bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (01/23/85)
You want to fix SS? Fine: 1) Make it voluntary. 2) Eliminate the COLA. Find any other investment with a COLA. Give me a break. 3) Eliminate the minimum payment. SS is insurance, not welfare. Separate the welfare components and call it that so RR can cut it (with my support). 4) Eliminate heath subsidy (medicare) Why should I pay to keep someone alive so I can pay them more substinance money. If you want health insurance, buy it. Also, I find INCREDIBLY DISGUSTING that politicians are already talking about how we are going to be able to afford the artificial heart so we can make it available to those who could not otherwise afford it. Better: 5) Allow cheap (insert year here) level health care to those who cannot afford better. Only update care in the areas that are now cheaper. That is, if I can extend the lifespan of someone a year for a million bucks, it doesn't become free to those who can't afford it. If I can cure herpes for .25 instead of $25, it does. That is, we can cut the budget, but not increase it. This would allow hospitals to exist without all the latest equipment, but then they wouldn't be charging you for it either. And if you can't afford the best hospital, the guv isn't going to send you there and send me the bill. Brad Miller -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (01/24/85)
> You want to fix SS? Fine: > 4) Eliminate heath subsidy (medicare) Why should I pay to keep someone alive > so I can pay them more substinance money. If you want health insurance, buy > it. Also, I find INCREDIBLY DISGUSTING that politicians are already talking > about how we are going to be able to afford the artificial heart so we can make > it available to those who could not otherwise afford it. Better: > 5) Allow cheap (insert year here) level health care to those who cannot afford > better. Only update care in the areas that are now cheaper. That is, if > I can extend the lifespan of someone a year for a million bucks, it doesn't > become free to those who can't afford it. If I can cure herpes for .25 instead > of $25, it does. That is, we can cut the budget, but not increase it. > This would allow hospitals to exist without all the latest equipment, but > then they wouldn't be charging you for it either. And if you can't afford > the best hospital, the guv isn't going to send you there and send me the > bill. > > Brad Miller > Well Brad, there you go again! I know your always supporting the philosophy of "pay your own way" but this is ridiculous! I really hope for your sake that AI doesn't become a reality and eliminate your job while this country is being ruled by your type of "government". You will have to depend on the compassion of others. And we all know how you couldn't do that! :-) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (01/29/85)
> You want to fix SS? Fine: > 1) Make it voluntary. No, it would be better to remove the minimum deduction. > 2) Eliminate the COLA. Find any other investment with a COLA. Give me a break. It is not an investment, it is insurance. > 3) Eliminate the minimum payment. No, it would be better to make it voluntary. > SS is insurance, not welfare. It is not insurance, it is an investment. > Separate the welfare components and call it that so RR can > cut it (with my support). Perhaps RR could cut it even without your support. > 4) Eliminate heath subsidy (medicare) Why should I pay to keep someone alive > so I can pay them more substinance money. If you want health insurance, buy > it. I thought SS was insurance. I thought these people had paid. Maybe they paid for an investment. > Also, I find INCREDIBLY DISGUSTING that politicians are already talking > about how we are going to be able to afford the artificial heart so we > can make it available to those who could not otherwise afford it. Almost as TERRIBLY HIDEOUS as the cost of computers becoming less so that now they are now available to those who could not otherwise afford them. > Better: Margarine? > 5) Allow cheap (insert year here) level health care to those who cannot afford > better. Only update care in the areas that are now cheaper. This will provide a fair return on their investment. > That is, if I can extend the lifespan of someone a year for a million bucks, > it doesn't become free to those who can't afford it. If I can cure herpes > for .25 instead of $25, it does. That is, we can cut the budget, > but not increase it. I think I follow this. If I sell my house for $50,000, it doesn't become free to those who can't afford it. If I fix my lawn mower for .25 instead of $25, it does. That is, we can cut the grass, but not sell it. Now back to Social Security. > This would allow hospitals to exist without all the latest equipment, but > then they wouldn't be charging you for it either. SS recipients could be forbidden to buy anything other than food, but then they wouldn't be depleting their checks either. > And if you can't afford the best hospital, the guv isn't going to send > you there and send me the bill. My error, I guess we aren't going back to Social Security. -- The Watcher seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf
shad@teldata.UUCP (02/01/85)
>> 2) Eliminate the COLA. Find any other investment with a COLA. Give me a break. > > It is not an investment, it is insurance. ... > > SS is insurance, not welfare. > > It is not insurance, it is an investment. Contradiction? > > 4) Eliminate heath subsidy (medicare) Why should I pay to keep someone alive > > so I can pay them more substinance money. If you want health insurance, buy > > it. > > I thought SS was insurance. I thought these people had paid. > Maybe they paid for an investment. I wondered how long it would take in this dicussion for the current SS fraud to be repeated. Both of you have the wrong understanding of the Social Security system. The Supreme Court has stated (if not in so many words) that Social Security is welfare: old age welfare. "The noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Social Security Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments." Flemming v. Nestor, 363 US 603. Read the entire case, it is very interesting. Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad