Whose Version of the truth?
 

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."

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:

Old Fashion
 

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:

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...

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.

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

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.

Lost in translation
 

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

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.

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.

Amen to your last post, Hal!!

single payer
 

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.

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:

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.

Medicare is sustainable
 

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.