Would you give up social security for universal health care?

My husband has this hair-brained idea that we could concede to phasing out Social Security if in return we had universal health care. (Please don't yell at me. It's just a thought.) He's thrown out this idea with some of our friends and had very mixed reactions. In general, our younger friends,in their mid-30s and younger, think it's a pretty good idea, but those over that age think he's completely insane. Personally, I think it's interesting and a little appealing, but it's not likely to work. So my question for DU is, if you had to choose one, which would you pick?

a small wealth tax (1% on wealth above $2M), and taking off the cap of payroll taxes would take care of it, and add in half of all insurance premium money.

Go sell that to the public. I bet they buy it.

absolutely would pick universal healthcare, without a doubt. But that's a response to predatory healthcare pricing by pharmaceutical companies, doctors, laboratories, and other health care practitioners.

One caveat: you have to count nursing home care and hospice care as universal healthcare, and not social security care.

If you knew that every penny you saved and invested would go to paying for your living and food, and not be consumed by arthritis and kidney and liver and heart and cancer and broken hips, you would certainly have more confidence in putting money towards that end.

As it stands, most seniors play that "what if" game every time they decide whether they can afford to take a full dose of their medications or to patch the leaking hole in their ceiling.

but, hey, me 'n the government have had a deal my entire working life. I pay SS payroll taxes so seniors NOW can live and then somebody helps me out when I am old and feeble. That was the deal. Am fast apporaching old & feeble.

Would univeral health care help me more than the big corporate medical businesses? Hmmm, that's a tought call.

but, hey, me 'n the government have had a deal my entire working life. I pay SS payroll taxes so seniors NOW can live and then somebody helps me out when I am old and feeble. That was the deal. Am fast apporaching old & feeble.

Would univeral health care help me more than the big corporate medical businesses? Hmmm, that's a tought call. And, yes, that healthcare would have to include nursing home costs of not even considering it.

All we have to do is spend a little less on weapons.

As long as the aliens from Independence Day don't show up, no one will know the difference except the defense contractors that depend on our tax dollars to keep getting richer.

I don't plan on living forever, but until I check out, I'll still need to pay taxes on my house (if I ever get the mortgage paid off) and buy a little food now and again.

Universal Health Care is a fine idea, but it can't be a 'swap and shop' arrangement.

Yup, I would.

we just don't get what we pay for AND bush* is trying to take away SS too!

.

Social security isn't just for the retired, but for the disabled as well. For the widows, and people who get so ruined by an accident they can't work anymore.

Social Security is just that....A program that secures your social standing. It prevents you from falling through the cracks should the worst happen, and allows our elderly to live relatively well through their golden years. Prior to Social Security most people who were over the age of 70 either still worked, or were living in poverty, or with their children.

If I had to choose I'd choose Social Security. Universal Health Care does me no good if once they let me leave the hospital physically disabeld I'm forced to peddle on the street corner.

We can and should do both. This is a false choice.

Only a savage nation with no morals would abandon either the elderly or the sick.

We're better than that. We just have to kick the stupid Repuglicans out of the way first.

Why not choose between social security and universal healthcare versus a bloated military industrial complex? THAT is the real choice!

Just who would he negotiate this with? The current administration would have no interest in entertaining this idea as they want neither. In a just world, overseen by a benevolent deity, we would have both. Say, like most of Europe. The savings from the universal health care would most likely pay for both. But since we live in a world ruled by avarice, greed and corruption, there is little likelihood that the conditions would exist where we could even talk about having either.

P.S. The only way we get both, or perhaps retain one, is for the bottom to fall out of the basket. I have become convienced that we must all support the president and his republican majority in order to speed along the day of reconning. Then, and only then, will we be able to reestablish a democratic society.

spend much more on health care and insurance than they get from SS, I think its a good idea. They'd get more. After all, what's a few dollars a month worth to you if you're dead because you can't afford the huge fees the medical cartel charges.

Of course, that's just attacking the symptoms. Getting rid of the medical cartel would be the better solution, but I don't see that happening without having a violent revolution. The wealth doctors just wield too much power.

Should we have to choose between the first and the fourth amendment, if we were only able to keep one?

is not a Democratic way of thinking, especially when far too much is at stake with both and either.

What about those who are retired, or disabled? What would they do if their Social Security were to stop? No money AT ALL to live on? Thankfully, if you're of an age or position to be collecting either SS or disability, you are also (currently) entitled to medicare or health benefits, but if changes were made, more and more people would not only be confused, but probably left hanging in the wind.

What good does helping one group do if you end up hurting another at the same time?

And why should the lower and middle classes be put into such a situation when there are companies--yes, corporate entities who are benefitting over and over again from disenfranchising those people who it's supposed to be helping? Big tax breaks, ignoring the outsourcing, allowing these entities to become off-shore companies and skipping paying their tax burden because they re-incorporated in a foreign registry?

People forget that there are millions--not just thousands, of people in our country who are in worse shape than those in foreign countries, whether they are elderly, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, or living in such conditions that the rats and cockroaches live better than they do? It's impossible to think good of our government when such horrors are allowed to exist here in the supposedly "best" country in the world.

Trading one heartache for another is dispicable, even if it's thought off in good intentions. But while your husband might not have known of the consequences or the ramifications of such a plan, those who are "supposedly" our "leaders" HAVE thought of these things, and still insist on corporate breaks, and allowing a good percentage of our own people to dwell in squalor and horrifying conditions that we wouldn't even wish on our worst enemies. THEY are sad, immoral creatures who need to be shown the true horror of their decisions, and then those who continue to allow it need to be escorted into the deepest bowels of hell to suffer eternally.

Universal healthcare is something I am for . . . completely, but SS is necessary for those people on disability or who are presently retired.

For some of these people, that SS check is their only income.