Should Social Security and Medicare be abolished?

[A18]

Yes

[Redefeatbush04]

Yes, but we can't just do it right away. There are way too many people that are relying on it for the future. I am also more reluctant to abolish medicare than social security.

[A18]

Everyone wants to honor payments people have already made.

What's the point to Medicare?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

no, because they are socialist programs and we need more socialism.

[KEmperor]

Yes, but those who have paid into the system should continue to recieve benefits.

[opebo]

I say scrap them.  They are reminders of FDR and LBJ.  I see alot of oldsters working at fast food places, and they seem alright.  In fact, those elderly people working in fast food seem to out hustle the teenagers.

If I were either an oldster or a teenager, or for that matter anyone, working a fast food restaurant, I'd spit in your food.

Anyone remember the restaurant worker character from Blair's 'Down and Out in Paris and London' who makes himself sick by drinking mass quantities of milk in order to cost his employer money?  Now there was a man who understood his place in society.

I honestly don't think its reasonable to expect anything but sabotage from an employee making less than $20 an hour, without benefits, or vacation time.

[RVM]

No, but I don't have a reason

[John Dibble]

Eventually, yes, or at least great reforms in both. Social Security should be privatized or made optional. Honor payments already made. Not sure how medicare could be reformed, but it needs to be or it needs to go.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyone remember the restaurant worker character from Blair's 'Down and Out in Paris and London' who makes himself sick by drinking mass quantities of milk in order to cost his employer money?  Now there was a man who understood his place in society.

Yep :-)

The whole section on the posh hotel was both sad and painfully funny.
Not as good a book as The Road to Wigan Pier, but all of Orwells books were great :-)

So were his essays: got loads of volumes of those (The "As I Please" columns for Tribune were excellent as is The Lion and the Unicorn)

[opebo]

Anyone remember the restaurant worker character from Blair's 'Down and Out in Paris and London' who makes himself sick by drinking mass quantities of milk in order to cost his employer money?  Now there was a man who understood his place in society.

Yep :-)

The whole section on the posh hotel was both sad and painfully funny.
Not as good a book as The Road to Wigan Pier, but all of Orwells books were great :-)

So were his essays: got loads of volumes of those (The "As I Please" columns for Tribune were excellent as is The Lion and the Unicorn)

He's on of my favorite 3 or 4 writers.. some others being P.G. Wodehouse, Evelyn Waugh, Aldous Huxley..

 

[Redefeatbush04]

Think of all the old people who have spent their entire lives paying for the social security of others, and will not get it themselves if it were to be eliminated right away. It needs to be done GRADUALLY

[ATFFL]

Yes, but we can't just do it right away. There are way too many people that are relying on it for the future. I am also more reluctant to abolish medicare than social security.

You are sooo not a Democrat.

[A18]

Redefeat is a Republican. He just doesn't know it yet.

[Bogart]

It has to be change significantly. The problem is how. As a young person, I don't understand how someone wouldn't support Bush's proposal to transform it into personal 401-like accounts. Yes, it would cost a lot to do. But, the amount the current system will cost in the not so distant future is mind-boggling. If left untouched, very few posting on this forum will ever see a dime.

Medicare is a little more dicey. Obviously, there are a lot of problems with the current system.

[DanielX]

Yes, over time. Perhaps put a  cut-off date after which nobody new 'enters' the system.

[Redefeatbush04]

Yes, over time. Perhaps put a  cut-off date after which nobody new 'enters' the system.

I actually like that, however lets say you are the guy that gets cut-off. YOu spend your whole life paying for the social security of others and then do not get it for yourself. A year should be established where it becomes privitized. Say 20 years advance notice.

[tkwrinklefiber]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

[John Dibble]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

How exactly would the economy or the government be unsustainable without these two programs? Technology wouldn't go away, so the infrastructure for a global economy would still exist - you also neglect the fact that without these programs taxes would be lower, and people would have more money to spend. These two programs are completely unnecessary to sustain the government or the economy.

Heck, if anything such programs can make the government and economy unsustainable by having them rather than a lack of them - they can bankrupt the government, so taxes are raised, harming the economy as well.

[tkwrinklefiber]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

How exactly would the economy or the government be unsustainable without these two programs? Technology wouldn't go away, so the infrastructure for a global economy would still exist - you also neglect the fact that without these programs taxes would be lower, and people would have more money to spend. These two programs are completely unnecessary to sustain the government or the economy.

Heck, if anything such programs can make the government and economy unsustainable by having them rather than a lack of them - they can bankrupt the government, so taxes are raised, harming the economy as well.

Way back when, mainly before the agricultural revolution, economy was on the whole a very small scale affair, based mainly on simple kinship relations.  Thus, as the main economic unit, the family structure also provided the support.  But, now that economy has shifted into a much larger scale and the economic role of the family and its ability to support has been diminished (through changes in the division of labor system and such things), support needs to come from the same collective economic level, or it cannot be counted upon to lend any real social or economic stability or consistency (which would be quite a problem for the economy).  Social Security used to be an easy family affair, when everybody lived in temporary shelters or the children invariably lived with parents - in a neolocal money-based society with a complex division of labor, the family is by necessity a less important and stable economic structure.

Without those programs taxes would be lower, but then people would still need money to pay for the services they would otherwise have received.  Those who cannot pay for such things without the aid of a progressive tax system are going to prove quite a burden on society when they're dying in the streets and are no longer able to do all the grunt work the wealthier folks wouldn't think of doing.

Curiously enough, government programs can be quite effective.  As I've mentioned in another thread, most every developed nation besides the US pays less per capita and receives better healthcare, according to the WHO.  And somehow, there are still rich people in Europe and Japan.  Hmm.

[John Dibble]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

How exactly would the economy or the government be unsustainable without these two programs? Technology wouldn't go away, so the infrastructure for a global economy would still exist - you also neglect the fact that without these programs taxes would be lower, and people would have more money to spend. These two programs are completely unnecessary to sustain the government or the economy.

Heck, if anything such programs can make the government and economy unsustainable by having them rather than a lack of them - they can bankrupt the government, so taxes are raised, harming the economy as well.

Way back when, mainly before the agricultural revolution, economy was on the whole a very small scale affair, based mainly on simple kinship relations.  Thus, as the main economic unit, the family structure also provided the support.  But, now that economy has shifted into a much larger scale and the economic role of the family and its ability to support has been diminished (through changes in the division of labor system and such things), support needs to come from the same collective economic level, or it cannot be counted upon to lend any real social or economic stability or consistency (which would be quite a problem for the economy).  Social Security used to be an easy family affair, when everybody lived in temporary shelters or the children invariably lived with parents - in a neolocal money-based society with a complex division of labor, the family is by necessity a less important and stable economic structure.

Without those programs taxes would be lower, but then people would still need money to pay for the services they would otherwise have received.  Those who cannot pay for such things without the aid of a progressive tax system are going to prove quite a burden on society when they're dying in the streets and are no longer able to do all the grunt work the wealthier folks wouldn't think of doing.

Curiously enough, government programs can be quite effective.  As I've mentioned in another thread, most every developed nation besides the US pays less per capita and receives better healthcare, according to the WHO.  And somehow, there are still rich people in Europe and Japan.  Hmm.

Nobody said there weren't rich people elsewhere - they aren't communists after all. However, you VASTLY overstate what would happen without these programs - there would still be jobs, there would still be a global economy. In fact, it is probably the case that more social programs would lower our productivity(countries with higher tax rates usually correlate with lower productivity, Japan being a notable exception, mainly due to their cultural work ethic).

[Bono]

Just as the scope of interpersonal administration (ie, government) has increased in scale from the lineal kinship level to the national and global association level, so too must the institutions thereof be brought, at least to some extent, to a similar level (although the role of the family and the person in such things is never one to be abandoned).  The economy no longer operates on a small scale - therefore, the support systems for a large sustainable economy mustn't themselves be small.

If we want an unsustainable government and economy, though, go right ahead and cut them.

How exactly would the economy or the government be unsustainable without these two programs? Technology wouldn't go away, so the infrastructure for a global economy would still exist - you also neglect the fact that without these programs taxes would be lower, and people would have more money to spend. These two programs are completely unnecessary to sustain the government or the economy.

Heck, if anything such programs can make the government and economy unsustainable by having them rather than a lack of them - they can bankrupt the government, so taxes are raised, harming the economy as well.

Way back when, mainly before the agricultural revolution, economy was on the whole a very small scale affair, based mainly on simple kinship relations.  Thus, as the main economic unit, the family structure also provided the support.  But, now that economy has shifted into a much larger scale and the economic role of the family and its ability to support has been diminished (through changes in the division of labor system and such things), support needs to come from the same collective economic level, or it cannot be counted upon to lend any real social or economic stability or consistency (which would be quite a problem for the economy).  Social Security used to be an easy family affair, when everybody lived in temporary shelters or the children invariably lived with parents - in a neolocal money-based society with a complex division of labor, the family is by necessity a less important and stable economic structure.

Without those programs taxes would be lower, but then people would still need money to pay for the services they would otherwise have received.  Those who cannot pay for such things without the aid of a progressive tax system are going to prove quite a burden on society when they're dying in the streets and are no longer able to do all the grunt work the wealthier folks wouldn't think of doing.

Curiously enough, government programs can be quite effective.  As I've mentioned in another thread, most every developed nation besides the US pays less per capita and receives better healthcare, according to the WHO.  And somehow, there are still rich people in Europe and Japan.  Hmm.

WHO and other Un organizations don't measure the best, only the most socialistic systems.
I trully say unto you, had you come here to see for yourself what a  scam the public health care system, you wouldn't feel so civilized promoting it. Surgeries and procedures you people there take for granted, here take years to be performed, and often with very low quality. People die in waiting rooms because of public worker inneficiency. Strikes are à la carte for the doctors. How many people have died due to them is an unacountable fact And i goes on and on.

[tkwrinklefiber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if productivity is more important to you than quality of life, then I guess you might support that.  But productivity doesn't necessarily mean all that much to the wage slaves who are doing the production.  Economic health does not equal societal health.

WHO and other Un organizations don't measure the best, only the most socialistic systems.
I trully say unto you, had you come here to see for yourself what a  scam the public health care system, you wouldn't feel so civilized promoting it. Surgeries and procedures you people there take for granted, here take years to be performed, and often with very low quality. People die in waiting rooms because of public worker inneficiency. Strikes are à la carte for the doctors. How many people have died due to them is an unacountable fact And i goes on and on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You think the health care system is better here?  40 million people can't take ANYTHING for granted.  Only those who can afford to pay a premium can get operations so easily - the rest have to wait in line.  People die in waiting rooms, on operation tables, on waiting lists - we're not the amazing medical paradise you think we are, unless you can pay for it.  That's why there's so much talk about importing Canadian drugs.

And if by "socialist," you mean "including a wide range of factors beyond American propaganda," then yes, I'd agree with that assessment.

[John Dibble]

That's why there's so much talk about importing Canadian drugs.

People talk about importing 'Canadian' drugs, but they are wholly ignorant on why drugs imported from there are cheaper. The vast majority of those drugs were developed and researched in the U.S.

Canada relies on our free-market system to develop those drugs. Their price caps are what keep the prices low there - and guess what, that raises the prices here, because the required 10 years of research to market new drugs in the U.S. ain't cheap. If we had their system, with their price caps, we wouldn't be getting much in the way of new medicine, because it would cease to be profitable to make it.

[tkwrinklefiber]

That's why there's so much talk about importing Canadian drugs.

People talk about importing 'Canadian' drugs, but they are wholly ignorant on why drugs imported from there are cheaper. The vast majority of those drugs were developed and researched in the U.S.

Canada relies on our free-market system to develop those drugs. Their price caps are what keep the prices low there - and guess what, that raises the prices here, because the required 10 years of research to market new drugs in the U.S. ain't cheap. If we had their system, with their price caps, we wouldn't be getting much in the way of new medicine, because it would cease to be profitable to make it.

One would think, then, that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't sell drugs to Canada.  Are you sure you don't mean that the Canadian government subsidizes drug purchases?

[John Dibble]

That's why there's so much talk about importing Canadian drugs.

People talk about importing 'Canadian' drugs, but they are wholly ignorant on why drugs imported from there are cheaper. The vast majority of those drugs were developed and researched in the U.S.

Canada relies on our free-market system to develop those drugs. Their price caps are what keep the prices low there - and guess what, that raises the prices here, because the required 10 years of research to market new drugs in the U.S. ain't cheap. If we had their system, with their price caps, we wouldn't be getting much in the way of new medicine, because it would cease to be profitable to make it.

One would think, then, that pharmaceutical companies wouldn't sell drugs to Canada.  Are you sure you don't mean that the Canadian government subsidizes drug purchases?

No. It's price caps. And as I said, they just offset things by raising the prices here. They still make a little bit of money selling there, but if the prices were the same here it would not be worth the investment.