Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare = WELFARE

[pparaska]

I feel like Johnc starting a thread like this. But the SS thing has been in the media so much lately, and now I find this article in the liberal washington post that doesn't sound so liberal at all. I resonate with what the author writes so much I feel like I wrote it and he stole it!

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61696-2005Mar23.html

 

We are a nation of closet welfare junkies, which helps explain why we can't have an honest debate about Social Security. Social Security and Medicare are our biggest welfare programs, but because Americans regard "welfare" as shameful, we've found other labels for them. We call them "social insurance" or "entitlements." Anything but welfare. Democrats and Republicans alike embrace the deception. No one wants to upset older voters. Well, if you can't call something by its real name, you can't discuss it honestly.

 

In other words, call the cards as you see them. Social Security is a WELFARE SYSTEM.

 

I've been saying this for years. What got me started on having an opinion on this topic was something I saw on TV probably 10 or 15 years ago. A bunch of rich (many of them with $1M in the bank) retired folks were being interviewed and they were screaming about how they were ENTITLED to every penny of their SS benefits, since they'd paid into the SYSTEM for years. They felt it was their ENTITLEMENT to have "their money" back. I wanted to jump through the tube and punch the old farts.

 

I guess that maybe I should retire early and go down to the welfare office to collect that WELFARE that since I've paid my taxes since I was 13 am clearly ENTITLED TO. Same freaking thing, if you ask me.

 

We aren't ENTITLED to any kind of handouts, if you ask me.

 

Naturally, the elderly don't see themselves as freeloaders. They think they've "earned" their Social Security benefits by paying payroll taxes. As Schieber and Shoven note, the term "social insurance" dates to Bismarck in 19th-century Germany. But applying it to Social Security involved much political license. In normal usage, insurance suggests protection against something you don't expect to happen -- a house fire, a car accident. By contrast, most people expect to grow old. Using the "terminology of insurance . . . [was intended] to mask the huge welfare payments being made," they write. People falsely believe they're "only getting what they have paid for." That is even less true of Medicare. In 2006 the Congressional Budget Office expects Medicare to cost $383 billion. Medicare premiums (paid by recipients) pay 12 percent; payroll taxes, 49 percent; general taxes and borrowing provide the rest.

 

This country is going down the tubes - IMO, one of the major reasons are all the ENTITLEMENT programs - oh sorry to be so PC - I mean WELFARE programs and the mindset that Americans have by and large that they are all ENTITLED to these 4 types of WELFARE - Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and good old WELFARE checks.

 

Next we'll offer ENTITLEMENTS to illegal aliens as one of their RIGHTS for jumping the border into our country.

[Pop N Wood]

Damn, Pete. You've been a one man wrecking ball these days.

 

Not really sure why it is wrong for people to believe they should get something out of a system they have paid into all their lives. Niave maybe, but that is what the feds claim the system is suppose to do.

 

I am feeding enough money into retirement accounts that I shouldn't need SS. But that wont mean I'll be pissed and looking for retribution when they screw me out of it. And I know I will never get out of it what I am putting in.

[BillZ260]

There is a definite need for reform. My main issue with the whole thing is that they SPEND the SS money we pay in on OTHER crap. It either needs to be a savings program for you so you can retire, OR they need to let us do whatever the hell we want with our money. I am not sure what the answer is but it's not what we're doing now.

 

Polititians are tards...

[Mikelly]

I've got an opposing view on this one...

 

My mother was a stay at home mom who raised her kids (All four of us) and did her best to manage a construction worker's salary... My father was that construction worker and still is. He can't afford to retire at 66 because his wife (My mother) would NOT at age 62 have health care... He paid a ton into social security because he was raised in a generation to do so, thinking it would be there FOR HIM and his wife... Construction workers don't get great benefits to start with, and aren't paid top salaries, and only in the last 15 years was my father able to contribute to an outside retirement accoung for both financial and company related reasons... Raising a family of 6 on a salary that more often than not was less than 35K per year, living in the Washington DC area... YOU do the math.

 

I suppose with his 10th grade education, My father could have qualified to do WHAT other jobs? Don't know... but the point is, we are passing judgement on a people and a generation that was raised to believe this system would be there FOR THEM in their golden years... It would be nice if those who had millions in the bank would return it to the system for those less fortunate. I don't expect that to happen...

 

I'm preparing to pay for my mother's healthcare so my father CAN fully retire. I will carry her on a policy until she is 65 and qualifies for Medicare. She does start to collect Social Security this year, and it will help them get by... Living their POSH lifestyle in their trailer in Orange County Virginia... Living it up on government money, boy that's the high life...

 

I guess the point I'm getting at here is that WE, IN OUR generation are NOT banking on uncle sam assisting us... We have 401Ks and all sorts of investment options to exhaust and prepare ourselves for our golden years. We are also a little less trusting of big government and a LOT more capable of providing and planning for ourselves... Our parents (At least Mine) weren't... I'll not feel one bit guilty paying the rates I do into the Social Security fund, so long as they (My parents) are using it... once they are gone, I may change my view... But not until then..

 

My point here? There are two views from different sides of the fence... I'm on the other side and the grass is not so green either!

Mike

[qwik240z]

Next we'll offer ENTITLEMENTS to illegal aliens as one of their RIGHTS for jumping the border into our country.

 

As a matter of fact, Pete, our county does give illegal aliens entitlements if the jump the border, so to speak.

 

It is a little know gov't policy to give refugees from a communist country a lump sum of cash (approx $9000) and free healthcare if they can make it to our shores. This is a big problem in Florida with the Cuban banana boats. That is why out Cost Guard is woring so hard to turn them back before they reach our shores.

 

I wish someone would have given my ancestors $9K when they came here. Nice start to a new life.

 

I'm not counting on any $ from Social Security.

[JMortensen]

I guess the point I'm getting at here is that WE, IN OUR generation are NOT banking on uncle sam assisting us... We have 401Ks and all sorts of investment options to exhaust and prepare ourselves for our golden years. We are also a little less trusting of big government and a LOT more capable of providing and planning for ourselves... Our parents (At least Mine) weren't... I'll not feel one bit guilty paying the rates I do into the Social Security fund, so long as they (My parents) are using it... once they are gone, I may change my view... But not until then..

I can't believe I agree with Mike on a welfare issue, but there it is! The people who have paid into this system for 60+ years did so with the understanding that it was THEIR money and they would get it back when they retired. They don't see it as an entitlement because they got a letter every year stating how much they had paid in and how much they could expect to get back. It's not so much an entitlement but more of an agreement. A "New Deal" if you will...

 

I also agree with Mike that OUR generation knows better than to buy into this deal for the most part. Our generation also knows that we can invest in the stock market and bonds and real estate and provide a better return on our investment than letting the government hang on to our money and use it for the world's largest slush fund.

 

That's why I think we need to just end it all together, not like that would ever happen though. I am paying pretty huge amounts of money into the system and expecting at best that I'll be getting a check that might cover my electric bill when I retire. I'm also putting money into my own investments and that is what I plan to use to retire with. The biggest headache for me right now is that I could put away 5 times what I am now into my own private account if I didn't have to pay into Social Security. Then Bush goes and adds prescription drugs to the thing.

 

Another way of looking at it would be to say that if I went to a financial advisor and he told me that I could put in 7% of my gross earnings (self employed so I get to pay mine and the employer's share) per year and make 2% return, I'd tell him to pound sand. But when the gov't does the same thing it is done in the name of our greatest (not really) president, FDR, and we should feel reverence that FDR took it upon himself to provide this crappy return forced savings account for us. BS. It's a crappy return, there are much better ideas out there, and as Mike said most of us already realize that it is a losing proposition so it is just making our own retirement that much harder to plan for.

[pparaska]

Guys, thanks for making the points I was too tired to make at the time

 

But let me be clear on why I think SS is screwed up: Social Security is WELFARE for the rich. If we can't agree on that point, then we'll just have to disagree and move on.

 

My opinion on SS: SS is welfare for old people who didn't have the ability to save enough for their retirement. My HUGE beef with SS is that there ought to be some kind of mechanism to keep people who have huge bankrolls at retirement from collecting on SS!!!! If it is WELFARE, then the rich retiree shouldn't be getting it!!!

 

The Feds NEVER SHOULD HAVE said this was a system everyone pays into AND EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO DRAW ON. It's welfare for the retired that NEED it. That's what it was really developed for.

 

People like Mike's parents and many others are valid SS recipients. But someone that's retiring today with a huge bankroll shouldn't get a penny.

 

Sure, you paid into SS all your working life. BIG FREAKING DEAL. You also paid Medicare all your working life. You also paid taxes all your working life - which is where WELFARE CHECKS and FOODSTAMPs are paid from. Do you see my point? If we are going to have a socialist systems to take care of people who truly can't take care of themselves (which bothers me NONE) then lets manage the systems in a rational and fair way.

 

Not everyone (thank God) is in need of and therefore not entitled to WELFARE CHECKS. So riddle me this batman - WHY THE F*** should everyone be entitled to SS checks if they don't need the SS WELFARE CHECKS to get along in retirement!!!

 

I've never since I was 13 and started paying SS taxes thought I was going to see one penny from it. My dad sat me down and told me that I should just think of it as another welfare tax that I'll probably never need, if I can save enough for retirement on my own. So that's what I've been doing since I was able to when I got my first real job in my career - socking away as much as I can without going over the $13000 (this past year) maximum before you start paying taxes on it GOING IN.

 

And you know what - it really wouldn't bother me one bit that I've paid (let me pull out my SS statement that I got a few weeks ago) $53000+ in SS taxes, and $12000+ in Medicare - IF it was being used as a welfare payment to those who are retired and actually NEED THE MONEY.

 

What pisses me off is that that SS tax money is going into the pockets of rich people who are now retired.

[pparaska]

O.K. One more post on this.

 

What GWB's plan is trying to do, I believe without coming out and saying it is this:

 

SS is WELFARE for retired folks. We're moving away from it being an entitlement for everyone program to a welfare program. The way we can do that is this: Let people put away money for themselves and pay less SS taxes into the welfare SS system. Some is still needed from everyone, so we will still have you pay that 1.5 or 2%, but we want YOU to be able to invest the other 4% in a tax free way for YOUR retirement.

 

What he's not telling you is that he probably wants to end the "SS is an entitlement for every retired person" system, and make it truly a WELFARE system for retired people that NEED it. That'd be political death for anyone that lined up with him to back it, and he'd get NO help.

 

But I think it's a plausible way to ween EVERY retired person off the system and just pay the retired folds that NEED it.

 

With that message now clear that you shouldn't depend on THE GOVERNMENT to do your retirement savings for you, hopefully people that make more money than they really need will start putting it away in good investment accounts so that we won't have to pay them RETIREMENT WELFARE when they do retire.

 

Believe me, if things don't go down the toilet in the next 20 some years until I retire, I'll be in good shape to pay my own bills in retirement from my own investments, and I'll be working very hard to give the SS $$$ back to the SS administration or just give it to retired people who need it - I'm sure there are or will be charities set up to do that.

[Here comes trouble]

Since I am an alumni of the "Safe Streets" prosecution task force, I have taken to reading what de big boys figure to target next which is government benefit fraud and namely social security identity theft to give this operation a little respect. Now if Grandpa or Grandma mark the wrong box and get a few bucks extra, a federal case can get made out of it and Pops or Moms gets a couple years at Club Fed on a high carbohydrate diet. A little far fetched ? OK inmate pal Scott Norby doing 8 years for Medicare Fraud. I have seen the paperwork because I heiped on his case. Scott is a first time offender and been married to his child hood sweet heart for 35 years with 4 boys with the youngest 15 and the older 3 college graduates or in college. Scott owned a hospital in Mexico after buying his partner out. Former partner went to the feds claiming Scott was overbilling Medicare on his American patients who were getting a better bang for their buck in Mexico. The message .....do not take fed medicare dollars into Mexico because NAFTA is really another type of scheme. Scott pays back the what he is told is overbilling of about $25,000.00 in a lttle over a 5 year period that his partner was involved with who gets immunity for his substantial subsistence for the prosecution of Scott. Scott loses the hospital but has the restraunt equipment in storage hoping to open a restraunt upon release because retirees cannot buy restraunt food in Mexico on food stamps unless changes are made in NAFTA. You know what really bothered Scot in this entire ordeal ... not his bankruptcy but was when Scott was humilated and lectured in front of his 15 year old son and wife by a psycotic guard Yancy with paranoid delusions that Scott was fondling his wife in a crowded visiting room and gee this 70 year old was also french kissing his old lady (Because Guard Yancy sees and hears things the rest of us do not) ......Sheridan also had Guard Stamper who stalked,kidnapped an 18 year old.. took her into the woods raped her repeatedly and left her for dead. Mr. Stamper was arrested just prior to his sentencing for "choking his girlfriend out" But good ol Warden Charlie Daniels still had employee Stamper on actiive duty because they arrested Stamper on the job at the prison. ..........Time to get off the soap box! ...........So Pete why fret over a few temporary basics........... In 50 years all the survivors will be doing slave labor in this big prison work camp called the USA for the few and privileged....... ie "the Weans"

[Mikelly]

I hear you Pere. I understand FULLY where you are coming from and I'm on board with a reform of some sort... I don't disagree that Bush is trying to everhaul the system, much like he is working towards MASS TORT reform... I'm for BOTH... BUt I just don't want MY parents (I'm being 1000% selfish here) to be casualties in the "Fix"... I doubt it would happen anyway, but the point is that we've marched so far down a road that to turn back now, some noses are going to get wrinkled... Social security does NOT work... We need an overhaul... Much like our aging and out dated COURT system, and so many other things in America!

 

Mike

[JMortensen]

And I would disagree with both Mike and Pete in that I think we should just get rid of Medicare, Social Security, and welfare altogether. Those IMO are problems for CHARITY to fix, not the govt.

 

If Bush's plan is this:

SS is WELFARE for retired folks. We're moving away from it being an entitlement for everyone program to a welfare program. The way we can do that is this: Let people put away money for themselves and pay less SS taxes into the welfare SS system. Some is still needed from everyone, so we will still have you pay that 1.5 or 2%, but we want YOU to be able to invest the other 4% in a tax free way for YOUR retirement.

 

What he's not telling you is that he probably wants to end the "SS is an entitlement for every retired person" system, and make it truly a WELFARE system for retired people that NEED it. That'd be political death for anyone that lined up with him to back it, and he'd get NO help.

well that still isn't good enough for me. I'm fully capable of preparing for my own retirement and wish I could opt out of the whole social security system with the understanding that I wouldn't be able to draw on it later. Because preparing for my retirement doesn't require 500,000 bureacrats, and I don't want to pay them to do it. I would love to have enough money to give to charity on a regular basis.

 

BTW Pete I agree with you in that if I am able to retire comfortably I'll not be cashing my $300/month Social Security check. I kinda wouldn't want to send it back to the gov't though. Maybe I'll donate it to charity and thumb my nose at the gov't that way.

[Mikelly]

John, I was shocked that we were aligned on the same side of the fence... Now I see... Well actually we still are... hahaha... I stated REFORM, not chucking it all. We need something that makes SENSE and is FAIR for ALL... We also need to as Doug stated "CLOSE ALL THE LOOPHOLES" in our system!

 

Mike

[JMortensen]

Well you're right Mike we diverge at some point there , but I should say that I don't want to chuck the system for those who are already 50+. I'm saying I'd prefer a way for people like me to opt out of it entirely, but I do agree with you that those who have paid into it for their whole lives should be able to get out what they put in.

[johnc]

Before this debate goes too far, everyone participating should bone up on what these terms really mean. There is a lot of mis-information and outright lies being spread by both sides of the debate (outside of HybridZ).

 

Welfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare)

 

In the United States, welfare refers more specifically to money paid by the government to persons who are in need of financial assistance, but who are unable to work, or whose circumstances mean the income they require for basic needs is in excess of their salary (e.g. tax credits for working mothers). The sum paid usually gives an income well below the poverty line, and it usually also has conditions attached, such as the need to prove one is searching for work or that there is some condition, such as a disability or obligation to care for children, that prevents them from working. In some cases recipients are even forced to do work, and this is often known as workfare. Some kind of safety net provision of this kind is made in almost all developed countries.

 

Social Security (USA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_security_%28United_States%29)

 

Social Security in the United States is a social insurance program funded through a dedicated tax. It is also known as the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance program (OASDI), in reference to its three components...

 

Retirement Benefits

 

The largest component of OASDI is the payment of retirement benefits. Throughout a worker's career, the Social Security Administration keeps track of his or her earnings. The amount of the monthly benefit to which the worker is entitled depends upon that earnings record and upon the age at which the retiree chooses to begin receiving benefits. As of 2005, the earliest age at which benefits are payable is 62.

 

Disability

 

A worker who has worked long enough and recently enough to be covered can receive benefits upon becoming totally disabled, regardless of his or her age. The eligibility formula requires a certain number of credits (based on earnings) to have been earned overall, and a certain number within the ten years preceding the disability, but with more lenient provisions for younger workers who become disabled before having had a chance to compile a long earnings history. The definition of total disability is fairly strict. The worker must be unable to continue in his or her previous job and unable to adjust to other work; furthermore, the disability must be long-term. As with the retirement benefit, the amount of the disability benefit payable depends on the worker's age and record of covered earnings.

 

Survivors' Benefits

 

If a worker covered by Social Security dies, a surviving spouse or children can receive survivors' benefits. In some instances, survivors' benefits are available even to a divorced spouse. Survivors' benefits to children are not payable past age 19 unless the child was disabled before age 22.

 

Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29)

 

Medicare is a program of health insurance for the elderly and disabled in the USA. It was first passed on July 30, 1965 as amendments to Social Security legislation.

 

Medicare is partially financed by a tax of 2.9% (1.45% withheld from the worker and a matching 1.45% paid by the employer) on wages or self-employed income to a specified maximum, currently $125,000.

 

Generally, Medicare is available for people age 65 or older, younger people with disabilities, and people with End Stage Renal Disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant). People under 65 and disabled must be receiving disability benefits from either Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board for at least 24 months before automatic enrollment occurs.

 

Medicare has two parts: Part A (Hospital Insurance), and Part B (Medicare Insurance, helps cover doctors' services, outpatient hospital care, and some other medical services that Part A does not cover). Neither Part A nor Part B pays for all of a covered person's medical costs. The program contains deductibles and co-pays (payments due from the covered individual). Certain medical needs such as prescriptions (until 2006) are excluded. Part A is paid from from the U.S. Government's general fund. Part B is paid for by the general fund and by contributions from the covered persons by way of a deduction from their monthly social security check.

[BillZ260]

Hmm, lots to think about. I think if they say we are getting money back, we should expect it. But, since we won't be getting money back, they should, as you say, call it what it is. Then it should be constructed as such that when they take your moneies, taxes, ss, medwhatever, that's where it goes. Not over here for the arts or over there for the imigrants or whatever. It's got to be simple, straight forward and easy for everyone to understand. I am sure this WON'T happen any time soon and that MY money won't be spent on anything I'm told it's spent on so where does that leave me?

 

"Davinci Code" is an awesome book, am a bit over halfway through... Oh, and I want to get back on the Z, anyone know how to easily remove about 1 full inch of saw dust safely?

[Chaparral2f]

It seems to me as if the article is espousing Social Darwinism. Basically saying that if you are old, or can't make it in the good old cutthroat world that gave us Enron and off shore tax shelters, then you should quit complaining and have the decency to go off somewhere and die. Back when the country was an agricultural society, old people lived with and were taken care of by their families. However in this era it seems that the "in thing" to do is to ship the old folks of to nursing homes to be warehoused like so much refuse. You know , "Out of sight, out of mind." Although I know that there is a problem with the system, I also know that what is being put forward isn't going to cure it. The plan of this administration is not to fix the program but to dismantle it ion an insane rush towards privatization and deregulation. As they scream about smaller government and states rights they seem only to want less government for the wealthy, while control of our everyday lives is bring more tightlyh controled all the time. I guess that I am in the minority because I feel that the job of government is to take care of its citizens. And for once I am in shock that I am in agreement with Mike.

 

BTW, Pete did you get that stack injection on ?

[Heavy Z]

Social security is largely a mess because both parties have borrowed from it w/o repayment for 20 years. We should be mad at them, they aggravated the problem we are in today.

 

As others have said, at least people have paid into this system over a period of years, so it isn't "welfare" in the strict sense. The bottom line is that our system is bloated and some people are pissed that we spend so much. The issue should be how to trim the fat. If you are in this category, how do you feel knowing that corporate welfare is costing us 3 times as much as all those deadbeats getting welfare benefits? Or blatant wasting of cash, like that (just one example) the US gov pays $1.50 per .223 round for its rifles, when you or I can get them for less than a dime a piece? Imprudent spending practices are rampant, only when the spotlight turns on an issue (like SS) do most people care to notice.

 

We should care to notice more often. The plan being proposed will mean borrowing a huge sum of money from Asian banks for financing, and to me, with record borrowing already underway, something doesn't feel secure with a strategy like that. There are also past examples of failure. The tipping point in the collapse of the Argentinian economy came after the privatization of their retirement system, and the Brits did it a few years ago and want to switch back because privatization is too expensive. With that said, I am open to ideas as something WILL need to be done eventually.

[blueovalz]

Thank you Chaparral2f. I like the idea of "doing myself" as well as anybody, but I don't want to live in a country in which we want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The REAL issue is management of the SS and even more importantly, medicare system. "Oh, the government's stealing my hard earned money". Yeah, I agree, but why not address that, instead of pointing our finger at the the program they are stealing from. I don't like handouts, but there will always be a time when it's preferable to hand out than to hand off. I just thank god that I've not had a catastrophic situation in my life that has bankrupted me (yet), and for those folks that get knocked down, or become too old to support themselves because our own government is more aligned the pharmacutical industry than with the citizenship in general, then I hope to see them sitting outside their single wide trailer than on the side of the curb, any day, even if it costs me a tiny bit per paycheck. Make the spenders accountable instead of the programs.

[Guest tony78_280z]

The American Democracy 6th Edition copy written 2003, a college level textbook says

 

Page 509

"The leading social insurance program is social security for retirees. The program began with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935 and is funded through payroll taxes on employees and employers (currently set a 6.2 percent). Franklin D. Roosevelt emphasized that retiring workers would receive an insurance benefit that they had earned through their payroll taxes, not a handout[/b'] from the government.â€

(Bold text was my editing for emphasis.) I wonder where people could have jumped to the conclusion that it was an entitlement and not a welfare program?

 

Page 510

“Although many people believe that an individual’s social security benefits are financed by his or her past contributions, they are actually funded largely through payroll taxes on the current work force. The typical social security recipient gets more money from the government than he or she has paid into the fund; thus it is necessary to use contributions form the current work force to finance the program.â€

This is the problem with the system. When it was first initiated the ratio of employed and retired was vastly different with the current ratio. Particularly now that the baby boomers are retiring. There simply isn't the work force to suport the retired. But still, those paid in were told that the money would be there for them when they retired.

 

Page 509

“Finally even the most promising retirement plans can go awry' date=' leaving people thankful when they do finally reach retirement age that they have a social security to back them up.†(The book then goes on to talk about Enron employees promised good retirement that never was produced.)[/quote'] And this is one argument against privitization of retirement funds. Another argument is that the average person is stupid and do not look to their own future. I'm 31, and have yet to even begin to think about retirement. One reason is that I have been told over and over again that the social security money will be there for me when I reach that age. One job of the governement is to protect its citizens, even from themselves. (Why else make it illegal to attempt to commit suicide?) Most people simply will not think about their future and end up on the street. More people than any of us would like to admit. At first you may say simply "Screw em, they should have thought about their future." But with mass homeless the well being of the nation will go down. Hobo towns will spring up, and disease and crime rate would probalby flourish. Of course this last bit is mere speculation on my part.

 

Socialism in the extreme is very bad. Capitalism in the extreme is very bad. Like most things in life a middle ground is the best and safest. In our primarliy capitalisitic society there will a need for some social programs. Social Security, and Health Care is something that must not be taken away.

[Guest Aaron]

Does anyone know why the age of 65 was chosen as the retirement age when Social Security was set up? Because at the time, the average life span was 67. They system was designed to take care of workers for the last years of their lives, not the last decades of their lives as it currently does. The system was designed for a different time. It needs to be drastically overhauled to meet the needs of our current time. If I had the answers, I would not be here writing this response.