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.
"The Social Security Administration manages the SSI program. Even though Social Security manages the program, SSI is not paid for by Social Security taxes. SSI is paid for by U.S. Treasury general funds, not the Social Security trust funds."
So, let me get this straight - you want disabled people dumpster diving rather than getting assistance? My first husband was disabled; he was legally blind and had crippling asthma. His medical bills would have been astronomical and he would have been completely uninsurable but for the Medicaid that came with his SSI benefits. And, let me tell you, SSI is not a windfall. In 1983-86, we got the minimum federal benefit of $276 to (I think) $325 a month. Any work that either of us did counted against the benefit, which was fine, but if we worked enough to eliminate it completely, he lost his medical coverage.
Add to that the fact that no one would hire a disabled person at that time (and, I dare say, many do not want to hire them now), and what exactly do you expect a disabled person to do?
Additionally, survivor's benefits for children and spouses are a result of the wage earner's having paid into the system.
SSI is NOT funded from Social Security Trust Funds. See my post above.
It should be noted that the calculator goes to age 70 and there are increased benefits if you continue working until you are 70. Those who think 70 is the proper age to retire should do the patriotic thing and just keep working until they turn 70. The system is already set up for that if one cares to go that route. They should not make it manditory for all and take the excess money paid into the system to pay down the deficit. I consider that stealing.
SSI is NOT funded from Social Security Trust Funds. See my post above.
You're right, it's not. I had forgotten that.
So what you're saying is, you'd rather deny SS benefits to widows, widowers and children who've lost a parent because they themselves didn't pay into the system? Possibly didn't pay into the system YET? Because those are the other groups who receive SS benefits. Disabled people who receive SSDI have paid into the system, so I would guess you don't mind them collecting.
The kind of world where a family who qualifies for medicaid lives in a 2500 sq ft house, has a wii (with plenty of games and accessories), two computers, two blackberries (with unlimited data plans), an ipod touch, two newer cars with payments, a dog, LOTS of kid 'stuff' (toys, trampoline, nintendo's, play sets, et), pays the fees to go to the pool all summer, goes to the tanning salon, limits their eating out to 'only' once a day when the kids are out of school for the summer....
Don't the heck tell me people can't save money when I live on LESS than the above family....by CHOICE. And I'm paying for their medicaid because they are too 'poor'.
Actually, you have to know how to understand that stuff, which I think you would know as a doctor.
This article was in my local paper today:
No full Social Security benefits until age 70? - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/11/1725272/no-full-social-security-benefits.html - broken link)
Social Security was created in 1935 with a retirement age of 65, but since then life expectancy at that age has increased by about six years, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.
"Life expectancy" at birth is affected by neonatal and childhood deaths, and also by increasing years at the end of life.
If you live to age 65, you will live, on average, six years longer now than you would have in 1935.
But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
And you should also know that when Social Security was instituted, there was not the pre-determined knowledge that infant mortality or life expectancy would change in the future. One must make health demographic decisions based on the statistics of the time.
The kind of world where a family who qualifies for medicaid lives in a 2500 sq ft house, has a wii (with plenty of games and accessories), two computers, two blackberries (with unlimited data plans), an ipod touch, two newer cars with payments, a dog, LOTS of kid 'stuff' (toys, trampoline, nintendo's, play sets, et), pays the fees to go to the pool all summer, goes to the tanning salon, limits their eating out to 'only' once a day when the kids are out of school for the summer....
Don't the heck tell me people can't save money when I live on LESS than the above family....by CHOICE. And I'm paying for their medicaid because they are too 'poor'.
And you're saying that this is the norm?
How do you know someone's status?
And you're saying that this is the norm?
How do you know someone's status?
I am saying that this happens, I know these people and others like them. I am saying that people can find all sorts of reasons to be poor and making poor decisions, developing poor habits, having a poor mindset will result in being poor. I shouldn't have to pay for that.
A safety net is one thing that most everyone will agree is needed....but we are passing out hammocks and people can get awful comfortable being poor in this country. Unless and until that changes, anyone who wants to retire while they still can enjoy the fruit of years of labor should disregard SS and save their own money...or work for the government and retire with a fat pension paid for by the rest of us suckers.
And you should also know that when Social Security was instituted, there was not the pre-determined knowledge that infant mortality or life expectancy would change in the future. One must make health demographic decisions based on the statistics of the time.
The expectation was that infant mortality would decrease, and other diseases would become more treatable, leading to a longer life expectancy after retirement.
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.
