If Social Security and Medicare taxes were optional

[prolesunited]

would these entitlement programs survive?

[MH1]

1. Not a chance.

(...that they would survive if the support for paying into the programs was optional)

[Yupster]

14. Agreed - not a chance

The higher paid workers would leave in a minute and set up systems for themselves.

There would be asocial security for doctors, and another one for stock brokers.

Currently only teachers are the protected class that can not be in social security and set up their own system. I have no idea why.

Anyway, if that happened, the poor would be left in the traditional social security and they'd be completely screwed since the current payout fomula based on income bendpoints is so radically progressive.

[rug]

2. Are Social Security and Medicare owned by for profit companies?

[stray cat]

4. Would you be happy paying 10% of your income to Medicare instead of insurance companies

or would you still resist a mandate if it were a government program?

[madville]

7. Would you be happy sending 10% of your income to Wall Street instead of SS

If you were mandated to send 10% of your money to Wall Street for private investment with no guarantee of a return would you be happy? That's what this health care mandate will be comparable to.

[havocmom]

10. BINGO! Mandate = payments to Wall Street

and the pols did this because we didn't allow for 'privatizing' Social Security and funneling withholdings to the guys running the pyramid scheme.

Mandate = make insurance companies the money launderers in hopes the people don't notice it's going to Wall Street. Mandate with no REAL (open to anyone) public option so people can boycott bad insurance companies (and they all are exempt from certain laws against collusion, don't forget) = taxes on each American, payable to Wall Street.

I don't have a rep on Wall Street, so isn't this getting a bit like that taxation without representation thing? Or is it just plain ol fascism that MY government works for the corporations and not me?

[madville]

5. we have a winner

Apples and oranges this thread is.

[griffi94]

11. wasn't that

the thrust of dubyas plan to privatize ss. funnel the money to private investments. democrats howled in rage about that. and rightly so.

[stray cat]

3. As likely as having corporations losing money for food safety without the FDA

[SoCalDem]

6. no chance in hell..

The fact that it's an all-in program, guarantees that there will always be money coming in..

[Yupster]

15. "all in program"

Unless you're a schoolteacher.

For some reason teachers (in many states including California and Texas) are not in social security, but have a much better system for themselves.

Want to help social security survive?

Two easy steps.

1. Lift the income cap.
2. Make the universal program universal by bringing teachers into the system.

[surrealAmerican]

8. As an argument for "single payer" this makes sense...

... but as an argument for "mandated private insurance", not so much.

[ipaint]

9. Not in direct competition with for profit giants.

It would be one or the other.

Medicare for all would have destroyed a major portion of the ins. and medical industry cartel's business in turn destroying both present and future investments.

Read it and weep.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7277153


You really underestimate your opponents and they depend on your naivete to cover up their criminal activities.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Just What The Rushpublicans Would Love...

If you had the money, you'd be in some high flyin' mutual/stock fund (provided it didn't crash too bad last year) and your healthcare would also be based solely on your assets. The GOOP gets criticized for not having a position on this issue...sure they do, they know it's a big loser and a lot easier to wedge Democrats...which they've done very nicely.

[spotbird]

13. They are taxes

not required payments to private corporations.

I honestly hope people only pretend not to be able to tell the difference.