SOCIAL Security.....Health Care

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-2008
SOCIAL Security.....Health Care
22
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 6:05pm

Consider the crown jewel of the socialistic welfare state - Social Security.


Here's a government program that is the absolute embodiment of the socialist dictum "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." By now, everyone should know that there is no Social Security fund and that there never has been one. Social Security is a straight transfer program. The Internal Revenue Service taxes the young and productive, and the Social Security Administration administers the welfare to the elderly. The system is based on taking what belongs to one person and giving it to someone to whom it does not belong.


Let's not forget the roots of Social Security. It did not originate with Madison, Washington, or Jefferson. In fact, our American ancestors would have nothing to do with such a program. That's why Americans lived without Social Security from 1787 to 1935. Social Security originated with German socialists during the regime of Otto von Bismarck, the "iron chancellor" of German during the late 19th century. That's where President Roosevelt got the idea.


When Roosevelt proposed Social Security as part of his New Deal for America, conservatives ardently opposed the program. They emphasized that it was morally wrong for a person to take what didn't belong to him, even when it was being accomplished through the collective action of the state; that Social Security would constitute an assault on family values; and that government had no business taking care of people.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 7:03pm

Okay, good night.


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 7:10pm
Depends how you do it, and what sort of health care system you're trying to structure. Taxes are nothing more than a funding mechanism. Certainly, no one enjoys paying them, but they can be better or worse-done, depending on what the goal is and how lawmakers go about it. I think people forget that if there was a shift to paying for health care out of taxes, their individual (and company) insurance premiums wouldn't ALSO stay at their current levels. For example - to use an extreme case - if we decided we DID want to "socialize medicine," every drop of it, lock, stock and barrel.....people and corporations would no longer be paying high insurance premiums out of after-tax funds (or any funds). It might be better or worse than we have now (without getting into THOSE arguments) but just because you switch how something is funded doesn't mean it's automatically going to cost more or be "worse."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 8:27pm

It works in other places....However, the government doesn't tend to use the Social Security contributions of its citizens as their own personal piggy bank.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 8:32pm

Could you IMAGINE the panic (and possible tragedies) that would ensue

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Tue, 10-14-2008 - 11:04pm
But as an example, say in Jan 1979 you paid $800 in SS taxes (the DOW average in early 1979) today it would be worth $9300.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-2008
Wed, 10-15-2008 - 10:15am

"I think people forget that if there was a shift to paying for health care out of taxes, their individual (and company) insurance premiums wouldn't ALSO stay at their current levels."


I believe that was

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-2008
Wed, 10-15-2008 - 10:21am

"The problem with Social Security is not the concept itself, but because the American government has been using that money as if it were theirs to do with whatever they wished."


I agree completely.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Wed, 10-15-2008 - 10:50am
Yep. When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1981, he HATED Social Security - he had that ol' time religion of conservatism: SS is BAAAAAAD. But then he and his administration discovered that it ran a surplus. After that, you find me ONE Reagan official who had a bad word to say about Social Security. That's part of how he financed his "morning in America" horsecrap: by raiding the SS trust fund.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Wed, 10-15-2008 - 10:54am
The difference is that health care is allocated on a constant basis, not saved in perpetuity until you retire. And yes, I know that the theory behind SS is that NEW workers (i.e. - younger people) are supposed to pay the benefits of older, retiring workers, and then they, in turn (the younger workers) will have THEIR benefits paid by people who aren't even born yet. But the point is that there's (theoretically at least) supposed to be a trust fund which sets aside money for longer periods of time. Any government-fun insurance plan for health care would be having to pay out annually what it took in.....and I doubt strongly that even the most foolhardy politicians would try to start spending money which - much of it - hadn't even been collected yet, and would have to be paid out in benefits is (at most) a year, probably a lot less. There's just no way to replace that money. It's more like the Pentagon budget: they get XX billion dollars per year....but it's not as if they spend every dime of it immediately. It's spent over the course of the year. But the politicians don't raid what ISN'T spent immediately, because they know it's GOING to be spent over the year.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-04-2008
Wed, 10-15-2008 - 11:29am

"The difference is that health care is allocated on a constant basis, not saved in perpetuity until you retire."


They are somewhat different....however I don't know about you but I PAY a lot in health premiums each year...to an insurance company.