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.
Then she must be enrolled in Medicare. Why let's facts get in the way of a good story. Laws were put in place in the early 90's and earlier this decade. Apparently the person you know has no idea what's going on, or fed you wrong info.
Your answer is a bit disingenuous because it is not Medicare as a WHOLE that comes with Social Security payments, just one part of it and that is for procedural convenience only. [The Social Security Act and Medicare A are not inextricably linked, but rather by a procedural rule defined in the SSA’s Procedural Operation Manual System (POMS) used by SSA employees to process Social Security Claims.] The one portion of Medicare "comes with" Social Security payments, Medicare Part A (for hospital coverage only), is free to the participant. The rest of the program is voluntary. Therefore the person I know apparently has Part A, but nothing else of Medicare.
Your forced to pay into it, why wouldn't you take the benefit. Its like buying a house but not living in it.
That doesn't make it a good idea by any standards. Red herring arguement.
The reason I am asking him in particular is because the person is denouncing the system as socialism, and he considers socialism VERY EVIL.
I was just wondering if he personally takes the benefit of the evil socialist system.
Some people wouldn't because it would compromise their PRINCIPALS (whether they had to pay into it or not).
It is a bit disingenuous, to say the least, to rail against all forms of "socialized medicine" (like expanding the public option of Medicare to people under 65), yet you, yourself, get the benefits of what you are against other people having because you think it's "socialism." That's all. Understand?
There is a saying that goes (to paraphrase) everyone hates socialism until they get a handout. The problem with social security, medicare, etc. is that people slowly become dependent upon the government and lose their liberty in the process. This is where we are today with both of these programs. People are dependent upon the government for there health care (medicare) and many for their very sustanance (social security). Now the government has also taken over the student loan industry, so we will be dependent upon government for higher education. FNMA & FREDDIE MAC: We are dependent upon government for housing. I suspect that energy is next.
There is a saying that goes (to paraphrase) everyone hates socialism until they get a handout. The problem with social security, medicare, etc. is that people slowly become dependent upon the government ...
This is what the Democrat Party banks on as they promise to maintain, or increase, entitlement payments so that Democrat politicians can be re-elected.
That's the real reason why Democrats will fight tooth and nail to prevent the privatization of Social Security because they then could not make this claim, and as folks have their privately managed retirement accounts invested in corporate stocks and bonds, as well as in gov't bonds, they could lose votes every time Democrats passed a new tax or regulation that hurt corporate profits and thus diminish the price of stocks in the privately managed retirement account.
There is a saying that goes (to paraphrase) everyone hates socialism until they get a handout. The problem with social security, medicare, etc. is that people slowly become dependent upon the government and lose their liberty in the process. This is where we are today with both of these programs. People are dependent upon the government for there health care (medicare) and many for their very sustanance (social security). Now the government has also taken over the student loan industry, so we will be dependent upon government for higher education. FNMA & FREDDIE MAC: We are dependent upon government for housing. I suspect that energy is next.
You're right. The government is going to be setting regulations and rationing energy to individuals. Certain people/companies will make a lot of money working with the government "regulating" and "dispensing" energy. The "green revolution" is going to come down to this: the lives of individuals will be closely "managed" all under the guise of conservation and the dire need to protect the planet. One of the things that will be put into place is the eradication of private property in the US. The government will create zones and land that is rich in natural resources will be forbidden to be owned by or lived on by citizens. If citizens already own it, it will be taken away. The government already owns a lot of the country. Just take a look at the western US and compare how much is government owned vs. citizen owned. This has been in the making for a couple of decades. The UN created Agenda 21 in the 1980s and the USA is one of the countries that signed on for it. It's all about taking away the rights of individuals in favor of "saving the planet."
This is what the Democrat Party banks on as they promise to maintain, or increase, entitlement payments so that Democrat politicians can be re-elected.
That's the real reason why Democrats will fight tooth and nail to prevent the privatization of Social Security because they then could not make this claim, and as folks have their privately managed retirement accounts invested in corporate stocks and bonds, as well as in gov't bonds, they could lose votes every time Democrats passed a new tax or regulation that hurt corporate profits and thus diminish the price of stocks in the privately managed retirement account.
And what do you think would have happened to everyone if Bush II had succeeded in privatizing Social Security when Wall Street crashed? I wouldn't have been able to stomach it and for those who are actually on SS or near SS age, it would have been a disaster.
The government already owns a lot of the country. Just take a look at the western US and compare how much is government owned vs. citizen owned.
The gov't owned that land before these states became states.
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.
Laws were put in place in the early 90's and earlier this decade. Apparently the person you know has no idea what's going on, or fed you wrong info.
