Social Security in America: Writing Off The Elderl

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by Dordrecht

Another left wing web site........

Please don't tell us you only read right wing websites?

[AreYouReady?]

Originally Posted by CC1

Medicare and Medicaid are a safety net for the elderly and poor. It is not my responsibillty to pay for medical isurance for those who are not motivated enouogh to get an education or learn a skill that will get them a job that offers medical insurance or that pays enough for them to buy that medical insurance.

That is not mean it is just a fact. The only way to insure the millions of people who will not better themselves to get a decent job is for those of us who have to pay for it.

How in the world can you mandate that somebody content with working at McDonalds for $8 an hour buys medical insurance when it costs $500-$800 per months for family coverage? The answer is socialist want to get in my pocket to pay for it.

How about High Schools teaching kids that they better plan on a college education or technical school training so they can pursue a CAREER. One that will pay enough for them to purchase medical insurance for their families.

All socialized medicine is going to do is pull down the quality of medical care for all of us. Once the Federal Government starts making decisions on how to allocate limited resources ( and there is no doubt they will be limited as even higher taxes will not pay for covering millions of more people who will not be able to pay for coverage themselves) the losers will be those determined to be more of a risk to give proper medical care to.

For example the elderly (I mean they are going to die soon anyway - right?) and the obese, chronically ill, etc.

I recently posted a link to a news article where a UK physican claims that their National Health Services "end of life" "pathway" and "protocol" has been misused to prematurely kill off thousands of citizens because they were too much trouble to treat, the hospital was too full, etc.

CC1, I am in agreement with you about healthcare. I do not see this as an all-loving let's take care of the poor move on the government's part. Since it has been said that Congress claims the right to regulate commerce, many see this more as a move to pad the pockets of the insurance companies, while taking away money from people and physicians. If you mandate everybody buy insurance, the money will be rolling into the Insurance companies. Years ago, I knew that Medicare and Medicaid paid very little reimbursement and most likely even less now. They dropped many programs for the elderly. This is a fact. And yes, I can see what is currently happening in Europe coming to a hospital near us. In fact, in some cases it is already here.

[CC1]

Are You Ready,

I apologize for getting off subject here. For some reason when I posted earlier I got off on Medicare and Medicaid when your thread is about Social Security.

In regards to Social Security the fact of the matter is that when it was instituted (1935) there were 16 people paying in for every 1 person receiving. In 1935 Life expectancy for men was 58 years old and 62 for women!!!

Now the ratio is only about 2 to 1 of paying in vs taking out so obviously things have changed a lot.

This is where I detest the rigid line some conservatives take (read that to mean Tea Party) when it comes to making politicans sign an absolute no new tax pledge.

Social Security is the one program / area where I believe they do need to increase taxes but only by raising the income amount that a person keeps paying into Social Security before they reach the limit and no more is withheld from their earnings. Something has to give and that makes the most sense. For 2012 once a person hits $106,800 in income Social Security stops being withheld. I bet if you raised that to $200,000 or $250,000 you could make Social Security solvent.

[AreYouReady?]

Medicare is a part of the Social Security system so it is valid in this discussion.

Just a thought here that has nothing I can prove. Have you ever thought that maybe the reason the extra taxation is being refused because maybe they want to make it insolvent?

But there is fact here in that past administrations have been taking the surplus out of the SS "trust fund" for decades and never paid it back. They have put phony IOUs in place of the money they robbed out of that trust.

Maybe the real goal is to have a one-payer system like the rest of the European countries and Canadian healthcare. That would knock Medicare and Medicaid right through the
vault. And I have to wonder if privatizing SS into the stock market like it has been suggested is a good idea. I mean after we see so much of the stock market manipulated booms and busts, is it really practical? Or safe?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by CC1

Are You Ready,

I apologize for getting off subject here. For some reason when I posted earlier I got off on Medicare and Medicaid when your thread is about Social Security.

In regards to Social Security the fact of the matter is that when it was instituted (1935) there were 16 people paying in for every 1 person receiving. In 1935 Life expectancy for men was 58 years old and 62 for women!!!

Now the ratio is only about 2 to 1 of paying in vs taking out so obviously things have changed a lot.

This is where I detest the rigid line some conservatives take (read that to mean Tea Party) when it comes to making politicans sign an absolute no new tax pledge.

Social Security is the one program / area where I believe they do need to increase taxes but only by raising the income amount that a person keeps paying into Social Security before they reach the limit and no more is withheld from their earnings. Something has to give and that makes the most sense. For 2012 once a person hits $106,800 in income Social Security stops being withheld. I bet if you raised that to $200,000 or $250,000 you could make Social Security solvent.

I am rigid when it comes to no new taxes regarding FCIA.

No amount of playing with the tax structure, either by % paid or the amount of income taxed, fixes it. The best thing to do to keep it solvent (but still does nothing to fix the big picture) is to raise the retirement age. When there were 16 people paying for every one, the retirement age was in the 70's!! Now you can start collecting at 62.

It needs to be a system where you pay into your own personal account.... an account that if you die with funds left in it, are immediately dispersed to whoever the account holder wishes. It is amazing how money is treated, or spend, when it belongs to an individual versus coming from big bro/government/tax payers.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

I am rigid when it comes to no new taxes regarding FCIA.

No amount of playing with the tax structure, either by % paid or the amount of income taxed, fixes it. The best thing to do to keep it solvent (but still does nothing to fix the big picture) is to raise the retirement age. When there were 16 people paying for every one, the retirement age was in the 70's!! Now you can start collecting at 62.

It needs to be a system where you pay into your own personal account.... an account that if you die with funds left in it, are immediately dispersed to whoever the account holder wishes. It is amazing how money is treated, or spend, when it belongs to an individual versus coming from big bro/government/tax payers.

You "rigid" guys are going to have to face the reality of the stats I gave. With life expectancy much longer now and an aging population the only way Social Security will remain solvent is for more money to be put into it and rather than increase the amount withheld from our paychecks I believe the fairest thing would be to just extend the cutoff point of income at which Social Security withholding cuts off.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by CC1

You "rigid" guys are going to have to face the reality of the stats I gave. With life expectancy much longer now and an aging population the only way Social Security will remain solvent is for more money to be put into it and rather than increase the amount withheld from our paychecks I believe the fairest thing would be to just extend the cutoff point of income at which Social Security withholding cuts off.

There is nothing wrong with the reality of the stats you gave, but why is the "solution" more taxes? Why can't the (partial) solution be to simply raise the age limit from 62 back to 70?

Problem solved -at least for another 50-60 years until the Ponzi scheme starts to break down again.

[Nitehawk013]

Originally Posted by houston

Now, now. Your plan is as faulty as socialism. If everyone got an education and a better job there would be no one to work the Mac Donald's drive-thru.

Incorrect.

McDonalds will always have a flow of workers even if society were educated and had good jobs. First of all, there will always be teenagers who have not graduated so they must work short hour jobs in the evenings. You will also always have older folks who need a supplimental income for a few hours a week. There will always be some slightly disabled people who need work. Etc.

Even if the majority of society were ducated and worked in good jobs, there will always be plenty to work in the McDonalds type jobs.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by AreYouReady?

Medicare is a part of the Social Security system so it is valid in this discussion.

Just a thought here that has nothing I can prove. Have you ever thought that maybe the reason the extra taxation is being refused because maybe they want to make it insolvent?

But there is fact here in that past administrations have been taking the surplus out of the SS "trust fund" for decades and never paid it back. They have put phony IOUs in place of the money they robbed out of that trust.

Maybe the real goal is to have a one-payer system like the rest of the European countries and Canadian healthcare. That would knock Medicare and Medicaid right through the
vault. And I have to wonder if privatizing SS into the stock market like it has been suggested is a good idea. I mean after we see so much of the stock market manipulated booms and busts, is it really practical? Or safe?

Those have been the same two questions I have had as well.

I'm not for raising taxes nor raising the retirement age to 70.

The argument against privatization has been that many low-income workers would simply not participate and they need the safety net the most. Then also the argument that it would cost the government in the trillions to make the transition.

Newt and Gov. Perry spoke quite a bit about the Galveston model, which seems to be working very well. I was going to list all the points, but this article is very well laid out and explains the model in plain detail. It looks like a great plan as it offers disability insurance, life insurance and retirement benefits.


Perry Is Right: There Is a Texas Model for Fixing Social Security

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...912688176.html

[CC1]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

There is nothing wrong with the reality of the stats you gave, but why is the "solution" more taxes? Why can't the (partial) solution be to simply raise the age limit from 62 back to 70?

Problem solved -at least for another 50-60 years until the Ponzi scheme starts to break down again.

Randy you are way behind the times! Years ago the retirement age was raised for most folks. Instead of me getting full Social Security retirement benefits at 65 my retirement age is now 66 years and 10 months. Virtually 67 years for all practical purposes.

I know you can still take early retirement at 62 but the amount is reduced greatly. I am not opposed to changing that but that is not going to make the program solvent.

This is not a case of big government misspending as the outlay goes to people. The simple fact of the matter is the only practical way to make SS solvent is by either raising everybody's withholding percentage or doing what I consider more fair and just extending the income limit on which SS withholding is taken out.