Ayn Rand Collected Social Security and Medicare

1. 60

   William R. Wilsonposted 13 years ago

   Tea Party Patron Saint Ayn Rand Applied for Social Security, Medicare Benefits
   
   What would John Galt Do?

   replyreport
   1. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Have you considered that it's a protest against redistributive policies? I mean every dollar this person collects is a dollar that doesn't get redistributed....

      replyreport
      1. 60

         William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That makes no sense.

         replyreport
         1. 56

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Lets work it through....
            
            Did this person pay into Social Security? YES
            Can a person collect Social Security without paying into it? YES
            Are they eligible to draw Social Security? YES
            If they don't draw Social Security will the money not be spent? NO

            replyreport
            1. 60

               William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ok.  So by your logic it's ok to pay into a government program and then collect the benefits from that program?

               replyreport
               1. 56

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes. My problem is when the distribution of those funds is inequitable. The more you pay in, the more you collect. It currently doesn't work that way. Entitlement programs are simply "re-distributing".

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     But insurance doesn't work out that way, you pay according to risk and get paid according to need.
                     
                     Or  have I got that wrong, does the new driver crashing into a row of cars get more money than a skilled and experienced driver who pays smaller premiums and gets a smaller pay out?

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        You make my point for me. The idea that Social Security is insurance is what makes it bad. If it were simply a mechanism where monies were collected and invested to return to the public, it would be a fair and equitable policy.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           But isn't it insurance? You pay out during the good times to protect against the bad times.

                           replyreport
                           1. 56

                              C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Indeed it is insurance, but with a twist. A twist that makes it immpossible to maintain. In fact, because it is insurance, one would think that lower income persons would pay more and higher income persons would pay less. I mean isn't the risk higher for lower incomes? It is insurance, that is why I'm against it. However, the reality is that I alone can't change that. All I can do is speak my mind, vote accordingly and do what I can to get my money back. Would I forget the money I've paid in if the government would stop collecting the tax? YES. However to NOT collect the benifit because I disagree with the policy, a policy  I can't change, is to cut my nose off to spite my face. That makes no sense.

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 "A twist that makes it immpossible to maintain."
                                 
                                 I beg to differ. A couple of tweaks will put SS on a solid financial footing for the foreseeable future. It definitely isn't impossible to maintain. Medicare is another story.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 56

                                    C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    Beg and differ, your choice. The fact remains the system was designed that most would never collect. Thats why congress felt so comfortable with "borrowing" from it.... By tweeks I take you mean changing the eligibility age so that most never qualify?

                                    replyreport
                        2. 65

                           Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Insurance is bad???

                           replyreport
                           1. 56

                              C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, it's the worse kind of gambling..betting against yourself.

                              replyreport
                              1. 65

                                 Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Rather, it's prudent protection of yourself and your family against a catastrophic event. I assume you have car insurance and homeowner's insurance? If so, why?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 56

                                    C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    I have car insurance because it's required by law. I have homeowners because it's part of my contract with the lender.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 65

                                       Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                       Well, if you didn't have car insurance or homeowners insurance you would be subjected to being bankrupted by a lawsuit in the event of an accident in which you were determined to be negligent. Going bare would be foolish if you have assets subject to loss in a tort suit. Health care is similar in that's medical bills are the largest single cause of bankruptcy. Any financial adviser will tell you that automobile, homeowners and health insurance makes sense for nearly everyone. If you have significant assets they will advise you to get an umbrella policy to protect yourself against predatory lawsuit judgments beyond the minimum liability coverage required by law.

                                       report
                                       1. 56

                                          C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                          But would they tell you the government should provide it through re-distribution....

                                          report
                                          1. 65

                                             Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                             Some might, others might not. However, your comment contested the concept of all insurance, not government insurance. Are you ready to back down on this blanket denial of the usefulness of insurance?

                                             report
                                             1. 56

                                                C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                Not at all. People should purchase insurance when the risk is real. Not based on some statistic that has no meaning. Some people would require auto insurance. Others do not. If your car is being financed, your going to be required to have it by contract. If you drive less than a few thousand miles a year, you probably don't need it. The risk is too low. However if your averaging more than 10K a year and/or live in high traffic areas it's definitely needed, because the risk is real.
                                                
                                                Social Security is beyond help. Since the latest changes in SSI in 72 and 83 the leading claim is due to phsychiatric reasons. The people diagnosed are often young. This means they will remain on the roles for long periods of time. Less than one percent leave the program for reasons other than "aging out" or "death". This is nearly three percent of GDP or 267 BILLION dollars per annum. The slang for this program? CRAZY CHECKS!

                                                report
                                                1. 61

                                                   John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Really, I didn't know there was a minimum distance you had to drive before you knocked somebody down! It doesn't seem to be widely known at all, just last week somebody was hospitalised when they got run down in their own drive way. I think they were distracted by being told that they were no longer needed at their place of work!

                                                   report
                                                   1. 56

                                                      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Insurance is about RISK MANAGEMENT.  When risk are low so is the need for insurance.

                                                      report
                                                   2. 56

                                                      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                      So they weren't driving?

                                                      report
                                                      1. 61

                                                         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                         They where, they contrived to fall out and run them self over.

                                                         report
                                                2. 65

                                                   Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Just curious, where do you get all this information on Social Security? I'm sure there is a certain amount of fraud and unwarranted payments as there is on private insurance companies. When you say the "leading claim" is psychiatric, I assume you mean the leading total and permanent disability claim because the biggest claims against SS are retirement claims. Disability claims of mental illness may well be growing based on the popularity of the Tea Party! A citation or two would improve the credibility of your assertions.
                                                   
                                                   From what I've read a few small changes in SS will put it on a sound footing for the foreseeable future--e.g., increase or remove the cap on earnings subject to FICA tax, dampen the increases based on increases in the cost of living (there is evidence that the current formula overstates increases in the cost of living of retirees), change the forumla to encourage people to work longer, or a combination of the above.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 56

                                                      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Ralph, I was speaking of SSI. It's a part of SSA, some consider it a part of Medicare, however people on SSI are also eligible for Medicare. I got the information from a study done for the SSA by Dartmouth University. I posted the link earlier.

                                                      report
                                                      1. 65

                                                         Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                         Thanks. I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement. I'm aware of one case of a woman on SS disability who is perfectly capable of working. That's an argument for tightening up, not eliminating the program.

                                                         report
                                                         1. 56

                                                            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                            So what do you think of the original post? Is Ayn Rand being a hypocrite for accepting SS?

                                                            report
                                                            1. 65

                                                               Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                               Well, she was required by law to pay SS taxes, so she has every right to receive benefits. However, in view of her "philosophy" there is an element of hypocrisy in applying for benefits from a social insurance program that she devoted her life to opposing.

                                                               report
                                             2. 56

                                                C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                                http://tdi.dartmouth.edu/documents/publ … kinner.pdf

                                                report
                     2. 65

                        Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Very true. That's the way SS was designed and intended, and has worked quite well.

                        replyreport
                  2. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Social Security is more accurately called a social insurance program. As in the case of private health and life insurance, some people collect nothing while others collect much more than they contributed. That was the original intent of the program and remains so. For example, orphans and people whose injury or illness renders them unable to work receive Social Security payments. And someone who retires at age 66 and drops dead the day after receives nothing. His contributions are used to pay benefits to the man who lives to age 100 as in this case, the father of one of my inlaws, Patrick O'Rourke who is alive and kicking at 100:
                     http://www.mlive.com/grandblanc/index.s … 00_re.html

                     replyreport
                  3. 65

                     Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     "Inequitable" in your opinion. Not in mine.

                     replyreport
                  4. 60

                     William R. Wilsonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     So what about the people who make more than $125,000 a year and don't have to pay in as much?

                     replyreport
                     1. 56

                        C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Wouldn't you say their risk of filing a claim is lower?

                        replyreport
               2. 60

                  Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Uhhhhh, isn't that how it works?
                  
                  What isn't ok is to never pay into the program and still get the benefits.
                  
                  What isn't ok is that the government takes from the program and leaves IOU's that you think is a surplus.

                  replyreport
   2. 82

      Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      yup.  Of course that's really old news, but so much for the conservative capitalist "Jewish" hate queen.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why shouldn't she have collected Social Security and the sort -- she paid for it!!!
      
      Listen: if you want to make an argument like this, it's about the same thing as saying "if you hate government paying for things, then why don't you avoid everything that has ever had anything about government touch it!!!!?"
      
      The answer is: "because then I would starve and freeze to death. the government touches EVERYthing".
      
      The government stole her tax money, and she got what she "paid" for. Not really a big deal.

      replyreport
2. 60

   Jim Hunterposted 13 years ago

   She's no saint of mine.
   
   I have never nor will ever consider what someone else does relevant to my beliefs.
   
   So once again...who cares

   replyreport
3. 70

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Social security is just another method and excuse to allow people to be lazy about their own future.

   replyreport
   1. 56

      C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      tada!!!

      replyreport
      1. 70

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         By all accounts, social security shouldn't even exist, because each person should have the ability to provide their own retirement benefits.
         
         It is only ignorance and a lack of willingness on the individual's part to understand that singular point.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            schoolgirlforrealposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            this is true.
            unfortunately the govt and/or medical field is heavily prescribing people and giving them diagnosis that they think they need SSI when perhaps they could find another way
            Just another way for the govt to keep people feeling helpless?
            Though I'm sure many physically disabled people or incurabley other disabled need it.
            perhaps you mean for retirement? hmm haven't thought much about that.

            replyreport
         2. 56

            C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Personal Responsibility leads to self sufficiency....

            replyreport
         3. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Incorrect. When we were a primarily agricultural society where people and their families lived on their own land and there were extended families nearby your notion was workable.  Social insurance became nessary with industrialization people moved from farms where they could grow their own food to cities where they had to pay rent and buy food, often far from relatives who could be counted on for help in an emergency. The jobs of manufacturing workers were subject to the whims of their jobs, injury, layoffs due to mistakes by the owners of their factory and due to general economic declines or technological change. Workers Compensation, Unemployment compensation and Social Security programs were adopted because of real needs felt by citizens in an industrial society.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               But not for itinerant and seasonal workers who could just about provide for the day and hope for the best tomorrow.
               We also forget that life expectancy has increased greatly, how many can easily provide for a retirement that rivals a working life in length?

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  That's a good point.

                  replyreport
               2. 56

                  C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So here we see not every one pays, but nearly everyone is eligible to collect. NO ONE recieves anything of value...It's a wreck!

                  replyreport
4. 60

   Doug Hughesposted 13 years ago

   There are a lot of people in THIS economy who lost their jobs, their house, the 2nd car... Unemployment pays about 50% of what they were making.. so they have been dipping into whatever retirement or savings they had... It's gone.. But their Social Security is still there.
   
   Crooks like Bernie Madoff can wipe you out Your safe investment - your retirement in a profitable company like Enron can vanish. The value of your retirement in mutual funds can suddenly be wiped out. Your social security is still there.
   
   Republicans want to 'privatize' SS - letr Wall Street gamble with your pension. Who would YOU trust???

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      a lot of people were buying summer homes when they had $2,000 in the bank...
      
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … ousandaire
      
      I would normally say "this is a perfect example of the ant and the grasshopper", but then people would tell me that I hate children.
      
      So, instead I'll say "this shows you that our current monetary policy, a la the Federal Reserve, is a horrible system".
      
      OH, and to answer your question: i would trust the free-market, with ease. They actually have REPAY their debts.
      
      Let's see: when a private institution goes a few million in debt, it not only goes bankrupt, but it STAYS in bankruptcy... When the PUBLIC sector goes $1.5 TRILLION into debt, it ... gets more money from Ben Bernanke...
      
      Which one of those institutions do you think has a larger incentive to make money?  ... oops, pardon the pun! Which one of those institutions has the larger incentive to make WEALTH?

      replyreport
5. 40

   universalcableposted 13 years ago

   Let the economic boom people are not going to wait for retirement age.
   If you save alot of income you will depend on yourself not retirement age.

   replyreport
6. 40

   universalcableposted 13 years ago

   Let's focus on the world economic right now,. let's find means to resolve this complicated issues

   replyreport
7. 59

   mikelongposted 13 years ago

   Cags......reality shows us that everyone, let alone most people, do not have the means to save enough money for their retirement....
   
   In fact, who can retire these days?
   
   I think a few people in this thread need to go back and live in 19th/early 20th century America, and let us see how well they fair....and for how long...
   
   Too many people rhetoricize about some far-fetched ideal and have lost track of what is really going on....

   replyreport