Skip to main content

View Diary: Anyone That May Receive Social Security Must Read This (192 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Entitlements versus welfare (14+ / 0-)

    I think the idea is that we are entitled to Social Security and Medicare, because we paid for them through payroll taxes.  It is Medicaid that is not an entitlement, for it is simply welfare.

    •  entitled is in the original 1935 law 9 times (8+ / 0-)

      Correct Medicaid is means tested so it is administratively and legally welfare. SS is not means tested.

      FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 05:19:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately that isn't how it is used and we (6+ / 0-)

      simply must stop that meme.

      The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

      by cherie clark on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:10:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the legal foundation is clear (7+ / 0-)

        and is the fundamental strength of the original SS law.

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 06:26:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is a legal term of art and from the practical (8+ / 0-)

        standpoint, it means that it is mandatory spending. If Medicare and Social Security were not entitlements, they would be under discretionary spending and Congress would only appropriate a certain amount to be divided among all recipients. Mandatory spending means they have to appropriate whatever it takes.

        The three entitlement programs are Medicare, Social Security and Ag Subsidies. The reason Medicaid is so much easier to cut is that it is technically not an entitlement; "entitled" does not appear in the Medicaid bill. It does in the other bills.

        If you get Congress to agree that they are not entitlements, the chained CPI will be the least of your worries.

        It does not make a hill of beans how the term is used by Republicans, it has a legal meaning.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 05:03:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We are "entitled" to APPLY for them... (9+ / 0-)

      ... if we are disabled.  It does not mean we'll get them before retirement age.

      Both Social Security and Medicare are INSURANCE programs.  Everyone pays into both insurance programs when they're working.  After we retire and draw Social Security Insurance, we continue to pay a Medicare [not-for-profit, single-payer] Insurance (for Part A and Part B only - hospital and office calls) as long as we receive Social Security.  Medicare payments are deducted before the remaining amount is deposited in our bank accounts.  We additionally pay a separate for-profit corporate insurance for Medicare Part D [prescription insurance], besides the Medicare Insurance that covers Part A and Part B.  The word Insurance is in the original title of the Social Security program:

      In the United States, Social Security refers to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program.
      Medicare is also an Insurance program [Part A & Part B - Part D we pay for ourselves, and that is a corporate ripoff].

      Wikipedia calls each of them "social insurance" programs.

      Because we each pay something for these programs [just as we do for corporate insurance - pay and pay and pay, whether we use it or not, and if we do not use it, we do not receive a refund of all we paid in - but with Medicare we can "get it back" if we use it and we're not penalized for using it, and Social Security we can "get back" if we live to be old enough to retire OR if we become disabled when we're younger and can no longer work], we are all, collectively, paying for them, so getting each back is an EARNED BENEFIT because they're pre-paid INSURANCE programs - and we've been paying for them since we first went to work.

      Medicare would be cheaper if Congress would, by law, put limits on the amount of money medical and pharmaceutical and insurance programs could charge for their services.  Medicare was a good idea (and it actually works efficiently)..., until hospitals and clinics started their price gouging, charging outrageous fees [those new pieces of equipment they used as an excuse to raise prices at first must be paid for by now].  Then insurance corporations got in on the action and decided to sell insurance (for a huge monthly profit!) to those whose Medicare would not cover the rise in prices.  That makes senior citizens and disabled people "insurance poor" just to cover medical costs.  If they're poor enough, they can apply to their county's social services office for state Medicaid programs to help pay for the medical costs (maybe they'll be helped, maybe not - qualification rules vary; there's often a spend-down program, so if the county does help, the individuals still owe some kind of money).

      These things could be managed, and managed rather well with price controls and outlawing price gouging and letting us all buy into Medicare (no corporate profits to worry about or shareholder payouts or executive bonuses getting our money)..., IF we had Congress Critters with some common sense and intelligence!  I'd give a whole lot for 99 more senators like Bernie Sanders, or a majority of representatives like Dennis Kucinich (the latter had a not-for-profit single-payer health insurance plan, but when Kucinich was running for president no one wanted to hear about it because he had big ears and looked like an elf - or so said Kossacks who didn't like his looks, loved his gorgeous wife, and liked his single-payer option and other things like ending the war immediately if he were elected).  Go figure.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:52:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, I meant to say.... (4+ / 0-)

      ... neither Social Security nor Medicare are "welfare" programs!

      They are not "free money," given to just anyone before retirement age.

      Disabled people must apply for Social Security Disability Insurance [SSDI] and/or Medicare before they can receive either one before age 65.

      Even then, as I just explained, there are other costs, largely because corporations got in on the act and we have a Senate and House full of fools who don't get the dilemma that senior citizens and disabled people are in just to get poverty-level monthly subsistence.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 02:57:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Medicaid is worse than welfare. (0+ / 0-)

      It's socialism.

      Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.--Sam Rayburn

      by Ice Blue on Sun Dec 09, 2012 at 07:41:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Medicaid is socialism? (0+ / 0-)

        If it weren't for Medicaid I'd have been dead five years ago because I wasn't old enough for Medicare.  Excuse me, but I've enjoyed living.

        •  We're glad you're here. (0+ / 0-)

          My point is, what's so bad about socialism?

          Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.--Sam Rayburn

          by Ice Blue on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:59:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site