Conservatives: If You Could, Would You Eliminate Entitlements? (employment, generation, illegal)

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by mackinac81

Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.

I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.

mackinac

All federal social programs should be abolished and returned to the authority of the states from whence they came. The federal government usurped that authority from the states who have always had the power to enact what ever social programs they desire.

[Memphis1979]

You see the term "opt out" or "opt in". These are code words for ending social security. If some don't participate, that's the end if the program.

Americans don't want these programs touched. It's time for real solutions, like cutting military spending.

[newhandle]

You know social security and medicare are not entitlements. They are insurance paid for by workers.

If these were gotten rid of and there was a great depression, those who don't like the system would be the first asking for a govt. handout.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Jay F

SS and Medicare should not be lumped in with other handouts because people pay into the system. I often see people make the argument that tea partiers are hypocrites for collecting SS.. They had no choice, they were forced to participate.

Meanwhile the system was abused. Money was taken out of the SS trust fund and used for other spending. The system needs to be reformed. The Democrat solution of doing nothing is just going to make things worse in the long run. The sad thing is that many people who paid in all their lives will get nothing back.

You have to accept responsibility for that.

For 55 years the Democrat-controlled House and Senate blew every penny of the Social Security surplus like children in a candy store.

Granted, no one really knew that. The Media gets a Total Fail for refusing to inform Americans. That issue came to light during the Carter Administration when the Democrat-controlled House and Senate wanted to raise Social Security Taxes because their candy store fund was running low.

At that time, Americans should have insisted a law, or even a constitutional amendment was enacted to keep Congress' hands off of the Social Security surplus, but instead Americans looked the other way, and then Republicans continued the practice when they gained control of the House for the 12 years they had it.

Granted, both Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed, but reforms don't necessarily require cutting benefits, rather reforms are about spending the money more judiciously.

Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder

I would like a refund for 30 years of payments to SSI that I'll never see a penny of but since it's already water under the bridge, I'd just as soon see it go away.

You'll get some, just not all of it, of course I'm assuming you have more than 46 years.

If you're in the 30-45 crowd, you might get partial payments for a while.

If you're in the under 30 crowd, you had best get off your full point of contact and go to the library and read up on investment strategies and consult a personal financial planner or an on-line calculator and start making plans. Yeah, I know you might have to give up Starsux, but you can drink coffee anywhere and Starsux isn't going to be around that much longer anyway.

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

You see the term "opt out" or "opt in". These are code words for ending social security. If some don't participate, that's the end if the program.

But that isn't true at all. You can end Social Security and still have it.

I would force out everyone 25 and under. They would get a "refund" of sorts.

60 and older are locked in, and 26 to 59 crowd can stay in or opt out. If they opt out, they get a "refund" of sorts.

Those who remain in the program continue to have Social Security taxes deducted, and their employers continue to pay the equivalent tax they already pay. Once you know the number of people in the program and the end game, government can plan accordingly to ensure there is sufficient money to see the program through to the last recipient (whose name will probably appear as an entry in Pukipedia).

Those who opted out get their their "refunds" deposited into a no-access trust account. They, and the under 25 crowd continue to have the Social Security tax deducted and deposited into the no-access trust account, along with the employer's contribution. The tax is reviewed and increased every 10 years to adjust for cost-of-living.

The employee is then free to do what they want investment wise. They can leave it there, buy Certificates of Deposit, or invest not more than 50% in mutual funds, bonds, stocks and what not.

You don't pay taxes on it.

Because it represents future payments, it is a liability and can never be used or declared as an asset for any reason. It cannot be used as collateral to purchase a home or car, or to obtain a loan; it cannot be used for child support or alimony; it cannot be claimed as an asset during bankruptcy filings; or for any other form of aid, such as student financial aid, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8 or any other program. It cannot be attached or garnisheed; it is judgment proof and creditor proof.

It just sits there until you turn 62 and retire, unless you want to retire at 65 or 67 or 80.

When you die, your account is apportioned and distributed to your children and their mothers, rather than the surviving spouse, and if no children are at issue, then to surviving blood relatives, including the surviving spouse.

If you did that, then you would have a Social Security program, and government couldn't touch it, couldn't manipulate it; it would in the economy instead of on the government's books.

And the employee has some control over it.

Social Security was never intended to be income, and FDR made that quite clear during his fire-side chats. It was intended to be a fail-safe in the event you lost your pension, which would leave you with your personal savings and Social Security; or in the event you lost your personal savings, which would leave you with your pension and Social Security; or in the worst case scenario, if you lost both your pension and your retirement savings, at least you wouldn't be living on the streets.

And what about Disability Insurance? Transition that to the States. Each State can set up its own program; choose how to fund the program, decide the criteria for eligibility; allow for the possibility of Total Temporary Disability or limit it to Total Permanent Disability; decide whether people can work or not while receiving the benefit; decide if the benefit should be taxed; decide if recipients should be drug-tested or barred from purchasing alcohol or using casinos and gambling.

And ADC? That should be transitioned to the States as well. If the people of a State want it, then it's up to them to decide how it should be funded and who should be eligible, under what circumstances and for how long.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

1. Raise social security eligibility to age 72

It is fundamentally unfair to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

I also don't view people as slaves who should work their entire lives. 40 years of work is enough, and if people should be able to retire at 62 and draw benefits. If they don't understand that Social Security is an income supplement to their pension and retirement savings, and not income intended to live off of, that is their problem.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

2. Raise the payroll tax

You do understand that to pay all Social Security and Medicare benefits as promised by the government, you would have to levy a Flat Tax of 81% on everyone. Everyone means "every one" (who works).

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

3. Raise medicare eligibility to age 72

That would be helpful.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

4. Mandate that medicare pay for only generic drugs

You would need to make exceptions where it is proven that generics are less effective or not effective at all.

Not all drugs work the same way on all people. I'm an anesthesiologist's nightmare, because most of the drugs they use are paradoxical to me, so they have to use a special class of drugs so I don't wake up in the middle of surgery and start singing (I actually did that).

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

5. If statistical mortality for a condition is 95% +, refuse Medicare payment. Most medicare expenses are made in the last three months of life.

I would be even stricter than that, factoring in quality of life.

I'm willing to pay for someone who is active and has a high-quality of life. More power to them.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

6. Eliminate social security disability. In most instances it is a scam for people who can work.

The main problem there is when Total Temporary Permanent Disability was eliminated.

It's just a matter of common sense (and government has none). You put people on Total Temporary Permanent Disability, you evaluate them to determine their needs, insist they attend therapy, physical therapy or other programs, including re-training if necessary, set a time frame to meet those goals, when that date comes, it's "Have a nice life" and you cut them off.

Now they just lump everyone into Total Permanent Disability and forget about them.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

7. Make Medicaid co-pays of 5-10%. This would essentially eliminate the $5,000 ambulence rides and er visits for colds.

Basically Medicaid recipients use emergency services as their own personal private taxi.

We can end that by eliminating the "Pot-o'-Gold" at the end of the Rainbow.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

8. Mandate generic drugs only for medicaid recipients

Again that's problematic.

It would be better to classify all drugs as life-saving, life-prolonging or elective.

Elective drugs are 100% out-of-pocket. Life-prolonging have co-pays based on the drug.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by Mircea

But that isn't true at all. You can end Social Security and still have it.

I would force out everyone 25 and under. They would get a "refund" of sorts.

60 and older are locked in, and 26 to 59 crowd can stay in or opt out. If they opt out, they get a "refund" of sorts.

Those who remain in the program continue to have Social Security taxes deducted, and their employers continue to pay the equivalent tax they already pay. Once you know the number of people in the program and the end game, government can plan accordingly to ensure there is sufficient money to see the program through to the last recipient (whose name will probably appear as an entry in Pukipedia).

Those who opted out get their their "refunds" deposited into a no-access trust account. They, and the under 25 crowd continue to have the Social Security tax deducted and deposited into the no-access trust account, along with the employer's contribution. The tax is reviewed and increased every 10 years to adjust for cost-of-living.

I said that when you want to allow people to opt out, its a way of ending it.

You say that isn't true, then you say "Everyone under 25 wouldn't get it"

ENDING social security for future generations.

The Republican hypocrisy on this issue in plain view.

Either say you want to phase it out, or not. There is no in between.

The American people, by numbers larger than 70% want social security and medicare for current, upcoming, and future recipients, and not to change it, period.

So either tell the American people you don't want what they want, or tell them that you are backing away from this, and focusing on other areas of the budget to balance.

[Vegas Joe]

Originally Posted by mackinac81

Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.

I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.

mackinac

Social Security over several years would be gradually transferred to the private sector by having a percentage of the money placed into private IRA or 401K accounts. Over a long period of time, eventually we would transfer to a full mandatory private retirement plan for everybody but with a government guaranteed minimum benefit so that low wage earners would have a livable amount to retire with if their private plan did not accrue enough money or if they outlive it. Much like Chile did.
With Medicare and Medicaid, we would transfer to private premium support plans. The person could choose between an HMO type plan or a fee for service plan with the HMO costing less. The premium support amount would be means tested with lower income seniors getting more support than higher income seniors.
Both programs would be ran at the Federal level because having states do it is impracticable due to the fact that seniors often travel and move and it would be a big burden to states that retirees favor such as Florida and Arizona.

[claudhopper]

I tried to find out today how many receive SSI without paying in - I was unsuccessful. I do find that social security pays for much more than retirement benefits, plus gov't employees have their own system in PERS, which is separate and much more lucrative. At least with PERS, only those that pay in get the pay out. SS recipients have not had a cost of living increase in 2 years. However I understand federal gov't employees get 8% per year.
What if everybody is treated equally, per the Constitution, and SSI is for those that worked most of their life paying into the system. I'd put an equal number of years on it. If you paid in for 10 yrs. you get payments for 10 years plus a set amount of interest. 2 years, the same calculation.
Did you know that U.S. Social Security is the largest gov't program in the world?
It seems to me, we should separate out the retirement plan from Aid To Families with Dependent Children, Unemployment benefits, Disability, and whatever aid illegals are able to sign up for. Illegals should get no benefits, none from the Federal gov't.
That might be a start to reining this in and seeing where we are.
Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[redroses777]

Originally Posted by mackinac81

Honest to God, I'm not trolling. This is a real question.

I hear a lot of conservatives say that the government should only provide for defense and little else. So here's my question: If you had the power, would you eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid or other entitlements, since, in your view, they aren't part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, and therefore unconstitutional? Or do you dislike entitlements because the federal govt. runs them and not states? I look forward to any responses.

mackinac

Does anyone honestly believe that this country can afford anymore entitlements? (i.e.: Obamacare) How do you propose we pay for these goodies once China decides to stop loaning us money? I pay plenty in taxes and my income isn't that high. In fact, it is quite low.

That being said, I would eliminate Obamacare. We already have Medicaid, Medicare, and millions of charities for anyone who can't afford medical care. The help is out there, stop being too lazy to look for it.

I would eliminate free lunch for food stamp recipients. Schools should start accepting food stamp cards to buy tickets for school lunch and breakfast. Rarely, does a child eat lunch and breakfast twice so we should stop paying these people as if they do eat twice.

Unemployment insurance needs massive restructuring. It does not foster employment meaning that this entitlement needs serious reform. Unemployed folks should be allowed to work part-time. This would help them find work more quickly. It should last no more that 9-12 months in a recession and should be some sort of a work program. Why not let companies hire them for free, gain experience, and possibly gain a job offer? After all, they already being paid, I don't see the problem.

Get rid of farm subsidies. These are making Americans fat and allowing useless sugar to be placed in our food.(i.e: high fructose corn syrup). Not to mention, it lowers the price of junk food and raises the price of health food.

Welfare should stop paying people to pop out babies. Stop subsidizing stupid sexual choices past two or three kids. We don't need to be paying people to have 8 children who are not married.

I could go on.

[claudhopper]

We borrow 188 million dollars every hour to fund this overblown government. It's not just the Feds, I see it in state and local. Gov't exist to grow, at our expense - we need to chop them off at the knees, and take responsibility for ourselves. I hope it's not too late for less government, more freedom. We will know by how Ron Paul does in the primary. We are at the crossroads NOW.

[jodipper]

I am against means testing in any form. If they start means testing on SS and medicare they become welfare programs. Means testing = welfare. The spending on the 77 means tested welfare programs is higher than the Defense Department.

Do not put medicare/medicaid together. One is an earned entitlement. The other means tested welfare.

Of all the means tested welfare programs, 30% to 70%, depending on the program, of eligible people do not take the program benefits. There is still pride and shame in this country.

End SS orphan benefits after 2 years. Not having life insurance when you have children is irresponsible. When I was young the kids with the most money were the ones with dead fathers.

For people under 21, adjust the age for SS to 5 years younger than the life expectancy. Re adjust every 10 years.

I go along with a previous post on the 95% mortality rate. Most old peoples last 6 months cost more than their entire lifetime care. This is one conservative that doesn't like Palin. I happen to agree with some sort of death panel, cutting off heart surgery after 85, no lipitor for alzheimer's patients, etc.