assumptions without scrutiny. First, it assumes that opposition to socialized medicine is the same as wanting people die. That's a lie. Second, it assumes that government is the only way to help people in need, another lie. BTW, how many people did you let die today?

Please provide the options.That is the problem with too many private health care advocates is they do not have a plan to take care of the people. Of course no one will let them die. Well maybe, Donald Trump would but not many.
So what happens is they end up as uncompensated care that we all pay for. That is more expensive than Medicare and Medicaid or a formal government program.

TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.

 

[dblack]

Please provide the options.

No.

Of course there are endless alternatives for taking care of people in need - as many "options" as there are minds to think them up. But I won't play your game. If someone proposes something stupid and destructive, it's not necessary to offer them an alternative in order to reject their plans.

If my neighbors propose burning my house down to provide them with warmth, for example, it's not up to me to explain to them how to stay warm with setting my house on fire. It's enough to say "No, you can't burn my fucking house down."

So what happens is they end up as uncompensated care that we all pay for.

And that's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's people making value decisions. It shouldn't be up to government to dictate how they go about it.

That is more expensive than Medicare and Medicaid or a formal government program.

Like I said earlier, I don't care about efficiency. Freedom is more important.

TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.

NO. See above.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Please provide the options.

No.

Of course there are endless alternatives for taking care of people in need - as many "options" as there are minds to think them up. But I won't play your game. If someone proposes something stupid and destructive, it's not necessary to offer them an alternative in order to reject their plans.

If my neighbors propose burning my house down to provide them with warmth, for example, it's not up to me to explain to them how to stay warm with setting my house on fire. It's enough to say "No, you can't burn my fucking house down."

So what happens is they end up as uncompensated care that we all pay for.

And that's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's people making value decisions. It shouldn't be up to government to dictate how they go about it.

That is more expensive than Medicare and Medicaid or a formal government program.

Like I said earlier, I don't care about efficiency. Freedom is more important.

TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.

NO. See above.

WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nominal "choice" and "competition" among state chosen vendors is NOT a free market. It is the opposite. It's a captive market with consumers as livestock.

The free market does not work well for healthcare insurance. Companies in the free market have goals of maximizing profits and minimizing risk. In applying those principles to healthcare insurance, many people are left without coverage or no coverage at all.
Without a socialized insurance pool for those over 65, Medicare, private insurance would have to charge substantially higher rates or be out of business.
I believe in personal accountability. If you are a lousy driver and do not change your ways, you do not deserve insurance,. If you over use your home owners insurance, you deserve higher rates or to be cut off.
A majority of health issues is based on circumstances you cannot control. Getting older puts you in the highest risk category. You cannot apply free market standards and cut old people off or raise their rates to equal the increased risk.

Which is why Medicare should be replaced by a private insured lifelong policy. Like SS and Medicare, you pay into it your entire life, and are promised X amount of benefits. You can collect at age 62, 65, or 67, depending on how we decide to have it.

There is nothing private about Social security or Medicare. Both are government programs creating socialized monetary pools to cover retirement and medical benefits. If those pools cannot cover costs the government will back up the short fall.
If this was a private insurance policy, once the claiums surpassed the funds in the pool the company would go bankrupt leaving all those who had paid in with no insurance.

I'm not sure if you understand what you are claiming, because neither of those descriptions are accurate to reality.

Private insurance is very different, that's true. Private insurance uses the money you pay in during the years you do not collect benefits, to invest the money in to things that yield a return on investment. Those returns are then used to offset future costs, and have a profit to keep the company going.

However, Medicare and Social Security, are nothing like that. Where do you get the idea that they are pool? There is no pool of money anywhere, in either of them. There are no investments.

The amount of money in Social Security right now is..... Zero. The amount of money in Medicare is.... Zero. Government pays out all benefits for all programs, from taxes.

I'm not sure if you are operating on a false mythology.... but all tax money goes to the same place. The tax you pay on your gasoline, goes to the same place that your Medicare tax goes, which is the same place estate tax on that guy that died last week goes, which is the same place your Social Security tax goes, which is the same place your income tax goes, which the same place the Corporate tax goes.

All taxes go to the same place. There is no pool of money somewhere for Social Security or Medicare. There is no "medicare bank account", or "social security bank account".

This is why in 2011 I believe, Obama said that unless the debt ceiling was raised, that Social Security checks would be cut drastically.

This was not a lie, or a threat, this was a mathematical fact. Social Security has no money.

And also don't believe the mythical lie that "congress borrowed the Social Security Trust fund, and spent it". The "trust fund" has operated the exact same way, as it always has since Social Security was created.

Money is collected in taxes. Money is spent by government. There was never a fund, somewhere between taxes collected, and government spending the money. Never. It never existed, and does not exist to this day.

If there was some sort of economic crash, and a crisis in the bond market... or if China were to completely flood the market by selling off all US bonds in a mass auction......

If the US government were to be unable to borrow money, even for a month, Social Security across the entire country would be cut immediately.

There is no pool of money. There is no fund for Medicare or Social Security.

Where Social Security Taxes Go
The bulk of the FICA tax revenue goes towards funding the United States government's Social Security trusts. These trusts are legally "earmarked," or solely designated, to fund the programs administered by the Social Security Administration:

1. retirement benefits
2. survivor benefits
3. disability benefits

Do You Know Where Your Social Security and Medicare Taxes Go?

This is very true. Now look at your next paycheck and pay attention to those deductions of FICA and SS, and remember that your employer matches that amount of SS you contribute.

So what do you end up with by paying the two highest deductions on your paycheck all of your life when you retire?

I have no children, but I do have a niece and nephew If I die before my time, I will leave them my apartments, they will get my car, checking and savings accounts. They will get my IRA. What they won't see is one red cent of all the money I (and my employers) put into SS my entire life.

So that begs the question: If a bank offered you a saving account that didn't pay much more than 1% interest, and you have to live until X amount of years before you could collect, and if you don't, you lose all that money, would you willingly open an account like that with any bank?

 

[dblack]

Please provide the options.

No.

Of course there are endless alternatives for taking care of people in need - as many "options" as there are minds to think them up. But I won't play your game. If someone proposes something stupid and destructive, it's not necessary to offer them an alternative in order to reject their plans.

If my neighbors propose burning my house down to provide them with warmth, for example, it's not up to me to explain to them how to stay warm with setting my house on fire. It's enough to say "No, you can't burn my fucking house down."

So what happens is they end up as uncompensated care that we all pay for.

And that's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's people making value decisions. It shouldn't be up to government to dictate how they go about it.

That is more expensive than Medicare and Medicaid or a formal government program.

Like I said earlier, I don't care about efficiency. Freedom is more important.

TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.

NO. See above.

WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah? Well, with that many exclamation points, it should be easy for you to say why. Why is it necessary for someone to offer an "alternative" to your bad plan?

 

[g5000]

I feel attitudes like yours got us Trump to begin with. Even Bernie capitulated to fucking Hillary after she and the Dems fucked him over last time. If he'd simply run as an Independent from the start we'd be looking at an entirely different set of candidates today. The people know our healthcare system has been FUBAR for decades at least. They just need to get activated and out making noise before next year's election.

I feel you and I represent why Trump may get reelected. The anti-Trumpers are not as united as the pro-Trumpers.
If he gets reelected, we get what we deserve.

Let's hope so.

I'm surprised you are hoping for even higher medical costs. That's the Republican plan.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sigh............

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Stop screaming, and stop insulting.

I got my information from many sources, including the US government itself. Did you not know that in the 1930s, the US government had a court case against Social Security, and in that court case they said it is not constitutional to have the government run a pension plan, or a insurance plan. That's true, there is no provision in the constitution that allows government to run insurance or a pension.

The way the government said it was constitutional, was they said very specifically that there was no insurance or pension. It was a tax... just a tax.... and a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

That court ruled this was correct, because Medicare and Social Security taxes, are just taxes like any other tax. They are collected by the IRS, like any other tax. They are spent by the Federal government, like any other welfare benefit.


Is There a Right to Social Security?

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."​

The highlighted text is directly from the court, in 1937. They state, directly.... that social security is collected like any other tax, and it is not separated from any other general revenue.

By the way, you have no legal right to Social Security, or Medicare either. When you buy a private insurance, or when you buy a private retirement fund, you are legally entitled to those benefits you paid for.

Not so with Social Security or Medicare.

Ephram Nestor in sued the government for loss of his Social Security benefits. The court ruled "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

Meaning, you have no property rights over social security. The government could, if they don't have the money, simply deny your social security on a whim, and you have no legal ground to claim it.

I am truly sorry that you have been lied to all these years sir.

There is no trust fund for either Medicare or Social Security.
Again, read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Everything is well documented. You have been lied to. I really am sorry.

Oh my, what can I say? You go ahead and live in your alternative universe based on alternative truth. May God help you.

Read the book sir, or at least read the court case from your own government that is running the system.

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.
Both Social Security and Medicare are necessitated because people end up getting too old to work and have not saved enough money to live on or they are older and cannot or do not have insurance. What do you do with the older person who does not have enough retirement savings to live on or money to pay for medical needs.
Please give me your solution.

Sure.

So first, I would question the presupposition. You say that Social Security is a necessity. But is that true?

One of the things I learned in reading about the history of Social Security, is that prior to Social Security, there was no demand for it. Demand for social security had to be manufactured by slick marketing and political campaigning.

But how did old people survive prior to Social Security? Did all of them just roll over and die when they were too old to work?

No. And there were a number of reasons for this.

One: Family. In times past, there was a sense of family. Children were expected assist their parents, and families were closer together relationally because they really needed each other.

Two: Community. Churches and community routinely helped those who were older. It was normal, and health, that communities were closer, because they needed each other. Churches always helped the elderly when required, because it was normal, and part of basic church operation. An example of this is the trade associations. You often joined trade associations, because if one of the members was hurt, the association would help them out.

Third: Saving. In times past, saving for retirement was a given. A defacto standard. I even found a historical teachers manual. A manual given to new teachers at the public schools, in a particular state which I don't remember. But in the manual given to new teachers, they directly said that all teachers should save 15% of their salary as a teacher, specifically so they are not a burden on society when they become old.

Many of the people claim we need Social Security because people do not do any of the above.

But the reality is, it is specifically because we have Social Security that people do not do any of the above.

Churches overwhelming quit doing direct charity work, because why provide for people, if they have Social Security providing for them? Why provide meals to people, if government has food stamps for them? Why provide lodging for people, if government has section 8 housing for them?

Children have now grown accustom to the idea that they have no obligation to their parents, because that's government job. Why should I have to help my parents, when government will take care of their needs?

And people themselves make no attempt to save, because "I'll just get social security in a few years, so I don't need to". That is a verbatim quote, form a lady I was working with a few years back.

The reason people are dependent on government, is specifically because government has allowed itself to be there fore people to become dependent on.

Before government started taking care of people, people lived responsibly to take care of themselves.

So what do we do today?

Medicare is more difficult of a question, simply because there are so many bad policies in place, that all need reformed.

For Social Security, I would look to the Singapore model.

Now granted, I would prefer just a free-market system... but I know that is not going to happen, so....

The Singapore model, is brilliant compared to the US model.

There is no pyramid scheme. Instead, it's more like a plain IRA savings account, except forced.

So 20% of your check goes into the CPF. However, unlike SS, the CPF allows you to control where your money goes, and unlike SS, you actually own the investment.

One of the options they allow, is that you can use your retirement fund, to buy your house. This is particularly brilliant, because you are basically buying a house, with your retirement benefits, which has nearly a guarantee return on investment, since homes generally go up in value. Equally, if manage to run out of money somehow, the government picks up the cost in exchange for the house. Meaning, if you somehow manage to blow all your money, you can live off the government, and when you die, they just take the house, and call it good.

However, if you have more money in retirement than value of your house, you can choose to invest into various approved investments. Some are bond investment, which are low risk, low yield. Others are higher risk, with higher yields. Regardless of your investment choice, from the two dozen approved investments, the government guarantees a minimum return on investment. That guarantee is like 4%, so it's not a massive amount, but if I remember right, at the time I read about it, the government had never needed to make good on that minimum ROI. All the investments you could pick, did better than the guarantee.

As a result, all pensions in Singapore are fully self-funded. Zero cost to the tax payers. No worker, is paying for the retirement of an elder in Singapore... at least not generally.

Now they do have a few people who end up on government welfare, but very few. Typically they have a problem with people who get undocumented jobs. Selling fruit from a stand for example. People operating off the books. Because they are operating off the books, or self-employed and unreported... their money isn't saved in their own retirement, and thus they usually don't end up with much money in retirement. Thus they end up wards of the state. But this is generally a tiny fraction of the population. Like people who wash your windows at the street light or something.

I would greatly prefer that system over ours. Singapore has no unfunded liabilities, or any need to borrow money to pay for pensions.

The medical care system in Singapore also operates in nearly an identical fashion, but that would be far more difficult to implement in the US.

For the Social Security, we've actually already done it here once. In the 1980s, people in Texas were allowed to put their Social Security into private funds, and those funds did far better than Social Security did. Unfortunately, the politicians didn't like that hte private plans did better than the government system, and the idea was quietly dropped.

But it would work, and it would be far better.

Let's start what they did 100 years ago before social security. One big difference is you could live off the land if you had to. That does not work today.

Second, the Singapore's retirement is a compulsory comprehensive savings plan fairly close to social security. Google it.

Try again.

A hundred years ago, most people didn't live to the age of 65 in the US.

 

[g5000]

Oh my, what can I say? You go ahead and live in your alternative universe based on alternative truth. May God help you.

Read the book sir, or at least read the court case from your own government that is running the system.

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.
Both Social Security and Medicare are necessitated because people end up getting too old to work and have not saved enough money to live on or they are older and cannot or do not have insurance. What do you do with the older person who does not have enough retirement savings to live on or money to pay for medical needs.
Please give me your solution.

Sure.

So first, I would question the presupposition. You say that Social Security is a necessity. But is that true?

One of the things I learned in reading about the history of Social Security, is that prior to Social Security, there was no demand for it. Demand for social security had to be manufactured by slick marketing and political campaigning.

But how did old people survive prior to Social Security? Did all of them just roll over and die when they were too old to work?

No. And there were a number of reasons for this.

One: Family. In times past, there was a sense of family. Children were expected assist their parents, and families were closer together relationally because they really needed each other.

Two: Community. Churches and community routinely helped those who were older. It was normal, and health, that communities were closer, because they needed each other. Churches always helped the elderly when required, because it was normal, and part of basic church operation. An example of this is the trade associations. You often joined trade associations, because if one of the members was hurt, the association would help them out.

Third: Saving. In times past, saving for retirement was a given. A defacto standard. I even found a historical teachers manual. A manual given to new teachers at the public schools, in a particular state which I don't remember. But in the manual given to new teachers, they directly said that all teachers should save 15% of their salary as a teacher, specifically so they are not a burden on society when they become old.

Many of the people claim we need Social Security because people do not do any of the above.

But the reality is, it is specifically because we have Social Security that people do not do any of the above.

Churches overwhelming quit doing direct charity work, because why provide for people, if they have Social Security providing for them? Why provide meals to people, if government has food stamps for them? Why provide lodging for people, if government has section 8 housing for them?

Children have now grown accustom to the idea that they have no obligation to their parents, because that's government job. Why should I have to help my parents, when government will take care of their needs?

And people themselves make no attempt to save, because "I'll just get social security in a few years, so I don't need to". That is a verbatim quote, form a lady I was working with a few years back.

The reason people are dependent on government, is specifically because government has allowed itself to be there fore people to become dependent on.

Before government started taking care of people, people lived responsibly to take care of themselves.

So what do we do today?

Medicare is more difficult of a question, simply because there are so many bad policies in place, that all need reformed.

For Social Security, I would look to the Singapore model.

Now granted, I would prefer just a free-market system... but I know that is not going to happen, so....

The Singapore model, is brilliant compared to the US model.

There is no pyramid scheme. Instead, it's more like a plain IRA savings account, except forced.

So 20% of your check goes into the CPF. However, unlike SS, the CPF allows you to control where your money goes, and unlike SS, you actually own the investment.

One of the options they allow, is that you can use your retirement fund, to buy your house. This is particularly brilliant, because you are basically buying a house, with your retirement benefits, which has nearly a guarantee return on investment, since homes generally go up in value. Equally, if manage to run out of money somehow, the government picks up the cost in exchange for the house. Meaning, if you somehow manage to blow all your money, you can live off the government, and when you die, they just take the house, and call it good.

However, if you have more money in retirement than value of your house, you can choose to invest into various approved investments. Some are bond investment, which are low risk, low yield. Others are higher risk, with higher yields. Regardless of your investment choice, from the two dozen approved investments, the government guarantees a minimum return on investment. That guarantee is like 4%, so it's not a massive amount, but if I remember right, at the time I read about it, the government had never needed to make good on that minimum ROI. All the investments you could pick, did better than the guarantee.

As a result, all pensions in Singapore are fully self-funded. Zero cost to the tax payers. No worker, is paying for the retirement of an elder in Singapore... at least not generally.

Now they do have a few people who end up on government welfare, but very few. Typically they have a problem with people who get undocumented jobs. Selling fruit from a stand for example. People operating off the books. Because they are operating off the books, or self-employed and unreported... their money isn't saved in their own retirement, and thus they usually don't end up with much money in retirement. Thus they end up wards of the state. But this is generally a tiny fraction of the population. Like people who wash your windows at the street light or something.

I would greatly prefer that system over ours. Singapore has no unfunded liabilities, or any need to borrow money to pay for pensions.

The medical care system in Singapore also operates in nearly an identical fashion, but that would be far more difficult to implement in the US.

For the Social Security, we've actually already done it here once. In the 1980s, people in Texas were allowed to put their Social Security into private funds, and those funds did far better than Social Security did. Unfortunately, the politicians didn't like that hte private plans did better than the government system, and the idea was quietly dropped.

But it would work, and it would be far better.

Let's start what they did 100 years ago before social security. One big difference is you could live off the land if you had to. That does not work today.

Second, the Singapore's retirement is a compulsory comprehensive savings plan fairly close to social security. Google it.

Try again.

A hundred years ago, most people didn't live to the age of 65 in the US.

Which is exactly why I have been saying for years that we need to raise the retirement age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common sense.