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.
Someone covered SS, so let me say some things about Medicare/Medicaid.
Health care in general is in a bad way mainly do to consistantly improving medical treatment, which will go towards treating chronic issues that a majority self-determined. I believe it was medicare that had 60% of its payouts going to only 15% of the enrollees. Thats a pretty big disparity. Further, when drug abuse and obesity were changed to medical conditions they became "treatable". I'll say it now: Obesity will overtake and surpass smoking as the #1 biggest preventable issue in medicine. From heart disease, to diabetes, to cellulitis, obstructive breathing diseases, etc.
If we cannot completely rid ourselves of the system, then we must change the system to ensure that those people who have made the correct choices in their well being. I would propose a limited, but compounding, increase in medicare/medicaid withholding for those people who are morbidly obese, smoking, or are drug abusers. While it would be hard to enforce some of it, it would curb obesity and stave off greater sucking of the communal teet.
Full privatization would be insane, and it's not going to happen. Most Americans rank Social Security as one of the best federal programs we've got. It's not going away.
if someone decided to get rid of social security, liberals would run ads depicting old people starving in the streets. this is honestly what they think would happen if old people didn't get their 500 bucks a month. social security if fraud, plain and simple.
Full privatization would be insane, and it's not going to happen. Most Americans rank Social Security as one of the best federal programs we've got. It's not going away.
Personally I'd rather just put that extra into my own 403B.
Let's end welfare for the elderly. If they weren't responsible enough to plan for their own future's let them deal with the consequences.
The elderly are so lazy. They are always walking around looking sloppy. They don't keep their homes well and they are a drain on society.
Let's segregate them.
Oh but they did pay for their retirement, then the federal government spent it on whatever they liked at the time. How about we start by returning the money forcibly confiscated by the federal government? Do that, then get back to us with your snotty comments.
so you are saying that america was nothing before 1937 and 1965????
Go back and read my prior posts in this thread. It mentions nothing about 1937 or 1965. Economic progress goes FORWARD not backward.
I'm saying if you look at virtually every major economic power on the planet they provide some social security and medical care for the elderly. A country that doesn't provide those benefits tends to have poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancy. Taking away those benefits is detrimental to a country's overall quality of life. First, without those benefits peoples’ standard of living suffers. Second, without those benefits money that could go into the economy in the form of investment or consumption ends of being saved. As quite as a it's kept saving too much money can be economically detrimental to a nation's economy. Japan experienced that in the 1990's.
Dont privatize it, don't reform it, just get rid of the big heaping mess. If you are too stupid to save enough money by the time you are 70 years old you deserve the lifestyle you created for yourself.
No way in Hell would I want that money to be given to the scoundrels and flim flam men that run Wall Street. The money would be speculated away in a couple of years and we would all suffer the loss.
I suggest we limit Social Security payments to anyone making more than the 90th percentile from all their sources and revise the SS tax to apply to all income from all sources.
I believe the current health insurance system be eliminated and replaced with a government operated system funded by the same revenue as the Social Security system (direct income tax on all income from all sources). This would eliminate the private sector profit and managerial over head from the system and lower costs for everyone.
Would be cool to see the personal balance sheet for most of these "if they weren't smart enough to save screw 'em" type posters, find out if they are on track to have the amount needed to save to retire without any social security.
Studies show very few Americans accumulate much wealth at all, is it just that small percentage that does accumulate wealth that is in this forum saying to get rid of social security or are they just "I'll get around to saving someday" types that will be first in line for assistance when they look around at 70 and don't have enough?
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.
