Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I will not have to because my husbands company continues to cover us and I would pick up the tab for my parents because that is what children are suppose to do. My parents raised me, put me through school, paid for all I needed so YES it is the least I can do for them.
You have no idea what a night in the hospital costs if you think you could pick up the tab for your parents' illnesses. And no commercial insurer will sell you primary insurance for someone who is eligible for medicare.
To everyone who thinks SS is not socialism because it comes from taxes on income:
You need to bone up on socialism. Here is a start:
Yes but you missed the point, you have to pay into it to get it, which means it does not fit the typical ideal of socialism. SS is not a hand out and it is not wealth distribution. It is like unemployment, if you don't pay into it you don't get it. Welfare IS a hand out because that IS the government taking care of you. SS is not.
It is wealth redistribution because you pay more into it than you ever hope to get back. Therefore, current retirees disproportionately benefit from it from the backs of current workers. The wealth of current workers is being transferred to current retirees. You don't like to call it socialism because you pride yourself of being an anti-socialist and don't want to be accused of hypocrisy (i.e. opposing socialism while actually benefiting from it). But SS is a manifestation of socialism. I'm not necessarily opposed to Social Security, but then again, I don't go around accusing Obama of being a socialist. The people who claim to be anti-socialist but don't their renounce their SS, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits are the ones who have some explaining to do.
For the record, I am not opposed to SS, either. I'm just saying, it's socialist in the same way any tax is: spread the wealth around, etc. I am glad that SS has reduced the elderly poverty rate.
Actually I will not have to because my husbands company continues to cover us and I would pick up the tab for my parents because that is what children are suppose to do. My parents raised me, put me through school, paid for all I needed so YES it is the least I can do for them.
My 83-year-old mother had minor surgery this year and spent 24 hours in the hospital. The total cost was more than $10,000. She has Medicare and a supplemental policy that paid for it. If you don't want your parents to benefit from socialist Medicare, I hope you're rich.
My 83-year-old mother had minor surgery this year and spent 24 hours in the hospital. The total cost was more than $10,000. She has Medicare and a supplemental policy that paid for it. If you don't want your parents to benefit from "socialist" Medicare, I hope you're rich.
Exactly. Saying we'll "take care of" our parents by ourselves if they get ill is noble but who ON EARTH could actually afford it? I too wish it were possible to take care of our elderly literally out-of-pocket. I do think it's kind to want to do so. But being realistic, I don't know who could.
You have no idea what a night in the hospital costs if you think you could pick up the tab for your parents' illnesses. And no commercial insurer will sell you primary insurance for someone who is eligible for medicare.
To everyone who thinks SS is not socialism because it comes from taxes on income:
You need to bone up on socialism. Here is a start:
It is exactly socialism. Socialism is not a handout, it is the government running the program. So Social Security is a nationalized (socialistic) insurance program that pays out a stipend based on years of premiums that are collected in the form of employee/employer taxes. If I paid taxes for the govt to provide state run health insurance, it is not a hand out, it is a state vs private program, but we still pay, we just remove the profit level, so all your premiums go to the running of the program and healthcare, investors do not get to skim off the top.
Strictly speaking, it is not, as those who don't contribute don't receive anything from the system. Pure socialism would redistribute the money to EVERYONE, regardless of participation. Does it have qualities of socialism? Yes. But it also has capitalistic restrictions.
Exactly. Saying we'll "take care of" our parents by ourselves if they get ill is noble but who ON EARTH could actually afford it? I too wish it were possible to take care of our elderly literally out-of-pocket. I do think it's kind to want to do so. But being realistic, I don't know who could.
p.s. Hope Mom is well now. 83, God bless 'er!
She's fine and thanks for asking.
But yes, except for the extremely wealthy, we all enjoy the fruits of the socialism that already exists in our country.
It amazes me to read about "Obama is a socialist!" when it's McCain who wants the government to buy up the bad mortgages. Policies don't get more socialist than that.
SS is not because if you do not work and pay SS taxes you don't get. It is not a hand out. Personally I think people should not have to pay SS and they should be responsible for planing their own retirement. As for Medicare and Medicaid, yup I think they are and they should be done away with.
Agree!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
