Originally Social Security in the US of A was a stand alone program. President Johnson got congress to put the enormous amout of money that was in the Social Security Fund into the General Fund to finance his "Greater Society" and the Vietnam War. Originally the US Government put IOU's in the Social Security Fund. And now they say that there is no money in it. The folks in our Government who did this are no longer in Government. They are either retired or dead. And now the Government that we now have says that we old folks and those coming up are screwed. There is no money. And now our US of A Government is going after corporations that desolve pensions when our US of A Government did it first. Is this right? acaveyogi

Originally posted by acaveyogi
And now our US of A Government is going after corporations that desolve pensions when our US of A Government did it first. Is this right?
Social-security (like all entitlement-programs) should be means-tested.

Good observation, Acaveyogi. But the fact is that medical science has allowed medical practice to do a practically infinite amount of treatment. The problem is that there is not an infinite amount of money.

Originally posted by Karankawa
But the fact is that medical science has allowed medical practice to do a practically infinite amount of treatment. The problem is that there is not an infinite amount of money.
Wrong logic. Since there is a finite number of people, the amount of money to ensure a health policy is not infinite. In fact it is perfectly sustainable for a rich western economy : the question is purely political will and priorities.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Wrong logic. Since there is a finite number of people, the amount of money to ensure a health policy is not infinite. In fact it is perfectly sustainable for a rich western economy : the question is purely political will and priorities.

I disagree. Karan has nailed the problem exactly. The amount, in terms of dollars, one can spend on their medical treatment is growing exponentially. When you try to cover all medical costs, then you have people spending inappropriate amounts of money for the risks they are removing. In other words, the cost vs. risk assessment that an individual would make with their own money is not made when he/she is using public funds. That is the danger of socialized healthcare.

Not if the state defines precise criterias for health coverage. It is easily possible to limit the health insurance to the really useful treatments.
And again - it is a question of priority for any soeciety. You may think that health should not be a priority, OK. But if it is a priority it is be possible to achieve.

With all due respect you've just turned my health into a political football. The gov't is now going to determine the types of treatment I can receive.

That is a non-starter.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Not if the state defines precise criterias for health coverage. It is easily possible to limit the health insurance to the really useful treatments.
And again - it is a question of priority for any soeciety. You may think that health should not be a priority, OK. But if it is a priority it is be possible to achieve.


Ok, now this seems a little more reasonable. I think I could be talked into some essential gov't sponsored health services for which everyone would pay essentially the same amount of money.

Of course, I still would have issues with any disease which you would have a lot of control over. For instance, broken bones, heart disease and skin cancer are largely influenced by bad health habits, and thus I couldn't support everyone paying equal costs for health services associated with such afflictions. However, I might support public treatment for things like the flu or other indiscriminitely contagious diseases.

While it is possible to have a public health policy cover all ailments that occur, the cost would be outrageous. Considering covering the operations for all the patients that pay for them now. To cover the checkup costs. All the hypochondriacts who used to pay to get these checkups are now getting them for free.

Is it worth it to spend 5K for a cornea transplant, what about the 50K annually for those with dialysis? How about liposuction? There are certain procedures which have a higher priority than others, and some which people could live without. A line must be drawn somewhere.

Guys we seniors had the money. It was there. Social Security was a stand alone program that was totally separate from the rest of the Government's money. It supported itself and we old folks paid into it durring our youth. The Democrats spent this money and left IOU's and those IOU's are now lost. We were a big bunch and we put a lot of money into our future. This money is now gone. And now you the present are having to pay for our retirement. This money went into welfare and the Vietnam war and a bunch of other things. And now it is gone! Yes we are a big bunch and no you can't pay for our retirement. What is sad is that we did and now the money is gone. The people who were in government are gone. They took our money and left. Now the government says that you young folks have to pay the billions of dollars that we old folk put away, in trust, so that we could retire. It is not right! acaveyogi

SS has been a pay as you go system from inception. Excess contributions have gone into general gov't revenue and used to fund the gov'ts programs.

IN the past the average number of workers supporting retirees has been something like 30/35-1. As a result SS has been net cash flow positive and the extra as I said gone into general gov't coffers.

IN the future the number of workers supporting retirees will be less than 5-1. SS will go cash flow negative in about 9 years.

There has never been extra money that has been put aside in a lockbox.

Benefits will be cut and SS taxes raised.

Now the government says that you young folks have to pay the billions of dollars that we old folk put away, in trust, so that we could retire. It is not right!

EXACTLY, that is why SS was a crappy idea to begin with and should be abolished. It's pretty obvious that it was abused. The money put in was taken out and used for other programs. You are right to primarily blame Democrats, who often use a tax and spend philosophy. This is just another reason to stop supporting parties/candidates that are fiscally irresponsible. And I'm not going to defend our current president on this issue, in spite of his political affiliation.

Anyone collecting over $100,000 / year in retirement should not receive Social Security, even though they paid into it. Forfeit the money so that others needing that monthly stipend just for their existence may continue to collect.

Yes, yes, let's tax the rich and take away from them so that we can get something for nothing.

OR

How about if we cut spending on other projects that are not necessary and practice fiscal responsibility instead of taking things away from people that earned it fair and square?