[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

To compare the health system of one country to another - you need to use INFANT MORTALITY as a yardstick, which is the best measure. So, last time I looked at the world list for infant mortality, the Scandinavian Countries with Universal Health Care were all in the top 10 and the US was down at 20 or 30. That is the only way to compare countries - use an objective measure, not a personal and subjective way.

Nope. Infant mortality is a very small part of determining the quality of health care in differing countries. Like I said before, if you haven't lived in other countries, you have absolutely no way of understanding the difference between "their" health care system and treatment and ours (America). Another area to consider when comparing is the cost and the available service. But, Americans think that other countries are great because they have "free" health care. There is NO "free" health care. If you pay out half or more of your paycheck to the gov to pay for the "free" stuff, you will appreciate the difference also.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."

I disagree. A spouse's SS is based upon her earnings. My spouse received SS before I did because she is older. When I started receiving my SS, SSA asked me if I wanted my spouse to have her's computed on half of mine, which was a larger amount. Of course we said "yes." My wife receives more now than she did based on her own earnings.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Byte1

I disagree. A spouse's SS is based upon her earnings. My spouse received SS before I did because she is older. When I started receiving my SS, SSA asked me if I wanted my spouse to have her's computed on half of mine, which was a larger amount. Of course we said "yes." My wife receives more now than she did based on her own earnings.

I think we are talking about two different things. I was replying to a poster who said that an ex-spouse had to share their spouse benefit with a current spouse. That is not true. If an ex-spouse was married to a SSN worker for at least 10 years, they qualify for the "spouse" benefit regardless of whether the worker is currently married, or if there are other ex-spouses. Anyone who qualifies for an SS benefit can receive the benefit without any sharing. If you qualify for a benefit based on your own earnings and also based on your spouse's earnings, you can opt to go with the higher of the two benefits.

[B-flat]

Originally Posted by drcar

I believe that these programs are important to MANY people, but I do NOT like the term "entitlements", since I paid into them my entire life, I do not consider them entitlements.

DITTO and that’s all in CAPS for a reason!!!

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I think we are talking about two different things. I was replying to a poster who said that an ex-spouse had to share their spouse benefit with a current spouse. That is not true. If an ex-spouse was married to a SSN worker for at least 10 years, they qualify for the "spouse" benefit regardless of whether the worker is currently married, or if there are other ex-spouses. Anyone who qualifies for an SS benefit can receive the benefit without any sharing. If you qualify for a benefit based on your own earnings and also based on your spouse's earnings, you can opt to go with the higher of the two benefits.

Ahh, my misunderstanding. That's the way I understand it also.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Too many people "think" that they are a stock market "wizards". I have know many very smart individuals that have gotten severely burned by the stock market. It is a LOT like Las Vegas - 90% of the time for the high risk takers - they lose and the HOUSE wins. Winning at gambling AND the stock market can be addictive and thus cloud your perception.

Index investing and dollar cost averaging has far outperformed managed investing by “wizards” and just takes some emotional control not to sell when the market slumps. Every high school student should read the book “A Random Walk Down Wall Street” by Burton’s Malkiel.

[GoPacers]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

When the system was set up the retirement age was 65 even though the vast majority did not live that long.

That allowed SS to build up a very large nest egg.

Not exactly fair to the people who paid in and didnt live to collect.

If someone in the private sector set up a system like that they would probably be doing 10 years in Leavenworth as they used to say.

Social Security was never intended as a system where you got back what you put in.

Yes, there are people who don't get back what they put in but imagine the uproar if you got cut off when you reached the amount you paid in. You can't have it both ways.

Social Security is broken because too many people are getting benefits that exceed what they contributed. There are also challenges with population growth, or the lack thereof which leads to more people drawing benefits than those that are paying in.

The system needs an overhaul and some people are going to be unhappy. The longer Congress kicks the can down the road the bigger the gap becomes. Congress continues to accumulate debt at extraordinary levels that someone will have to pay back. Those of us over 60 are hugely fortunate as most/all of the solutions will fall on our children and grand-children.

[GreySkies]

I was fortunate enough to make good financial decisions so that in retirement I would not have to depend on either. However, knowing that I paid into the SS program during my entire professional employment career I would still expect to get the share I am entitled to regardless of my current financial position.

[Art cov]

When the government comes up with a plan to socialize security for its people, it’s not always in the best interests for its people. Not many live into the 90’s. They knew the average age of death. They in government ( no matter of party) could only see a win win situation. Pay all your life into ss and most die before or shortly after receiving a few years of checks. What a bargain! However the wise investors would’ve had a million $ to leave their children or spouse. Probably a lot more than $1,000,000. Now then, people who blew their money and lived paycheck to paycheck would have nothing but government housing and food stamps. Of course the streets could be lined with the homeless! (Just a thought) the Amish n old order mennonites never pay one penny to social security and they seem to manage well being out of the system.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Kgcetm

Social Security and Medicare are not entitlements. If anything they are lifetime taxes that generally fail to reach the payout of a lifetime of conservative investments. I resent the implication advanced by an effete ruling elite that after 55 years of contribution to the programs i have become a burden on the system.

I always have an issue with the way that the word "entitlement" is often used in this argument. IMHO, we who have paid into the SS system for decades are entitled to the benefits that we have paid for all these years.

Calling welfare and medicaid entitlements is wrong to me. Those reaping those benefits are not entitled to them. They are charity.

I think that we have it backward.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by GoPacers

Social Security was never intended as a system where you got back what you put in.

Yes, there are people who don't get back what they put in but imagine the uproar if you got cut off when you reached the amount you paid in. You can't have it both ways.

Social Security is broken because too many people are getting benefits that exceed what they contributed. There are also challenges with population growth, or the lack thereof which leads to more people drawing benefits than those that are paying in.

The system needs an overhaul and some people are going to be unhappy. The longer Congress kicks the can down the road the bigger the gap becomes. Congress continues to accumulate debt at extraordinary levels that someone will have to pay back. Those of us over 60 are hugely fortunate as most/all of the solutions will fall on our children and grand-children.

If the money that we paid in was invested conservatively, we would all have more in our accounts that we paid in and for most of us, more than enough to last the rest of our lives.

Congress has "borrowed" money from this fund over the years and has never paid it back.

Consider all of the people that die before they reach retirement age. My wife died at age 59. My mother died at age 58. My mother in law died at 65 and never collected SS. So take that money and add it to the money that I, my brother and sister and my brother in law get and it's a lot more than any of us paid in.

This money was never invested properly and it Congress should never have been allowed to use it for other purposes.


And no one will ever pay back the national debt. It will just keep growing and growing and growing.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I always have an issue with the way that the word "entitlement" is often used in this argument. IMHO, we who have paid into the SS system for decades are entitled to the benefits that we have paid for all these years.

Calling welfare and medicaid entitlements is wrong to me. Those reaping those benefits are not entitled to them. They are charity.

I think that we have it backward.

I agree. But, the word "charity" seems to have a different meaning when it comes from the Government. Some people feel a reluctance or guilt when taking charity from an individual or private organization. But, when it comes from the Government, they will take all they can get. Maybe that is why they call it an entitlement.

[jimbomaybe]

"Medicare is funded through the budget and it was invested poorly for both social security and Medicare." OK if these funds were "invested" and not a transfer of money where were they invested?

[Bay Kid]

If SS was an option most of us would never pay. Bad investment. The gov is gambling you won't live that long. But calling SS payments an entitlement is an insult to those that worked hard all their lives.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

If SS was an option most of us would never pay. Bad investment. The gov is gambling you won't live that long. But calling SS payments an entitlement is an insult to those that worked hard all their lives.

SS started off as a ponzi scheme and now the govt is concentrating on mismanaging the funds.

Feel sorry for our kids and grandkids as congress keeps kicking the can down the road and the further they kick it the harder it will be to fix.