I would like for someone to explain to me how programs such as social security and medicare are 'entitlements'. I've paid social security taxes since my first paycheck at age 15, in a part time job. Contrary to some beliefs, military pay is also subject to social security taxes. I paid that through 28 years on active duty. For the last 25 years in a civilian job, I paid the max amount every year. Even though now officially retired, I work as a flight instructor, (can't get it out of my system, lol), and continue to pay social security taxes, while also collecting it. Overall, I've paid much more into the system than I will ever get out of it. For over 57 years, between my 6%, and my employers' 6%, the government has been collecting 12% of my pay. If you don't think the 6% your employer pays doesn't come out of your pay, you are sadly mistaken. How is that an 'entitlement'.

Oh yeah, and if you retire before your full retirement age, they deduct $1.00 for every $3.00 you should be getting until you reach full retirement age. But your monthly amount does not increase to the full retirement age amount when you reach 66 or 67. In addition, if you are working after collecting social security, and you make over a prescribed salary, I believe it is now $32,500/year, you pay the IRS, taxes on 85% of the social security you get.  

Medicare. I've paid into Medicare on every penny I've made since the bill was signed by LBJ. Since age 65, I've been lucky to not have had to use any of the coverage. Yet, Medicare part B monthly premiums are deducted every month from my Social Security, $134.50/month. Not much to some, but it adds up. Medicare coverage does not include dental or vision. Those are seperate healthcare premiums every month. Medicare pays only 80% of the Part B claims, so most have to purchase seperate insurance to cover the remaining costs of treatment. For me, the total for healthcare monthly premiums are over $500.00/month. Yet that is an 'entitlement'?

Guess we have 2 choices. Be very wealthy, or don't get old. Lol.

i understand your complaints but consider that there was a time when family took care of family. Now-a-days we are very comfortable to dump our relatives into retirement homes or SOMEONE else because caring for them would cause interruption to our comfortable norms. IMO, this is a big contributor to these entitlements which you refer to. If we all would own up to our familial responsibilities govn't programs wouldn't be required so much.

Because, the nature of the working world has changed. If you go to work for one company, you can be moved several times around the country, and even around the world. In order to be competitive in the job market, and in these days, that can mean whether you have a job at all, one needs to be willing to move as frequently, and to where ever their company moves them. This causes a lot of stress on the nuclear family, and the extended family can rarely keep up with the moves, hence the extended family support system collapses. Hence, the need for a different form of safety-net for the individual worker.

-- Modified on 1/8/2011 1:39:17 PM

since the money is never actually invested in anything the only hope for the system is to either have an ever growing pool of new investors (workers) or hope an inordinate number of workers never live to collect their benefits.

Personally I have no delusions of ever getting more than ten cents on the dollar back on my SS contributions. I guess since old age seems to be a certainy for me, (who would have guessed 20 years ago?), I guess I better not need the money. Fortunately Social Security doesn't even enter my retirement plans. I don't ever expect to see much if anything from it, so I won't be disappointed.

saying that, but that was in days past. I too, remember when the family was first and foremost, the primary caretaker. But mattradd has pretty much hit the nail on the head about families today. There were 7 in my family, and no two of us even live in the same state now. In fact, I spent 16 of my 28 military years on overseas assignments. Also, as far as I know, anyone living in a retirement home, pays their own way, or someone in the family pays for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the government doesn't foot any bills for retirement home living. I do know the retirement home will go after every penny the person has, even to the point of taking their home to pay for the person's long term care. I've got long term care insurance, and that's another $168.50/month. Like I mentioned before, be very wealthy, or don't get old.

"People can easily need $1,000,000 in medical care. But they didn't pay in the amount that would sustain that need."

Phil, that can be said about any private healthcare insurance coverage also. Or car insurance, or home owner's/renter's insurance. It's a gamble between you and the insurance policy.

Where the fuck would you get a ridiculous idea like that? I am sure Charlie the Commie would be more than happy to tell you why the money you earn really isn't yours.

Keep your own money, sheesh  Now I've heard everything. Next thing you'll be proposing that Government waste less of our money. Crazy talk, I tell you. lmao

and then when you are old and get sick but are poor, state and local governments will have to pay for your care anyway.

In short, we don't trust you and that is why the government takes a taste of your income each year to fund these safety net program.

With "normal" pensions, you save money and what you get is based on what you put in.  I save X, and combined with the interest at amounts to Y.

With Social Security, there is no correlation between what you put in and what you eventually get.  You be like my grandfather, who paid in for 10 years and collected for 20 or like my father, who paid in for 40 and never collected because he died at 60.  A lot of people in my family lived into their 90's.  If they retired at 62, they worked for 35 years and collected social security for 30.  

The problem is that they never put in "30 years" worth of investment in the system.

The other problem, and this is where people like us got screwed, is that the money "isn't there."  It isn't like an anuity that you bought or some other investment.  There is no "lock box." That was a fraud.  Social Security depends on more people coming down the line, in the same or a greater number.  If one generation put in for 40 years, but the younger generation is half the size, there is not be enough people paying in when the prior generation is taking out.  Since the next generation is putting in "their retirement" as well as the amount the older generation is collection, it will collapse.  The feds  didn't put the money collected aside. They just assumed more and more people would always be paying in.

The same is true for Medicare.  People can easily need $1,000,000 in medical care. But they didn't pay in the amount that would sustain that need.  

How about being entitled to keep the money you earn?  I know, it crazy.

Even though you paid all your working life, now; you want it pay as it supposed to. They don't want to pay, they ate it all, so; they came up with a new soundbite and called it entitlement to make you feel bad.

It is that simple. If I had invested the fucking SS my self, I would have lot more money now than what I would ever get from either one, ever.

conflicted by this whole use of the word "entitlement". This week Sec. of Gates annouced plans to cut benefits to those who fought for this country. What others call entitlement I call a "contract". If you put your life on the line for this country. Those who have benefited from freedoms afforded by the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform should take care of their of their health.

I remember having deductions from my Army pay for items such as OLD soldiers home etc. I have my LES statements somewhere in storage. These are deductions I will never receive any benefit from. That's OK for me because I received more from the ARMY then I ever gave them. Still, there are millions of us who have paid into the system, who will never receive benefit from these deductions. So what has happened to these billions of dollars. Something doesn't add up. My personal opinion, is that those of us who have fought in the trenches are paying for Wall Street pinstripes and Washington politicians to live and dine in fancy dining cars to paraphrase the great Johnny Cash.


Thank you for your service, Jersey.

my son & son-in-law who served in Iraq. Thankfully, they too are still alive. Bless you all!

You will be better off trusting in total stranger than trusting Government.  Total strangers might waste money.  Government will.

Yes, but the least effective way of keeping cost down is to toss costs into a large system.  the bigger the system, the more the fraud, the more the waste, the more the every factor that increases cost.

Also, if we ever get to single payer, that is single decider.  There are no options.  The body that pays decides what it pays for.  (Do you think in France or Sweden people have a choice or do you think the government says what it pays for?)

If you have a policy that has a limit, there are options in reaching that limit.  (Obviously, some things are mandatory, but not all procedures are.)