SS and Medicare depleted sooner than expected

[KittenKoder]

The Govt. So how can you argue SS is like an investment and not insurance? If it was an investment you'd get your money back, wouldn't you? Of course.

After spending years paying for life insurance, go to your life insurance carrier and ask for you money back. Good luck. SS is the same way as insurance. You only get benefits if a condition happens, and you don't get your investment back.



Probably millions. Just like life insurance. You paid premiums all your life, and if you don't die, the insurance company just pockets the entire amount. That is why SS is insurance. You only get it if conditions apply.

If you've only worked a few years and die with a wife and young kids, they get benefits for years, far more than you paid in. If it was an investment, you'd only get back the little bit you put in for a few years and they your wife and kids would be SOL. Here again, SS is like insurance, a life insurance, not an investment. See the difference?

Not if you die before you get to collect it ... you can't get an investment back all the time, but if those who handle the investment abuse the money they are suppose to invest, you do have legal retribution, same with private insurance companies. You can't with the government, thus it's robbery.

Sure you can. It's called a ballot.

Really, you can vote to force them to pay you back now?

 

[Iriemon]

The Govt. So how can you argue SS is like an investment and not insurance? If it was an investment you'd get your money back, wouldn't you? Of course.

After spending years paying for life insurance, go to your life insurance carrier and ask for you money back. Good luck. SS is the same way as insurance. You only get benefits if a condition happens, and you don't get your investment back.

I'm not arguing that it's an investment at all. It's not insurance either.

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.

It's neither. It's a government program, period.

Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.

One that takes advantage of its citizens and forces them to participate in something when there should be a CHOICE. You know, that pesky little word that people on your side of the political spectrum seem to love unless it comes to someone keeping their own money.
[/qutoe]

Repetitive, disagree for reasons stated.

And you're wrong about insurance, there most assuredly are policies where you can invest your money and start collecting back after a certain amount of time. You're talking about term life insurance, very narrow minded of you.

Sure, and another type of "insurance" is SS. In all cases, you pay money in, you're not guaranteed a return, but you get benefits if certain conditions apply.

Probably millions. Just like life insurance. You paid premiums all your life, and if you don't die, the insurance company just pockets the entire amount. That is why SS is insurance. You only get it if conditions apply.

If you've only worked a few years and die with a wife and young kids, they get benefits for years, far more than you paid in. If it was an investment, you'd only get back the little bit you put in for a few years and they your wife and kids would be SOL. Here again, SS is like insurance, a life insurance, not an investment. See the difference?

I'm sure it's more than millions.

You're a regular piece of work. You've added on the second paragraph or changed this somehow from the original post that I read. Where the hell do you get that you pay your entire life and the insurance money 'pockets' the entire amount???? Are you serious? The money gets paid out to the designated beneficiary after you die, do you seriously not understand that?

Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.

Your spouce only gets a small percentage of what you would have collected, and your children only up until they're 18. And if you die that young, your payments wouldn't add up to much in any case.

When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.

A life insurance policy pays out the ENTIRE face amount (regardless of how long you've paid for the insurance) of the insurance to the beneficiary upon death regardless of their age.

Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.

You can't make blanket statements about an investment like that either. It entirely depends on how much you invested and what return you got on it. Social Security has literally NO ROI at all. Your family could be rolling in money if it was a good investment, so how you can say they'd be SOL is ridiculous and not being intellectually honest at all.

Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.

If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL. That is not "intellectually dishonest" at all. What is "intellectually dishonest" is your suggestion that someone with a young family whose been working just a few years would be "rolling in money" if they could invest the SS payments as opposed to paying SS.

 

[KittenKoder]

The Govt. So how can you argue SS is like an investment and not insurance? If it was an investment you'd get your money back, wouldn't you? Of course.

After spending years paying for life insurance, go to your life insurance carrier and ask for you money back. Good luck. SS is the same way as insurance. You only get benefits if a condition happens, and you don't get your investment back.

I'm not arguing that it's an investment at all. It's not insurance either.

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.



Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.



Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.



When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.

A life insurance policy pays out the ENTIRE face amount (regardless of how long you've paid for the insurance) of the insurance to the beneficiary upon death regardless of their age.

Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.

You can't make blanket statements about an investment like that either. It entirely depends on how much you invested and what return you got on it. Social Security has literally NO ROI at all. Your family could be rolling in money if it was a good investment, so how you can say they'd be SOL is ridiculous and not being intellectually honest at all.

Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.

If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL.

Again, the difference, if they use the money you gave them for other purposes you can sue, you can't sue the government for SS money.

 

[Iriemon]

With private insurance you run the risk of the insurer going belly up.

I almost choked whenever I read that. No sign of the government going 'belly up' anytime soon, is there??

What do you do for a living? How can anyone be such a shill for the government???

Sorry you choked, but I don't understand it. What signs are there that the Govt is going to go "belly up" like an insurance company can?

I'm not a shill for the Govt at all. If you've read my posts you will see I've criticized the Govt heavily. I just like living in a country where we don't have hordes of the aged and disabled living under freeways and begging at stoplights. And we can thank SS for a big part of that.

 

[KittenKoder]

With private insurance you run the risk of the insurer going belly up.

I almost choked whenever I read that. No sign of the government going 'belly up' anytime soon, is there??

What do you do for a living? How can anyone be such a shill for the government???

Sorry you choked, but I don't understand it. What signs are there that the Govt is going to go "belly up" like an insurance company can?

I'm not a shill for the Govt at all. If you've read my posts you will see I've criticized the Govt heavily. I just like living in a country where we don't have hordes of the aged and disabled living under freeways and begging at stoplights. And we can thank SS for a big part of that.

No, we can thank shelters and social programs for that. SS doesn't take care of most of those.

 

[Iriemon]

It's not my God given right. It's the Govt's constitutionally given right as desired by the majority.

You're clueless. Show me where in the Constitution that social security is provided for?

It gives Congress the power to enact laws.

And what's 'the majority' that you speak of?

We the people of the United States.

 

[Iriemon]

I almost choked whenever I read that. No sign of the government going 'belly up' anytime soon, is there??

What do you do for a living? How can anyone be such a shill for the government???

Sorry you choked, but I don't understand it. What signs are there that the Govt is going to go "belly up" like an insurance company can?

I'm not a shill for the Govt at all. If you've read my posts you will see I've criticized the Govt heavily. I just like living in a country where we don't have hordes of the aged and disabled living under freeways and begging at stoplights. And we can thank SS for a big part of that.

No, we can thank shelters and social programs for that. SS doesn't take care of most of those.

No, the scores of millions of elderly who live on SS don't need it to provide food and shelter. They'd be fine without it.

 

[Iriemon]

Not if you die before you get to collect it ... you can't get an investment back all the time, but if those who handle the investment abuse the money they are suppose to invest, you do have legal retribution, same with private insurance companies. You can't with the government, thus it's robbery.

Sure you can. It's called a ballot.

Really, you can vote to force them to pay you back now?

Sure, find a candidate who promises to do this, or run for office. Good luck.

 

[Iriemon]

Really ... um ... then I still should get my money back because they didn't make in voluntary, and insurance is voluntary.

Insurance is not necessarily voluntary. Here in Florida you have to have collision insurance or you can't drive, for example. SS is not voluntary, and that fact does not change the fact that it is insurance in nature. No taxes are voluntary, and you don't get them back.

Ah, now we're going to throw a curve out there and pretend that we're discussing auto insurance and that somehow relates to SS and life insurance how???

Why isn't the fact that it is mandatory to have auto insurance to drive relavent to the argument that insurance isn't mandatory?

 

[KittenKoder]

Insurance is not necessarily voluntary. Here in Florida you have to have collision insurance or you can't drive, for example. SS is not voluntary, and that fact does not change the fact that it is insurance in nature. No taxes are voluntary, and you don't get them back.

Ah, now we're going to throw a curve out there and pretend that we're discussing auto insurance and that somehow relates to SS and life insurance how???

Why isn't the fact that it is mandatory to have auto insurance to drive relavent to the argument that insurance isn't mandatory?

Driving is a choice.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not arguing that it's an investment at all. It's not insurance either.

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.



Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.



Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.



When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.



Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.

You can't make blanket statements about an investment like that either. It entirely depends on how much you invested and what return you got on it. Social Security has literally NO ROI at all. Your family could be rolling in money if it was a good investment, so how you can say they'd be SOL is ridiculous and not being intellectually honest at all.

Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.

If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL.

Again, the difference, if they use the money you gave them for other purposes you can sue, you can't sue the government for SS money.

I agree there are difference between SS and private insurance.

But SS is not like an investment. You don't pay in and get some ROR over time. Its not put in an account with your name on it. You don't necessarily get back what you paid in. It's not your money any more. So it is nothing like an investment. But, like insurance, you do get benefits if certain conditions occur. If you die your survivors get a benefit; if your disabled you get a benefit, and if you live past a certain age you get a benefit.

And, IMO, we all get a benefit because we don't have millions of old folks living in the street, which is where most of them would be but for SS.

 

[Iriemon]

Ah, now we're going to throw a curve out there and pretend that we're discussing auto insurance and that somehow relates to SS and life insurance how???

Why isn't the fact that it is mandatory to have auto insurance to drive relavent to the argument that insurance isn't mandatory?

Driving is a choice.

Thaks for point that out. And in Florida, if you want to drive, which many of us do, paying for insurance is not a choice.

 

[Newby]

The Govt. So how can you argue SS is like an investment and not insurance? If it was an investment you'd get your money back, wouldn't you? Of course.

After spending years paying for life insurance, go to your life insurance carrier and ask for you money back. Good luck. SS is the same way as insurance. You only get benefits if a condition happens, and you don't get your investment back.

I'm not arguing that it's an investment at all. It's not insurance either.

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.



Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.



Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.


When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.

A life insurance policy pays out the ENTIRE face amount (regardless of how long you've paid for the insurance) of the insurance to the beneficiary upon death regardless of their age.

Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.

You can't make blanket statements about an investment like that either. It entirely depends on how much you invested and what return you got on it. Social Security has literally NO ROI at all. Your family could be rolling in money if it was a good investment, so how you can say they'd be SOL is ridiculous and not being intellectually honest at all.

Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.
If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL. That is not "intellectually dishonest" at all. What is "intellectually dishonest" is your suggestion that someone with a young family whose been working just a few years would be "rolling in money" if they could invest the SS payments as opposed to paying SS.

You are so intellecutally dishonest in your debates, which is why I often don't bother debating with you.

The first bolded statement - who said anything about 'canceling'? Is that the best you can come up with? You know damn well what my point is, yet you play games to skirt around it. When you die, which you MOST ASSUREDLY WILL, your beneficiary gets the FULL FACE VALUE OF YOUR POLICY. That is NOT TRUE with social security. It's feels like I'm talking to my 12 year old here.

Second bolded statement - If you don't die???? YOU WILL DIE!!! I can assure of that. And when that happens, any beneficiary of any life insurance policies that you may have will be paid in full. There are life insurance policies that do indeed act as investments and you can collect out of them BEFORE you die as well, that's even true of other investment instruments that you could invest in instead of SS and get a much better ROI. But, again, you seem to be having trouble understanding that. You'd rather place all of your faith in the almighty government to take care of you. Well, goodie gum fucks for you, some people would rather take care of themselves and should have the CHOICE. There's that nasty word again that you would normally advocate for, if it were abortion being the discussion that is.


Third bolded statement - Your ROI may not be anything with term life insurance, but rest assured that your Beneficiary will be eternally grateful to you. If you want an ROI from your insurance, then invest in the right kind of insurance. I think you need to do a little homework on insurance.

 

[KittenKoder]

Why isn't the fact that it is mandatory to have auto insurance to drive relavent to the argument that insurance isn't mandatory?

Driving is a choice.

Thaks for point that out. And in Florida, if you want to drive, which many of us do, paying for insurance is not a choice.

If you don't want to pay the insurance you don't drive, therefore the insurance is still a choice.

 

[Newby]

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.



Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.



Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.



When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.



Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.



Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.

If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL.

Again, the difference, if they use the money you gave them for other purposes you can sue, you can't sue the government for SS money.

I agree there are difference between SS and private insurance.

But SS is not like an investment. You don't pay in and get some ROR over time. Its not put in an account with your name on it. You don't necessarily get back what you paid in. It's not your money any more. So it is nothing like an investment. But, like insurance, you do get benefits if certain conditions occur. If you die your survivors get a benefit; if your disabled you get a benefit, and if you live past a certain age you get a benefit.

And, IMO, we all get a benefit because we don't have millions of old folks living in the street, which is where most of them would be but for SS.

At least you put that is only your opinion. Most people would have provided for their future on their own and not needed anything like social security, that's my opinion.

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not arguing that it's an investment at all. It's not insurance either.

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.

Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.

Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.

When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.


Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.

You can't make blanket statements about an investment like that either. It entirely depends on how much you invested and what return you got on it. Social Security has literally NO ROI at all. Your family could be rolling in money if it was a good investment, so how you can say they'd be SOL is ridiculous and not being intellectually honest at all.

Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.
If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL. That is not "intellectually dishonest" at all. What is "intellectually dishonest" is your suggestion that someone with a young family whose been working just a few years would be "rolling in money" if they could invest the SS payments as opposed to paying SS.

You are so intellecutally dishonest in your debates, which is why I often don't bother debating with you.

That is your opnion. I've stated the reasons in your post that suggest you are.

The first bolded statement - who said anything about 'canceling'? Is that the best you can come up with? You know damn well what my point is, yet you play games to skirt around it. When you die, which you MOST ASSUREDLY WILL, your beneficiary gets the FULL FACE VALUE OF YOUR POLICY. That is NOT TRUE with social security. It's feels like I'm talking to my 12 year old here.

Read the thread before you comment. KK was talking about wanting the money she paid back. That is the issue. You can do that with an investment. Try doing that with your insurance company.

Second bolded statement - If you don't die???? YOU WILL DIE!!! I can assure of that. And when that happens, any beneficiary of any life insurance policies that you may have will be paid in full. There are life insurance policies that do indeed act as investments and you can collect out of them BEFORE you die as well, that's even true of other investment instruments that you could invest in instead of SS and get a much better ROI. But, again, you seem to be having trouble understanding that. You'd rather place all of your faith in the almighty government to take care of you. Well, goodie gum fucks for you, some people would rather take care of themselves and should have the CHOICE. There's that nasty word again that you would normally advocate for, if it were abortion being the discussion that is.

I don't think I went to far out on the limb of reason to suggest that dying is generally a condition of getting payment on a life insurance policy.

Insurance policies with investment components have investment components. So what?

Third bolded statement - Your ROI may not be anything with term life insurance, but rest assured that your Beneficiary will be eternally grateful to you. If you want an ROI from your insurance, then invest in the right kind of insurance. I think you need to do a little homework on insurance.

Your poin is you can get an insurance policy with an investment component in it. So what. And for the bulk of us, I wouldn't can a "whole life" type policy the right kind of insurance.

 

[Iriemon]

Again, the difference, if they use the money you gave them for other purposes you can sue, you can't sue the government for SS money.

I agree there are difference between SS and private insurance.

But SS is not like an investment. You don't pay in and get some ROR over time. Its not put in an account with your name on it. You don't necessarily get back what you paid in. It's not your money any more. So it is nothing like an investment. But, like insurance, you do get benefits if certain conditions occur. If you die your survivors get a benefit; if your disabled you get a benefit, and if you live past a certain age you get a benefit.

And, IMO, we all get a benefit because we don't have millions of old folks living in the street, which is where most of them would be but for SS.

At least you put that is only your opinion. Most people would have provided for their future on their own and not needed anything like social security, that's my opinion.

Fair enough. I can back up my opinion by reference to information that was posted in this thread showing how the poverty rate among the elderly has fallen dramatically - evidence that many in fact did were not savin adequately for retirement.

http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/poverty/povmeasure.description.pdf

The poverty rate among the elderly fell from 30% in the early 60s to 10% today. SS is a big factor in that.

 

[Iriemon]

Driving is a choice.

Thaks for point that out. And in Florida, if you want to drive, which many of us do, paying for insurance is not a choice.

If you don't want to pay the insurance you don't drive, therefore the insurance is still a choice.

If you don't want to pay SS, move out of the country and renounce your citizenship. It's a choice too.

 

[sealybobo]

GOP plot to kill SS.

The plot to kill Social Security - Salon.com

Mission accomplished

 

[Skull Pilot]

Thank you. Tell that to KK. She is under the mistaken impression she's supposed to get her money back.



Semantics. You call it a government program, I call it social insurance. Same difference.



Nope. I have term life. I cannot call my insurer and say I want money money back. If I cancel I get zippo.



When I was younger, if I had died my wife and kids would have gotten about $2500 a month, according to my SS statements. That would have covered my cumulative contribution at that time in about a year.



Sure. "Upon death". That is the condition. If you don't die, you don't get your money. If you cancel your insurance, you don't get the money you paid in.



Talking about an ROI on SS is like talking about an ROI on life insurance. My ROI on life insurance as been -0-.

If you die young and don't have much savings invested, your survivors are SOL.

Again, the difference, if they use the money you gave them for other purposes you can sue, you can't sue the government for SS money.

I agree there are difference between SS and private insurance.

But SS is not like an investment. You don't pay in and get some ROR over time. Its not put in an account with your name on it. You don't necessarily get back what you paid in. It's not your money any more. So it is nothing like an investment. But, like insurance, you do get benefits if certain conditions occur. If you die your survivors get a benefit; if your disabled you get a benefit, and if you live past a certain age you get a benefit.

And, IMO, we all get a benefit because we don't have millions of old folks living in the street, which is where most of them would be but for SS.

if all those old people were allowed to keep their 7.5% of income and the 7.5% of income contributed by their employers, there would be no need for Social security. And their money would really be their money just as your money would really be your money.

if we were allowed to keep that 15% of our incomes over a lifetime, we would all be able to afford a better disability insurance plan and have more to live on in retirement.