Social Security is Not an Entitlement!!!

[tpop1]

We hear lately the refrain from those in Government about the Social Security "Entitlement."

After working over 42 years at a salary which for the most part exceeded the maximum SSI wage base, I did some calculations of the amounts contributed to SSI by me and my employers.

Using a modest 5% growth rate over those 42 years(and 5% was modest in those years) and using a 5% yield into the future, calculates a yield of enough interest to pay my yearly SSI payments with enough left over to pay the government’s portion of my Medicare.

Taking this thinking a step further, I looked at a person retiring after working 45 years earning at least the maximum SSI wage base. These calculations yield enough interest to pay their monthly SSI plus mine???

SSI is definitely Not an Entitlement!!! It is an earned pension.

If any U.S. Company treated its pension plan like they have treated SSI, the company would have been hauled to court.

Sorry about the rant, but I have reached my tipping point!!!
As someone else said, this is not political as all in office are to blame!

[jblum315]

Interesting that you did the numbers. I never thought of it that way, but you're right. Corporate employees pensions are protected by law. Why should government "pension" be any different?

[tainsley]

We hear lately the refrain from those in Government about the Social Security "Entitlement."

After working over 42 years at a salary which for the most part exceeded the maximum SSI wage base, I did some calculations of the amounts contributed to SSI by me and my employers.

Using a modest 5% growth rate over those 42 years(and 5% was modest in those years) and using a 5% yield into the future, calculates a yield of enough interest to pay my yearly SSI payments with enough left over to pay the government’s portion of my Medicare.

Taking this thinking a step further, I looked at a person retiring after working 45 years earning at least the maximum SSI wage base. These calculations yield enough interest to pay their monthly SSI plus mine???


SSI is definitely Not an Entitlement!!! It is an earned pension.

If any U.S. Company treated its pension plan like they have treated SSI, the company would have been hauled to court.

Sorry about the rant, but I have reached my tipping point!!!
As someone else said, this is not political as all in office are to blame!

I so agree...it burns me up after working 40 years and paying into SS to hear a politician (or anyone for that matter) refer to SS as a government entitlement program.

[l2ridehd]

Exactly. I have worked almost 50 years. I have exceeded the maximum contribution every year. And now it's a government gift? Entitlement program? Such BS by our elected representatives. They have used it as a slush fund to give everyone else something in exchange for votes.

[Posh 08]

They want me to be ashamed. Shame on them for brain washing the younger folks that SS is a handout. Let them have worked a mile in my shoes.

[graciegirl]

They want me to be ashamed. Shame on them for brain washing the younger folks that SS is a handout. Let them have worked a mile in my shoes.

I agree with all of you. Violently agree.

Angrily agree.

Agree. Agree.

Agree!

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Gracie, could you loosen up just a bit and share your true feelings on the topic with us all, please? :1rotfl:

Bill :wave:

[2 Oldcrabs]

Agree 100% but we need to write or E-mail all the POLITICIANS & NEWS MEDIA and inform them we invested in SS for 30-50 years. The politicians pension is ENTITLEMENT ! !:grumpy:


OTE=tpop1;405047]We hear lately the refrain from those in Government about the Social Security "Entitlement."

After working over 42 years at a salary which for the most part exceeded the maximum SSI wage base, I did some calculations of the amounts contributed to SSI by me and my employers.

Using a modest 5% growth rate over those 42 years(and 5% was modest in those years) and using a 5% yield into the future, calculates a yield of enough interest to pay my yearly SSI payments with enough left over to pay the government’s portion of my Medicare.

Taking this thinking a step further, I looked at a person retiring after working 45 years earning at least the maximum SSI wage base. These calculations yield enough interest to pay their monthly SSI plus mine???

SSI is definitely Not an Entitlement!!! It is an earned pension.

If any U.S. Company treated its pension plan like they have treated SSI, the company would have been hauled to court.

Sorry about the rant, but I have reached my tipping point!!!
As someone else said, this is not political as all in office are to blame![/QUOTE]

[2BNTV]

Tpop1: Good post.

Bill - You are a hoot. :1rotfl:

Love ya Gracie.

[skyguy79]

I also agree with what others are saying about Social Security. However, the term SSI has been used a number of times in this discussion and we're not talking about SSI. The following excerpt from the Social Security website will explain:
"SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income. The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers this program. SSA pays monthly benefits to people with limited income and resources who are disabled, blind, or age 65 or older. Blind or disabled children, as well as adults, can get SSI benefits."
You will find this quote and more about SSI including an explaination on how SSI is different from Social Security at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ssi/text-over-ussi.htm.

[texasfal]

I agree with you all, but as someone who is still working full-time and is 7 years away for SSI, I don't think it will be there for me. So even though I've earned it (I've been working and paying in for 39 years and still have a ways to go), I can't expect SSI to be there for me. What do you say about that?

[bimmertl]

Here's some data offering some insight into the benefits of SS. The majority of Americans do not have incomes exceeding the maximum SS wage base, which is currently $106,800.00.


http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2011/07/01/seniors-dont-pay-full-medicare-social-security-share

[buggyone]

Just a question here - not an arguement.

Let's say you worked for 40 years at a job and paid your 5% salary deduction into Social Security for all the years. You retire and start drawing your monthly Social Security benefit at age 65. You (let's assume) live to be 90 years old. In those 35 years between age 65 and 90, will you have taken out more or less than what you put into Social Security over the 40 years of working?

If the answer is more, then Social Security is an entitlement? Also what if your spouse has never worked, don't they get part of the Social Security benefit also?

[villagegolfer]

There is no way you could ever get back what you put into it because if it was a real fund it would still be accumulating interest while you are taking it out. Don't forget you were paying about 15% of your wages all those years.

[blueash]

Social Security is not a company pension (and by the way lots of companies have reneged on their pension obligations). The money you and I have paid in all these years is not ours and was used to pay those who preceded us. Some of them paid in over 40 years as we did, and many did not. It also paid for widows, disabled citizens and children. Social Security has enough reserves and enough anticipated future income to continue to pay full benefits for another 25 plus years. It does not contribute to the deficit as it is actually right now operating at a profit when you combine the contributions and the income generated by the invested assets. The well runs dry in about 2036. There is not any crisis in Social Security. With no adjustments it can pay 75% of its promised benefits after 2036 until 2085. With minor tweaks it can pay 100% forever.
The crisis is in Medicare which none of us paid enough into to make the claim we are owed it because of our investment. A recent analysis finds that the average person retiring in 2011 has paid only 1/3 of the cost of their medical care. The number is less for those who retired earlier as they had fewer years of paying into medicare. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/114000_that_2011_retirees_paid.html
Social Security is safe and should be left alone. We need to be realistic about Medicare being an unsustainable program in its current configuration. Either the benefits need to be cut or the payments into the system increased. Sorry for the long post.

[tpop1]

Just a question here - not an arguement.

Let's say you worked for 40 years at a job and paid your 5% salary deduction into Social Security for all the years. You retire and start drawing your monthly Social Security benefit at age 65. You (let's assume) live to be 90 years old. In those 35 years between age 65 and 90, will you have taken out more or less than what you put into Social Security over the 40 years of working?

If the answer is more, then Social Security is an entitlement? Also what if your spouse has never worked, don't they get part of the Social Security benefit also?

Your contribution since 1991 has been 7.65% by you and 7.65% by your employer into your account for a total of 15.3% of your yearly salary.

If you earn the Max for 45 years compounded at 5% at the end of that period the pot of money in YOUR account would be $725,744!!

At 5% interest this pot would yield $36,287 per year, which is more that your SSA payments. If you acturalize it over the next 30 years to age 95, it would throw off $47, 210.

Yes not all employees earn the Max and subsequently their SSA payment do not max out either!

I will share my spreadsheet if anyone would like it - just PM me with an email address.

Blueash - My whole point is that it has been mismanaged and IMHO if it was managed correctly, it would have gone on it forever and provided for all you mention!

[hdh1470]

:BigApplause:Social Security is not a company pension (and by the way lots of companies have reneged on their pension obligations). The money you and I have paid in all these years is not ours and was used to pay those who preceded us. Some of them paid in over 40 years as we did, and many did not. It also paid for widows, disabled citizens and children. Social Security has enough reserves and enough anticipated future income to continue to pay full benefits for another 25 plus years. It does not contribute to the deficit as it is actually right now operating at a profit when you combine the contributions and the income generated by the invested assets. The well runs dry in about 2036. There is not any crisis in Social Security. With no adjustments it can pay 75% of its promised benefits after 2036 until 2085. With minor tweaks it can pay 100% forever.
The crisis is in Medicare which none of us paid enough into to make the claim we are owed it because of our investment. A recent analysis finds that the average person retiring in 2011 has paid only 1/3 of the cost of their medical care. The number is less for those who retired earlier as they had fewer years of paying into medicare. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/114000_that_2011_retirees_paid.html
Social Security is safe and should be left alone. We need to be realistic about Medicare being an unsustainable program in its current configuration. Either the benefits need to be cut or the payments into the system increased. Sorry for the long post.

Spot on:BigApplause:

[swimdawg]

Gracie, could you loosen up just a bit and share your true feelings on the topic with us all, please? :1rotfl:

Bill :wave:

Yeah, Bill...she's in running for the SWIMDAWG Best Post of the Day Contest! :)

[annmarie]

Great to hear like minds, we all worked for it!!

[MikeH]

What everyone seems to forget is:

1. Social Security is a Social program and unlike pure insurance each person will not necessarily get a full return on their "investment". Some will get more and some will get less. If you die when you're 61..you loose. If you live into and beyond your 80's....you received more than you paid in.

2. Everyone seems to forget that during those 40-45 years you were working the program would have provided monthly benefits to you and your family had you become disabled or to your surviving family had you died.

3. If your employer didn't have to pay the 6.75% tax would your salary have increased by that much? Dream on......

Most of us think of Social Security as only a retirement program so we calculate our return on investment at that point. What if we'd become disabled at age 25 or 30 with a spouse and two or three children? What then would be our return on our investment? Can anyone purchase an ins. policy that gives the same protection as Social Security for the same "investment"?

[villagegolfer]

I remember my first paycheck when I was in early teens. My father (my boss) saw the expression on my face when I looked at my paycheck and started laughing. I was shocked. I said where did all the money go? That's when I really learned about Social Security and tax deductions. That was almost 50 years ago.

[Number 6]

Entitlement program
The kind of government program that provides individuals with personal financial benefits (or sometimes special government-provided goods or services) to which an indefinite (but usually rather large) number of potential beneficiaries have a legal right (enforceable in court, if necessary) whenever they meet eligibility conditions that are specified by the standing law that authorizes the program. The beneficiaries of entitlement programs are normally individual citizens or residents, but sometimes organizations such as business corporations, local governments, or even political parties may have similar special "entitlements" under certain programs. The most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans' Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs.

Sorry, but it is what it is.

[2BNTV]

I remember my first paycheck when I was in early teens. My father (my boss) saw the expression on my face when I looked at my paycheck and started laughing. I was shocked. I said where did all the money go? That's when I really learned about Social Security and tax deductions. That was almost 50 years ago.

I remember twenty years ago when my son got his first paycheck and said to me, "dad, I just got my first paycheck and you'll never guess how much they took out". I said, "I think I have a very good idea and delinated all the deductions for him. When he asked, "how did you know".

I said, "welcome to the world of reality".

He was incredulous they took so much money out of his paycheck. :)

[GTTPF]

It is my understanding that the money being put into SS now is paying for the people that are collecting now. Not what we have put in. I have also maxed out SS every year. Being self employed most of my life I paid double SS, the employers portion and the employees portion until the last couple of years when it was changed. I am not, nor have I ever complained about paying my fair share of taxes. We all agree they are necessary. We are and always will be "entitled" to collect SS benifits. Retirement supplement for all working people is why it was set up in the first place. If the goverment would leave their grubby hands out of it there would be plenty of money in SS! IT IS NOT their slush fund to use as they please! Contrary to what they might think! There should be laws protecting the SS fund. Do you seriously think that congress is going to pass them? Not a chance! They would be cutting their slush fund. If SS was used the way it was originally intended there would be a huge amount of money to fund it and your monthly checks would be much higher. Legal and illegal imigrants come to this country, never work a day, put their hand out and we give them everything. Something is very wrong with this picture! That's my story and I am sticking to it!:rant-rave:

[JimJoe]

I think you are mixing entitlement with welfare.
An entitlement is considered a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. By Definition, Social security is an entitlement...
BUT if you do not get back more than you pay in plus a reasonable interest on your money, it is NOT WELFARE.
You earned.. and You DESERVE IT.. and WE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO OUR MONEY!!
We should not allow the government to redistribute it to someone else.. then (as is our current system), it becomes welfare.

I think the solution to social security and make is solvent is to pay back to the contributor in the form of an annuity every dime plus a reasonable rate of interest to those who paid.. AND NO MORE. If you die before you receive back your entire investment, it goes to your estate.
Those who need welfare after their social security is gone should apply for welfare.
I am ready for the predator drone attack.
JJ

[JimJoe]

Social Security is not a company pension (and by the way lots of companies have reneged on their pension obligations). The money you and I have paid in all these years is not ours and was used to pay those who preceded us. Some of them paid in over 40 years as we did, and many did not. It also paid for widows, disabled citizens and children. Social Security has enough reserves and enough anticipated future income to continue to pay full benefits for another 25 plus years. It does not contribute to the deficit as it is actually right now operating at a profit when you combine the contributions and the income generated by the invested assets. The well runs dry in about 2036. There is not any crisis in Social Security. With no adjustments it can pay 75% of its promised benefits after 2036 until 2085. With minor tweaks it can pay 100% forever.
The crisis is in Medicare which none of us paid enough into to make the claim we are owed it because of our investment. A recent analysis finds that the average person retiring in 2011 has paid only 1/3 of the cost of their medical care. The number is less for those who retired earlier as they had fewer years of paying into medicare. http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/12/114000_that_2011_retirees_paid.html
Social Security is safe and should be left alone. We need to be realistic about Medicare being an unsustainable program in its current configuration. Either the benefits need to be cut or the payments into the system increased. Sorry for the long post.

There is not a Dime in reserves.. NOT ONE DIME. They have spent every penny.. to not only pay benefits but also finance the general spending when social security income exceeded expenditures.
The so called reserves are a stack of IOUs from a government that has a 15 TRILLION DOLLAR DEBT.. that is growing by more than a TRILLION a year.
The fed is destroying the value of the dollar every day. Your purchasing power is going down daily. They know it and are doing it on purpose to pay for the excessive government spending.. that both parties use to get elected. .. nibbling away at your savings.. hoping you will not realize it.
That is the unfortunate truth and it will never change until enough people wake up and vote for a true reduction in a change in the Federal Reserve, and in the Federal, state, and local government.

[Taj44]

What everyone seems to forget is:

1. Social Security is a Social program and unlike pure insurance each person will not necessarily get a full return on their "investment". Some will get more and some will get less. If you die when you're 61..you loose. If you live into and beyond your 80's....you received more than you paid in.

2. Everyone seems to forget that during those 40-45 years you were working the program would have provided monthly benefits to you and your family had you become disabled or to your surviving family had you died.

3. If your employer didn't have to pay the 6.75% tax would your salary have increased by that much? Dream on......

Most of us think of Social Security as only a retirement program so we calculate our return on investment at that point. What if we'd become disabled at age 25 or 30 with a spouse and two or three children? What then would be our return on our investment? Can anyone purchase an ins. policy that gives the same protection as Social Security for the same "investment"?

Good points. :BigApplause:

[JimJoe]

What everyone seems to forget is:

1. Social Security is a Social program and unlike pure insurance each person will not necessarily get a full return on their "investment". Some will get more and some will get less. If you die when you're 61..you loose. If you live into and beyond your 80's....you received more than you paid in.

2. Everyone seems to forget that during those 40-45 years you were working the program would have provided monthly benefits to you and your family had you become disabled or to your surviving family had you died.

3. If your employer didn't have to pay the 6.75% tax would your salary have increased by that much? Dream on......

Most of us think of Social Security as only a retirement program so we calculate our return on investment at that point. What if we'd become disabled at age 25 or 30 with a spouse and two or three children? What then would be our return on our investment? Can anyone purchase an ins. policy that gives the same protection as Social Security for the same "investment"?

If the Government had not used FORCE to TAKE your money for social security, you could have invested it and obtained a 10 fold return more than SS for which you could have easily purchased life insurance to pay far more than SS death benefits cover.

You can negotiate your pay.. so no one knows if you could have gotten the employer share of SS included in your pay. Just because no one knows, does not mean you would NOT have gotten.

Where in the Constitution does the federal government have the right to create this social welfare program? No where. In fact it is specifically prohibited by the 10th amendment.

yes many have benefited.. but many have lost much also.

[tpop1]

There is not a Dime in reserves.. NOT ONE DIME. They have spent every penny.. to not only pay benefits but also finance the general spending when social security income exceeded expenditures.

My point that I started this thread with, that SSA is not an entitlement....maybe should have stated that it should not be viewed as an entitlement!

We paid in enough, ourselves and our employers, to have had expectations of fund large enough to pay our SS Monthy benefits til we die with interest alone; thereby leaving the full amount of that pot to be used for all the other real entitlements listed in this thread.

Add to that amount all SS taxes collected for people who died before collecting, there would NEVER be an issue with SS being self sufficient FOREVER.

It is because those in office could not resist getting their hands on this easy money for pork, handouts, and other pet projects; that there are questions on its sustainablility. This dipping began if I remember with LBJ's Great Society initiatives.

Total mismanagement by elected officials of all stripes has gotten us to where we are today.

[Hal :-)]

Your contribution since 1991 has been 7.65% by you and 7.65% by your employer into your account for a total of 15.3% of your yearly salary.

If you earn the Max for 45 years compounded at 5% at the end of that period the pot of money in YOUR account would be $725,744!!

At 5% interest this pot would yield $36,287 per year, which is more that your SSA payments. If you acturalize it over the next 30 years to age 95, it would throw off $47, 210.

Yes not all employees earn the Max and subsequently their SSA payment do not max out either!

I will share my spreadsheet if anyone would like it - just PM me with an email address.

Blueash - My whole point is that it has been mismanaged and IMHO if it was managed correctly, it would have gone on it forever and provided for all you mention!

I don't understand how "entitlement" became a bad word. I believe Social Security is an entitlement. You are entitled to the benefit because you paid the premiums all those years. I don't believe there is any definition of Entitlement that says Handout or anything like that. If you earned it, paid for it, or received it as a benefit, it's an entitlement.

You can not calculate an ROI because it's a community program. It's retirement insurance. Like all insurance, there are winners and losers. Although you may not want to be a big winner on your Auto, File, Health, and Homeowners insurance. You make years of premiums and never have a claim and you're probably very happy never having a claim. I suppose everybody is a winner on life insurance, although the big winner dies the day after he takes out the policy.

The calculation gives the impression of a big ripoff. Actually many in that scenario may do better. There's no way to get a risk-free 5% these days, but the $36,287 is a bit less that a couple would get in guaranteed inflation protected benefits, with just 35 years at the max. Currently, the max FRA benefit is about $2366/mo, a spouse would get 50% of that for $3549/mo, $42,588/yr. Factor in multiple marriages, disability, under age children, and you could be considerably more. And it's all with annual COLA increases.

Social Security is simply a retirement insurance policy. It's insurance by ever measure. Many people don't realize the payroll tax is not deductible. You paid income tax on those premiums (FICA), just like any other insurance premium. Normally, insurance premiums are paid in post-tax dollars and the benefit is tax-free. Of course that's changed now, Social Security benefits can be partial taxed.

Social Security is sound. It may need some tweaking because we're living longer and it covers more. But there's no rush on that. It has produce a surplus every year for 75 years. By law the SSA can not borrow money. Imagine the early days when everyone started paying in and few collected. Huge surpluses, never accounted for. A couple decades ago, recognizing that the Baby Boomer Bubble was on the way, the rate was increased to accelerate collections and build the trust fund. It worked very well. Most of the boomers will be gone when when the Trust Fund runs out (if we ever use it).

While it's true that those excess contributions over the years went into Treasuries, which essentially went out the other door and into the general fund. It's not entirely fair to say politicians stole or misappropriated. The law specifically stated that the excess must go to US Treasures, full faith, and all that stuff. In fairness, there really was little other choice. Where do you put $2.6 Trillion? Ideally, it would have been invested, diversified in stock, bonds, etc. But no one would go along with that. And you're certainly not going to stack up dollar bills in the corner somewhere. So US Treasuries was the only realistic option. And, BTW, they do pay interest.

We're approaching the point where not enough is coming in to cover the outgo for Social Security. There's some $2.6 trillion in the fund now, over 99% from the middle and lower class. If those Treasuries are cashed in, it has to come from somewhere. Hence, all the screaming about Social Security. Even though it never contributed one penny to the deficit, and in fact, always contributed to reducing the deficit. The cries (mainly from the right) call for changes to Social Security to avoid raising taxes on the rich, and avoid needing to access the trust fund Treasuries. They want to maintain excess contributions from the middle class to maintain the low tax rates for the top 1%. Simple as that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPeUrJF6AM8

[fraurauch]

MikeH, I've been reading these posts and I've been thinking the same thing. My Mother, Father, Father-in-law and Sister-in-law all died without ever collecting anything, but there are a lot of people who have died prematurely, who have spouses who never worked, children under age, disabled people. It goes on and on. They have to, according to our laws, be provided for.

[villagegolfer]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It was raided during the Johnson Administration to pay for the so-called War on Poverty and VietNam. Basically they wrote I.O.U's that do not have a snow-ball in h*** chance to ever being paid back.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no fund sitting there for us to collect. If Johnson and his cronies did not touch it and it was invested properly, you would be very secure in your old age.

[handyman]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It was raided during the Johnson Administration to pay for the so-called War on Poverty and VietNam. Basically they wrote I.O.U's that do not have a snow-ball in h*** chance to ever being paid back.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no fund sitting there for us to collect. If Johnson and his cronies did not touch it and it was invested properly, you would be very secure in your old age.

Do you mean that LBJ committed such a theft of S.S. funds in the 6 years he was in office that it could not be repaired by by neither party over the course of 42 years? Or was there a little more Tom Foolerie going on,over the course of many years?

[villagegolfer]

Do you mean that LBJ committed such a theft of S.S. funds in the 6 years he was in office that it could not be repaired by by neither party over the course of 42 years? Or was there a little more Tom Foolerie going on,over the course of many years?

Once the floodgates were open, it was to the advantage of the politicians not to change it. By the way, Congress was controlled by one party in those days.

[Moderator]

Just a reminder...let's try to keep the discussion non-partisan and nonpolitical and on topic. Thank you.

[handyman]

Just a reminder...let's try to keep the discussion non-partisan and nonpolitical and on topic. Thank you.

I am sorry ,but the topic that I was trying to state are the problems of our Social Security, are alot more recent then 40 yrs. ago , P.S MR. administrater I do not consider this to be political,I look at this thread to be about , a pension plan that I payed very dearly for,and everyone on the TOTV should be able to make up their own minds,if it is what they consider an intitlment my comments had nothing to do with party lines.. And again I thank you.............handyman

[villagegolfer]

I am sorry ,but the topic that I was trying to state are the problems of our Social Security, are alot more recent then 40 yrs. ago , P.S MR. administrater I do not consider this to be political,I look at this thread to be about , a pension plan that I payed very dearly for,and everyone on the TOTV should be able to make up their own minds,if it is what they consider an intitlment my comments had nothing to do with party lines.. And again I thank you.............handyman

Your right, a politician is a politician and they have been leading us to ruin for a long time.

[Taj44]

I don't understand how "entitlement" became a bad word. I believe Social Security is an entitlement. You are entitled to the benefit because you paid the premiums all those years. I don't believe there is any definition of Entitlement that says Handout or anything like that. If you earned it, paid for it, or received it as a benefit, it's an entitlement.

You can not calculate an ROI because it's a community program. It's retirement insurance. Like all insurance, there are winners and losers. Although you may not want to be a big winner on your Auto, File, Health, and Homeowners insurance. You make years of premiums and never have a claim and you're probably very happy never having a claim. I suppose everybody is a winner on life insurance, although the big winner dies the day after he takes out the policy.

The calculation gives the impression of a big ripoff. Actually many in that scenario may do better. There's no way to get a risk-free 5% these days, but the $36,287 is a bit less that a couple would get in guaranteed inflation protected benefits, with just 35 years at the max. Currently, the max FRA benefit is about $2366/mo, a spouse would get 50% of that for $3549/mo, $42,588/yr. Factor in multiple marriages, disability, under age children, and you could be considerably more. And it's all with annual COLA increases.

Social Security is simply a retirement insurance policy. It's insurance by ever measure. Many people don't realize the payroll tax is not deductible. You paid income tax on those premiums (FICA), just like any other insurance premium. Normally, insurance premiums are paid in post-tax dollars and the benefit is tax-free. Of course that's changed now, Social Security benefits can be partial taxed.

Social Security is sound. It may need some tweaking because we're living longer and it covers more. But there's no rush on that. It has produce a surplus every year for 75 years. By law the SSA can not borrow money. Imagine the early days when everyone started paying in and few collected. Huge surpluses, never accounted for. A couple decades ago, recognizing that the Baby Boomer Bubble was on the way, the rate was increased to accelerate collections and build the trust fund. It worked very well. Most of the boomers will be gone when when the Trust Fund runs out (if we ever use it).

While it's true that those excess contributions over the years went into Treasuries, which essentially went out the other door and into the general fund. It's not entirely fair to say politicians stole or misappropriated. The law specifically stated that the excess must go to US Treasures, full faith, and all that stuff. In fairness, there really was little other choice. Where do you put $2.6 Trillion? Ideally, it would have been invested, diversified in stock, bonds, etc. But no one would go along with that. And you're certainly not going to stack up dollar bills in the corner somewhere. So US Treasuries was the only realistic option. And, BTW, they do pay interest.

We're approaching the point where not enough is coming in to cover the outgo for Social Security. There's some $2.6 trillion in the fund now, over 99% from the middle and lower class. If those Treasuries are cashed in, it has to come from somewhere. Hence, all the screaming about Social Security. Even though it never contributed one penny to the deficit, and in fact, always contributed to reducing the deficit. The cries (mainly from the right) call for changes to Social Security to avoid raising taxes on the rich, and avoid needing to access the trust fund Treasuries. They want to maintain excess contributions from the middle class to maintain the low tax rates for the top 1%. Simple as that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPeUrJF6AM8

Hal, good common sense post. I expect SS to be there for me; as you say, it needs to be tweaked a bit, and when it gets down to the nitty gritty, I'm sure the pols will find a way to do that. I'd like to see the salary cap raised on ss contributions.

[tpop1]

Your right, a politician is a politician and they have been leading us to ruin for a long time.

Which brings us to the bottom line.......

What is the definition of a Stateman?

A Statesman is an out-of-office politician.....

and God do we need more Statesmen!

[Hal :-)]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It was raided during the Johnson Administration to pay for the so-called War on Poverty and VietNam. Basically they wrote I.O.U's that do not have a snow-ball in h*** chance to ever being paid back.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no fund sitting there for us to collect. If Johnson and his cronies did not touch it and it was invested properly, you would be very secure in your old age.

Although they are "Special Issue" Treasury Securities, they do exist. They earn interest and could be cashed in just like normal Treasuries. The Trust Fund is held in Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-28-trust-fund_x.htm

Records are maintained and public.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/qop.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I'll have to research the Johnson comment. All I recall is that Johnson's Great Society gave us Medicare.

[villagegolfer]

Although they are "Special Issue" Treasury Securities, they do exist. They earn interest and could be cashed in just like normal Treasuries. The Trust Fund is held in Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-28-trust-fund_x.htm

Records are maintained and public.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/qop.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I'll have to research the Johnson comment. All I recall is that Johnson's Great Society gave us Medicare.


http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html

[JimJoe]

Although they are "Special Issue" Treasury Securities, they do exist. They earn interest and could be cashed in just like normal Treasuries. The Trust Fund is held in Virginia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-28-trust-fund_x.htm

Records are maintained and public.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/qop.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

I'll have to research the Johnson comment. All I recall is that Johnson's Great Society gave us Medicare.

that means nothing. If they can be cashed in as you claim, why did Obama during the recent budget crisis say he may not be able to send out the social security checks. It is lies and phoney bookkeeping. Wake up dreamers.

[villagegolfer]

that means nothing. If they can be cashed in as you claim, why did Obama during the recent budget crisis say he may not be able to send out the social security checks. It is lies and phoney bookkeeping. Wake up dreamers.

We have 78 million Baby Boomers. They will really be cashing them in real soon.:boom:

[hdh1470]

They need to raise the age about 5 years or so. 50% of newborn babies will live to 100 they can't be collecting ss for 38 yrs. and they need to start phasing in at maybe 45 year olds.And maybe means testing for ss and medicare.I know this may not sit well with most of us.But we have to stop being so greedy.I'm preparing to get blasted but I feel its the truth.:throwtomatoes:

[BobKat1]

They need to raise the age about 5 years or so. 50% of newborn babies will live to 100 they can't be collecting ss for 38 yrs. and they need to start phasing in at maybe 45 year olds.And maybe means testing for ss and medicare.I know this may not sit well with most of us.But we have to stop being so greedy.I'm preparing to get blasted but I feel its the truth.:throwtomatoes:

Yes, it's clear some modifications need to be made. It will take political courage and will happen sometime. Changes will need to be made sooner than later. Hopefully there is something viable in place for the younger generation.

I paid in to SS for 40 years and have been receiving benefits for 5 years. SS proved to be a great supplement during the recession, and allowed us to keep our other retirement savings in tact.

[tpop1]

But we have to stop being so greedy.I'm preparing to get blasted but I feel its the truth.:throwtomatoes:

Whose Version of the truth?

This is an example of the attitude that makes our elected officials label Social Security as an "entitlement."

I do not feel that I am greedy...just feel I have had a contract with America that I would have a retirement fund available for my later years. I paid in and my employer paid in to insure this retirement. IT IS NOT AN "ENTITLEMENT.

If SSA is a problem, I should have been able to opt out and put this money away on my own, as I did with the rest of my retirement funds.

It tick's me off to have had this contract questioned after so many years and to be labeled as "greedy" by the Alan Cranstons and judgemental poster on this board.

It is NOT greed, it is expectation based on this lifelong "contract."

[hdh1470]

I think if people are collecting and have other income over maybe 150k or more they should start taking $ away from your ss and scale down to nothing also increase medicare to them. These plans were to help the needy not to make the rich richer.But you will here the same old story its mine and I want it! This country is big trouble and its time for people to give back.:throwtomatoes::throwtomatoes::throwtomatoes: :throwtomatoes::throwtomatoes:

[PennBF]

I had a grandfather who was an Under Sheriff at turn of the century,
also ran a farm and then managed an estate/farm castle until he was
in his seventies. He then applied to manage the grounds for a rather
large hospital and worked there until he retired at the age of 95. He
lived a healthy life until he turned 102 and died very peacefully. He
was a wonderful, kind man.
We talked to him about collecting SS and he absolutely refused. He said
it was not right to get anything free when you are capable of working. He
felt that if a person was able to work they should, regardless of the type
and that SS was a charity/handout to those who could work or raise
their own food. He was born in 1870 and passed away in 1972. His was
the old way of thinking. :ho:

[Taj44]

I think if people are collecting and have other income over maybe 150k or more they should start taking $ away from your ss and scale down to nothing also increase medicare to them. These plans were to help the needy not to make the rich richer.But you will here the same old story its mine and I want it! This country is big trouble and its time for people to give back.:throwtomatoes::throwtomatoes::throwtomatoes: :throwtomatoes::throwtomatoes:

I agree. Programs are created for societal good. Look at school taxes. My spouse and I never had children but we paid school taxes for many years, for the good of society. Helping our seniors falls into the same category. You may not own a car, but pay taxes that support road systems...

[batman911]

hdh1470,

I agree with you that the entitlement ages for SS needs to be raised to keep the fund solvent for everyone in the coming years. I do not agree that the payment amount should be based on the recipients income or wealth. Everyone pays (invests) into the fund according to their income through out their working life. I do not believe the SS system was ever intended to be a welfare system but a supplemental retirement income system for everyone. Over the years, I (and many others) saved our money and invested wisely instead of buying everything we wanted. We never had the newest car, the largest house, the newest gadgets or clothing, or the expensive vacations. I wonder how many who retire with insufficient savings outside of SS really saved all the money they could have. In most instances, the choice was theirs alone. Save for retirement or live the good life now. Not many have high enough incomes to have it both ways. I view my SS account just as I do a savings account. I do not feel obligated in any way to subsidize other people's retirement after they lived the good life for so long.

[hdh1470]

My concern is for medicare make people with more pay more and maybe start a small copayment.I'm a life long republican but a realist and we need changes

[mikeandnancy1112]

The uprising in New York is huge but can you imagine if SS is taken away how many millions of people in the country would be uprising? I hope everyone is listening to the advertisement on television regarding 50,000,000 million people getting SS.

And to repeat what has been said. Social Security is what we have paid into all these years of working.

[rubicon]

I rwad all of the posts and the answer to the "entitlment" issue is that its lost in translation. For instance we recognize that "now" to some people means immedately and to others can be an hour day or week.

So too are the words "social security" to us it means an investment of our dollars;albeit forceably to commence at the time of our retirement and end at our date of death.

However social security to politicians menas "an enitlement" that is I am entitled to social security funds for my pet projects soI can get elected again

[Hal :-)]

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html

At this point, it's only an issue of overcharging. The program is actuarially sound, albeit with excess collections. For 75 years Social Security has covered all ongoing cost, plus additional to add to the Trust Fund. Ponzi, on the other hand, was running a revolving financial door. It's very different in my mind.

Again, I don't see any difference with other insurance programs. Auto insurance, medical insurance etc. The Insurance company collects premiums to pay claims every year. They're not taking your premium and investing for a future auto accident or health problem.

Without changes, in 30 years, SSA would only be able to pay 75% of promised benefit. Not to worry, changes will be made long before that.

[Hal :-)]

My concern is for medicare make people with more pay more and maybe start a small copayment.I'm a life long republican but a realist and we need changes

Medicare is a problem, but I think the solution is to fix the system. Our third-party payer system doesn't work. The rest of the developed world all have single payer. The insurance industry has basically hijacked our system. Our system is twice as costly, per capita, as any other country.

The Government already covers 50% of the health care cost - Medicare, medicaid, gov't employees, military, etc. The taxpayer covers the most expensive - the elderly, major illnesses resulting in loss of jobs and health coverage, etc. while the profit-oriented insurance companies get the gravy - healthy young and middle-aged adults and children that pay huge premiums and use little health services.

Since we pay twice as much per capita and the Gov't is paying 50%, our taxes are already paying the same per capita as every other country. Therefore, the private insurance expense is just wasteful excess to support private industry.

Unfortunately, when the subject of universal health care comes up, the typical reaction is that the government doesn't do anything right. I don't know why we can't when everyone else does. What we have now is certainly not working and only continues to worsen. It would seem to me that adding those healthy young folks to the medicare system would be quite simple and relatively inexpensive. Rather than wait till 65 and then take them from the private insurers, as the largest medical cost are about to begin.

The deck is stacked against us. Big corporate interest has bought and paid for the politicians and they make the rules. It makes me sick (pun intended) every time I see a commercial telling me to ask my doctor about the little purple pill. Only one other country (New Zealand) allows advertising of prescription drugs. We're paying the cost of that advertising and all it's doing is promoting excessive use and unnecessary cost.

[fraurauch]

Amen to your last post, Hal!!

[blueash]

I totally agree that a single payer system available to all would be ideal. I'd even allow private carriers to continue to operate, but they would have to offer the identical coverage and the identical cost or better. Thus if private carriers can provide the coverage at a lower cost, let them show us how they are more efficient than the government. Single payer was on the horizon with the ACA but when the administration made a deal with the insurance companies and drug companies to get them to not oppose the legislation, it killed the single payer option which was never considered by the committees writing the bill. Progressives were not happy.

[pzjay]

We hear lately the refrain from those in Government about the Social Security "Entitlement."

After working over 42 years at a salary which for the most part exceeded the maximum SSI wage base, I did some calculations of the amounts contributed to SSI by me and my employers.

Using a modest 5% growth rate over those 42 years(and 5% was modest in those years) and using a 5% yield into the future, calculates a yield of enough interest to pay my yearly SSI payments with enough left over to pay the government’s portion of my Medicare.

Taking this thinking a step further, I looked at a person retiring after working 45 years earning at least the maximum SSI wage base. These calculations yield enough interest to pay their monthly SSI plus mine???

SSI is definitely Not an Entitlement!!! It is an earned pension.

If any U.S. Company treated its pension plan like they have treated SSI, the company would have been hauled to court.

Sorry about the rant, but I have reached my tipping point!!!
As someone else said, this is not political as all in office are to blame!

THIS IS SO ABSOLUTELY TRUE. We agree 100% with one slight exception for the companies that have gone bankrupt and employees lose their pension. You could not have said it better and we share in your rant. The scare tactics of ALL politicians have GOT to stop!! :BigApplause::BigApplause:

[villagegolfer]

Medicare is a problem, but I think the solution is to fix the system. Our third-party payer system doesn't work. The rest of the developed world all have single payer. The insurance industry has basically hijacked our system. Our system is twice as costly, per capita, as any other country.

The Government already covers 50% of the health care cost - Medicare, medicaid, gov't employees, military, etc. The taxpayer covers the most expensive - the elderly, major illnesses resulting in loss of jobs and health coverage, etc. while the profit-oriented insurance companies get the gravy - healthy young and middle-aged adults and children that pay huge premiums and use little health services.

Since we pay twice as much per capita and the Gov't is paying 50%, our taxes are already paying the same per capita as every other country. Therefore, the private insurance expense is just wasteful excess to support private industry.

Unfortunately, when the subject of universal health care comes up, the typical reaction is that the government doesn't do anything right. I don't know why we can't when everyone else does. What we have now is certainly not working and only continues to worsen. It would seem to me that adding those healthy young folks to the medicare system would be quite simple and relatively inexpensive. Rather than wait till 65 and then take them from the private insurers, as the largest medical cost are about to begin.

The deck is stacked against us. Big corporate interest has bought and paid for the politicians and they make the rules. It makes me sick (pun intended) every time I see a commercial telling me to ask my doctor about the little purple pill. Only one other country (New Zealand) allows advertising of prescription drugs. We're paying the cost of that advertising and all it's doing is promoting excessive use and unnecessary cost.
Social security worked when 78 million Baby Boomers worked. That will not be the case very long. We borrow 42 cents of every dollar we spend. Social security is tied into the Federal Budget. The polls taken recently that 30-40 year olds do not expect any retirement money. Painting a rosy picture will not solve the problem.

[LoriAnn]

I could not agree with Blueash and Hal more! Single payor system is the only way to save the healthcare we are accustomed to. Medicare is sustainable. They are struggling because they pay out everything they take in to care for the people they insure. The people they insure are at the age that their healthcare becomes expensive. Younger and healthier people pay premiums along with their employers into private insurance companies that enjoy massive profits. If everyone paid those premiums into medicare from their first day of employment until retirement it would become a generous surplus instead of private insurance profits. I can't believe we are having a discussion in the country about taking concessions in Medicare coverage when private insurance companies are swimming in the greatest profits in history.

[villagegolfer]

Isn't single payer health insurance run by the government? I have heard many horror stories about health care in England and Canada. I do not think I want that here in the USA.

[LoriAnn]

Medicare is run by the government! It is the most effective provider of healthcare insurance in the world when you consider outcomes and availability of services. The difference between our country and Canada is that the providers are not run by the government. We will keep our quality with a one payor system as long as providers/vendors remain privatized. The American people have been purposely lied to in an effort to scare them into rejecting a single payor system. The lies are spun by those who stand to lose the most if the American people gain the most in services under a one payor system. Of course, we all know that loser would be the insurance industry.

[villagegolfer]

Medicare is run by the government! It is the most effective provider of healthcare insurance in the world when you consider outcomes and availability of services. The difference between our country and Canada is that the providers are not run by the government. We will keep our quality with a one payor system as long as providers/vendors remain privatized. The American people have been purposely lied to in an effort to scare them into rejecting a single payor system. The lies are spun by those who stand to lose the most if the American people gain the most in services under a one payor system. Of course, we all know that loser would be the insurance industry.

Your close to turning this into a political discussion.

[Hal :-)]

Isn't single payer health insurance run by the government? I have heard many horror stories about health care in England and Canada. I do not think I want that here in the USA.

I think you play right into their hands by accepting the propaganda. The rest of the develop world has gov't run health care. Individuals have no measurable out-of-pocket cost and everyone gets care. Here, we spend twice as much per capita, have 40 million people without coverage, and by most every study have poorer results.

Someone in this thread suggested the Gov't should essentially compete with private industry. That's a great solution. Unfortunately, it can't happen. The industry would fight it to the death. Isn't it interesting that the common rant is that Gov't can't do anything right and if it did it would be too expensive. Yet, private industry couldn't complete.

Actually, as bad as it is, we're fortunate that private industry isn't truly responsible for all our Health Care. The taxpayer takes care of the most expensive. If private insurance had to cover the expensive end-of-life care and such, no one could afford the premiums. The private insurance industry only works with gov't funded care for the elderly, containing their cost through coverage caps and lifetime benefit limits, restricting eligibility and eliminating coverage on pre-existing conditions. Basically, they can only handle the young, healthy segment of the population.

[LoriAnn]

Well said, Hal!! Propaganda abounds. Medicare is at risk of being insolvent because it spends EVERYTHING it receives in Patient care. While Wellpoint reported a increase in profits of 91% and Humana reported increase by 61% and United Health increased profits a staggering 346%. Research their profits, you'll be shocked! When we talk about privatizing Medicare we are suggesting we put every dollar earmarked for healthcare in this country in the hands of insurance companies that are posting record profits. Profits are generated from cuts and denial of services. The twice per capita spending on healthcare in this country has alot to do with the massive profits. It's shamful! Why wouldn't we place every dollar into a system (medicare) that is already in place and puts emphasis on providing services for their insured. What would be wrong with Medicare from Cradle to Grave? As long as the providers/vendor are privatized the quality will remain exceptional and the access to care will remain quick and easily available. The "scarey" commercials about government run healthcare in Canada with the long waits are sponsered by insurance companies trying to protect profits! When is the last time you had a long wait for services with Medicare? In this country, as long as Medicare is willing to pay, a vendor will expand to provide the service. Oh wait, that would create jobs, hmmmm.......

[Bambi]

I was a hospital nurse in a border state (Michigan). I took care of a quite a few patients from Canada, who crossed the border - expecially for othro surgery- because of the wait in Canada. They were private pays but said it was worth it. I also knew three Canadian nurses in the hospital - who drove over the bridge or thru the tunnel to work in Mi- equipment, staffing, etc. was better here.
Not too sure it is propaganda.

[LoriAnn]

I don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system, bambi. The propaganda is that the United States would face the same issues as Canada if there was a one payor system. The long waits in Canada is because the hospitals and many other providers of medical testing are public instead of private. Canada govt controls the number of hospitals including surgery sites. In the United States, all providers including hospitals are private. Any qualified individual or group can develop a business plan and open a hospital, homecare, hospice, DME, lab and other testing sites. There are physician owned hospitals and testing centers all over the country. There will never be a shortage in surgery sites, testing, hospitals as long as capitalism can function.

[villagegolfer]

Government now owns part of automobile production.

[Hal :-)]

I was a hospital nurse in a border state (Michigan). I took care of a quite a few patients from Canada, who crossed the border - expecially for othro surgery- because of the wait in Canada. They were private pays but said it was worth it. I also knew three Canadian nurses in the hospital - who drove over the bridge or thru the tunnel to work in Mi- equipment, staffing, etc. was better here.
Not too sure it is propaganda.

The US rations on ability to pay, Canada rations based on need. The Canadian may have to wait for services if it's not deemed an emergency or a serious immediate need. In the US it's all about the dollar. The fact is the person with the dollar in the US with also get preferential treatment. Have you ever heard of someone with money getting an organ transplant while others wait on the list?

My wife worked in a children's hospital near the border and they often had patients from across the border. Mostly they were severe cases that the Canadian facility was ill prepared to handle, or the Canadian hospital simply had an unmanageable census increase. However, in these cases, the Canadian system paid all the cost.

All that aside, the important thing is the cost and the results. In terms of results, Canadians are simply healthier overall, have a longer life expectancy, and less disease and illness. On cost, since we spend twice what Canada does we should be able to take their system, as is, and produce a win-win. Maybe only spend 50% more than they do and reduce our cost by 25%.

But to do it right, we really should look across the pond. The World Wealth Organization identified France and Italy as having the best health care, out of 190 countries. Since we were down at 37th, we should probably look to emulate them.

[villagegolfer]

The US rations on ability to pay, Canada rations based on need. The Canadian may have to wait for services if it's not deemed an emergency or a serious immediate need. In the US it's all about the dollar. The fact is the person with the dollar in the US with also get preferential treatment. Have you ever heard of someone with money getting an organ transplant while others wait on the list?

My wife worked in a children's hospital near the border and they often had patients from across the border. Mostly they were severe cases that the Canadian facility was ill prepared to handle, or the Canadian hospital simply had an unmanageable census increase. However, in these cases, the Canadian system paid all the cost.

All that aside, the important thing is the cost and the results. In terms of results, Canadians are simply healthier overall, have a longer life expectancy, and less disease and illness. On cost, since we spend twice what Canada does we should be able to take their system, as is, and produce a win-win. Maybe only spend 50% more than they do and reduce our cost by 25%.

But to do it right, we really should look across the pond. The World Wealth Organization identified France and Italy as having the best health care, out of 190 countries. Since we were down at 37th, we should probably look to emulate them.

It is late and I'm about to retire for the evening, but there are tons of evidence that the World Wealth organization has skewed the statistics to make the USA look bad. Surprise huh?

[Hal :-)]

It is late and I'm about to retire for the evening, but there are tons of evidence that the World Wealth organization has skewed the statistics to make the USA look bad. Surprise huh?

Hmm, my typo and you copied it. I meant Health Organization (WHO). I assume we were on the same subject. I didn't even know there was a Wealth Organization (WIWO).

Anyway, WHO did the study more than a decade ago and hasn't repeated it because it was so difficult. Criticism is always easy. I think there's general recognition that our system is far from the best, definitely the most expensive, and fails on results. Here's an interesting Business Week article on France's system. Not perfect, but superior, #1 in the study.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

With third party payer, the cost will always increase, and with private profit motive they'll increase further. The insurance provider (govt or private) and the health care provider agree on all cost and services. It all feeds back to the consumer in premiums or taxes. Most often, the consumer doesn't even see a bill. My wife had open heart surgery, 9 days hospital, and we never saw a bill or statement. They could have charged for 12 days, or anything else. As easy as my typo. I think the best system would integrate the consumer in the process, if for no other reason then to audit the statement. Ideally, the consumer should pay directly and be reimbursed somehow.

[Barefoot]

I don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system. [quote]

[QUOTE=Hal :-);406606]The US rations on ability to pay, Canada rations based on need. The Canadian may have to wait for services if it's not deemed an emergency or a serious immediate need.

All that aside, the important thing is the cost and the results. In terms of results, Canadians are simply healthier overall, have a longer life expectancy, and less disease and illness. On cost, since we spend twice what Canada does we should be able to take their system, as is, and produce a win-win. Maybe only spend 50% more than they do and reduce our cost by 25%.
them.

LoriAnn, you commented that "you don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system". Well, I doubt the criticism, and I'm Canadian.

Hal's observations are correct. If a Canadian has a serious medical situation or needs immediate surgery, they will receive immediate top-notch medical care without cost! Those who have serious health issues go immediately to the head of the line, as they should. If the situation is not critical, for instance arthroscopic knee surgery, I just waited for four months for surgery, and I find that acceptable. With the huge strain placed on the Medical System by Boomers, health needs will have to be prioritized.

Now, back to the topic of SS.

[Hal :-)]

[quote=LoriAnn;406541]I don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system. [quote]



LoriAnn, you commented that "you don't think anyone doubts the criticism of Canada's healthcare system". Well, I doubt the criticism, and I'm Canadian.

Hal's observations are correct. If a Canadian has a serious medical situation or needs immediate surgery, they will receive immediate top-notch medical care without cost! Those who have serious health issues go immediately to the head of the line, as they should. If the situation is not critical, for instance arthroscopic knee surgery, I just waited for four months for surgery, and I find that acceptable. With the huge strain placed on the Medical System by Boomers, health needs will have to be prioritized.

Now, back to the topic of SS.

Thank you Barefoot, for your knowledgeable input. We Americans are a bit spoiled. We often think we're entitled (to revert back to the original topic of this thread), and we don't want to wait for anything. However, I suspect we could even satisfy that need given our level of expenditure.

Your four month wait seems long, but we also have built-in delays for service. My Dad passed last year of Esophageal cancer. He was 85. I honestly feel he would still be here if the system was more responsive. He had to start with his primary physician, who sent him to an ear-nose-throat specialist, who sent him for a endoscopic exam. Then back through the chain and another primary referral to a oncologist for review with radiologist, surgeons, chemotherapy specialist to determine treatment. Each step has delays to schedule appointments. Ultimately, due to his age and mobility, he was scheduled for Radiation only, in combination with a new study drug. It seemed to worked since he moved from an all liquid diet to being able to eat anything he liked. The final scan showed the esophageal cancer taken care of. Unfortunately, the cancer had spread to the liver and there were no options. Sorry for the long winded story. But the point is, our system can be equally slow. Our system is built to provide private profits all along the way. There's a lot of extra steps and often excessive testing and lab work. Cost are secondary since they can be pushed back to premiums. With single payer, like Canada, the concentration is simply providing care with minimal cost.

OK, back to SS. Hmmm. As a Canadian, how does that affect you?