Trade Social Security for Single Payer?

Just a thought exercise, and I apologize in advance for posting and running but I have to leave soon. I'm wondering if agreeing to eliminate Social Security (maybe a 15 or 20-year phase out) in exchange for true Single Payer health care *now* would be a positive step. Since health care is a huge expense for the elderly, would trading SS (phased out over 15 to 20 years) for Single Payer (instituted now) be a win?

Not very, I'd guess. :eyes:

:banghead:

in a refrigerator box. Seniors need the cash for housing and food. I don't see that much of an upside, but I could be wrong.

retirement a chance to save for retirement since immediate single payer would take current and future health care costs off of their balance sheets. SS pays a pittance as it is, and for most people a substantial chunk of that pittance goes to health care, which would not be necessary under single payer.

that are being created now? No, I think SS is the way to go.

minimum wage? Going to the doctor would have to take a back seat to eating or paying for rent. That isn't even fair. People have paid into this for years why take it away for something we should already have?

any possible extras to make their life more bearable. They won't save money for their retirement. Even those in the middle class will mostly be living without thinking about their future after retirement.

Employers will not be likely to pay their employees extra for the amount they themselves pay as their share for SSI.

The economy would be effected negatively more and more as seniors stop working.

Lots of jobs opened up for younger people. Anyone who thinks that the solution to permanent 9% unemployment is putting more seniors into the work force is mentally deranged.

If seniors are forced to work that doesn't help everyone else when unemployment is an issue.

The same with the armed forces. I want all forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to return. But what happens when they return to their job or if they didn't have a job before they were given orders what do they do?

--be raided for other reasons, say extended unemployment?

allow saving for retirement. And wages will not become high enough to sustain retirement savings in a future where American workers are competing with third world workers. This is apparent to anyone willing to look.

as an income. And 8000 people a day are turning 65.

Any plan that increases the age, or gets rid of SS, guarantees that millions will be thrown into abject poverty, or worse.

According to the IRS, the median income on returns is about 33K a year. And after the loss of millions of jobs our fastest growing job category (check the BLS stats) is "home health care aide". Retirement from a job like that is to simply die. There is no other choice if you don't have SS.

Just as an exercise, try doubling the federal poverty level - say about 28,000 for a family of four.

Tell me how much is available for retirement after raising two kids? Take out about 25% in taxes, and what is left is very likely to require food stamps if ANYONE in that house spends a couple days in the hospital. And if they don't have insurance (wanna guess how good insurance is these days for people at that income level?) and they are very likely to end up bankrupt and homeless.

We need single payer. But throwing a bunch of people into poverty, or killing them, is no way to get it.

(When did everyone give up on creating jobs and revenue?)

The median wage is something like 36-38K. You are going to pay at least 25% of that for FICA, other employment taxes, state and federal.

So 3K a month goes to $2,250 a month right off the bat. Suppose you want an retirement income of about $1,100 a month? If you only have 20 years to save for it at today's returns, you need to save at least $1,000 of that each month.

That leaves you $1,250 each month to live on, to pay transport to work (either public or car payment/car ins/fuel), for clothing, for food, for rent. But you can do it, as long as you are prepared to live like a very poor person. If you are trying to support a kid you can't do it at all.

However 40% of the wage earners in this country make less than 20K a year, and they, my friend, cannot save that 1K a month. So basically you are proposing leaving 30% of the population to spend their retirement years under the highway overpass and begging. Do not expect a resounding cheer from me.

Further, your odd assumption that somehow universal health care would be free amuses and alarms me. People pay for universal health care in the form of taxes. The tax is around 15% in countries where it is taken out of paychecks. UK figures it needs about 20% of payroll to cover NHS. Canada has a split system in which other taxes pay for a lot of it, but people pay a minor fee (about $110 a month) for coverage. Regardless, it is not as if you do not pay for it. Some employees, especially singles working for companies, pay very little for their insurance now. They would be taxed a great deal more and would lose income relatively.

It would be an EPIC fail. Period.

:shrug:

we NEED both!! what would the seniors eat or where would they live? Not everyone has a huge IRA or pension.

People who are 20 or more years from retirement would be able to save the $ they spend on health care for retirement. I would not be surprised to see this amount exceed the amount SS would pay upon their retirement.

:wow: :eyes:

a year is going to be able to stash away $10,000 or more a year? Even so, putting up $200,000 would only return you enough to get by on about $850 a month from 65 til you died.

Salary goes up by the amount employer and employee were paying for health premiums, no deductibles, no copays - the salary increase alone over 20 years should provide more retirement income than social security would, even if it's stuck in a measly-interest savings account. Hell probably stuffed in a mattress! I don't think people are thinking through what single payer really means in terms of savings.

--not a hell of a lot.

$14,000/year for twenty years? So what shall I do to eat/live in the meantime? You must have a great job. I am 20 years from retirement (If I can retire) and this is not a possibility. As a matter of fact, we're barely making it as it is being a household of unemployed people. Thanks for your support!! :sarcasm:

How much in copays and deductibles and prescriptions? Single payer means that money goes to the employee directly as salary, or into a retirement savings account.

That employers give the money saved to the employee and any future employee??

You are dreaming

And even those who aren't will see savings constantly depleted by periods of unemployment.

Before SS, those people lived with their children or went to the workhouse or worked until they dropped.

We can have both.

Why do people here play into these RW narratives that you can't improve society without harming another part of it...?

:eyes:

Wow, how easy it is for them to scare people into quitting working for what every other civilized nation has. Are we really that beaten down?

It is not a choice between one or the other.

Provide for their own retirement. So they would be paying funds out and getting nothing to fund their retirement.

Which may be the case anyway, but that can only happen through disaster, no one would agree to it unless it were inevitable.

We already fully fund both things if the corporate interests were removed.

your thought expirement, I would say NO.

Social Security is one of the more successful programs we have. I think keeping it would be better than getting a single payer right now.

I really want to see a single payer, but I'm confident we will get there eventually. Eventually, people will get upset at the insurance companies jacking up prices. There will be an outcry for things to be changed. States may ask for waivers, and may implement their own single payer like in Vermont. Eventually most other states may do this when they see the success of that sort of system.

Or we may eventually have one federally controlled private health insurer... I guess similar to how Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are. That would essentially be a single payer de facto.

I do think Medicare for all would be simplest, but what are ya gonna do?

Sounds fair to me.

:shrug:

SS is to all of us. It is not much to begin with but we'd all be far worse off if SS was terminated.
There are no new jobs for others to save money for their retirement. Those of us now receiving SS would be sunk if it is terminated.--Never mind that we paid for these funds to survive our old age.

We need both SS and Single Payer.
We do not need wars to drain our treasury and cause thoughts like this to even be considered.
I know you mean well but the premise is unacceptable.

Why would we even think of stealing their meager income/retirement fund to provide medical to everyone...I'm all for single payer for everyone, but I can't even imagine the leap that suggests the best way to fund it is by stealing the checks old people need to feed themselves!

Social Security is an insurance program for those who most need it. Single-payer would be a program that EVERYBODY would fall under, whether they wanted to or not. At this point in time, people are ok with taxes to help those who need it, but they still want freedom of choice.

Also, more people, Dem and Rep, support Social Security. Support for single-payer does not cross party lines as Social Security does and even amongst those who 'say' they support single-payer, not even half of them are willing to pay for it.

I say keep Social Security.

Strengthen Social Security and add Single-Payer. Pay for it by increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations and slashing defense contractor spending.

for the additional programs we still need.

We need to stop these tax breaks for billionaires and corporations and expand what already exists and create what we still need and deserve.

We are in an economic mess because we went to war on the credit card, back when Cheney snarled that deficits don't matter - and the rich won't pay their fair share, even though they've profited handsomely. You don't deny grandma medical care and food so dick Cheney can buy another skull island.

If you bought a policy and paid 40 dollars a month into it all of your life; and the agreement in your policy stated- that if you were not dead by a certain age, you can begin collecting on that policy by receiving monthly checks, would you buy into it?

Social Security is the government insurance policy that workers buy into. The only difference is- that the government doesn't take our money to pay CEO's millions of dollars or make a profit for share holders.

If SS were to be privatized, how much more do you think you might be paying for that insurance policy?

You'd better run!

I'm not seeing the reason to get rid of Social Security. You've assumed in step 1 that Social Security should go away in 20 years, but you haven't said why.

this country is wealthy enough to afford both, we just need to start making the "haves" pay their fair share.

And no way is it OK to STEAL the money Americans have paid into SS.

But the rest of us have and what you are suggesting is fucking theft.

Who has money to retire on anyway? With the reduction of pensions for defined contribution plans (401Ks) people will need SS to keep from eating cat food.

National Universal Public Health Care WITHOUT hurting SS.

I'll bet your take on the whole idea will be very, very different.

We don't need to give up something we have. Social Security is the only retirement income many of us have or look forward to.

What? Take away single payer for seniors and replace it with single payer for everyone? That's needlessly complicated. How about just opening up Medicare to everyone?

did you think this through before you posted??

modern age of poverty.

Actually we can have both while REDUCING spending. The mechanism is already in place for single payer, it is called medicare. Enacting medicare for all would cut medical costs by at least one third - depending on how much we want to clamp down of fraud by medical service providers. Social security FICA can be adjusted so that it is self sustaining. Both actions would reduce expenses and cut the deficit.

Why either-or?

trade Medicare and Medicaid for Single Payer...

I wish you'd lance that boyle as its starting to effect your thinking. :-) all jokes aside though social security and medicare is paid with a tax of their own so one shouldn't be traded for the other.

Or shall I move in with you when I'm too feeble to work?

What kind of beer ya got in the fridge?

Or let me put it this way - too old to find an employer who will pay you for the work you can do.

Knowing that you could get treated for cancer free while you starve or freeze to death does not seem like a "win" to me.

I have assets set aside that hopefully will cover my basic living needs. Many don't. Also these people have been paying 15% of their paychecks year after year, which, quite frankly, did not leave those on moderate salaries much left over to save.

Exactly how old are you?

You have this utterly reversed. Social Security is the first thing to fix - health care has no meaning and no value for those who literally don't have shelter and food.

After that you address health care.

nt

There's no reason to not have both.

I've paid into social security, I expect to pull out of it.

Further, I support single payer and if we can get our government to do it's job we'll have it.

Giving up one to get the other is not something I think should even be considered.