CDZ Where do we stand on healthcare?

[320 Years of History]

Funding charities isn't millions of dollars. But I put at least 10% of my income towards my church which in turn funds various charitable activities

Okay....Well, that's a very different scale than what your remark led me to think. I was of the mind you were the primary "high dollar" funder of several foundations or other charitable organizations. TY for the clarification.

Your accomplishments and story of personal recovery is none the less laudable. Kudos.

Writing a book about it may yet be a wise thing to do. I'm sure others can nonetheless take inspiration, perhaps even specific actionable insights from learning of your experiences, trials and tribulations. I think too few folks who have "normal" stories of achievement bother to share them widely. Most often, what we hear about, in the news or in books, are stories of folks who've gone from one great extreme to another, stories about the exceptional achievers among us. What is likely more useful, more inspiring and informative, to many more people are sagas of regular people going from something imaginable that's clearly undesirable to something else that is equally imaginable but notably better.

The remarkable life and lessons of the $8 million janitor

Janitor who retired with $8 Million.

Yeah, it's true that the "big" stories are the extremes. But it's not uncommon.

Actually my parents are millionaires. Want to know how they made millions? Public school teachers.

Where do you think I got my method of living from? Modeled from the best. Living frugal man. It's where most millionaires come from.

Well, there again, I think we have differing views of scale on matters such as this. I see achieving a million dollar to $10 million dollar net worth as being relatively "normal," even though not everyone does so. By calling that "normal," I mean that doing so is well within the realm of what hardworking frugal folks with reasonably good, but not exceptional, jobs and investment behaviors can and often will achieve financially.

Perhaps my view of that is skewed somewhat by my, in the U.S., living and finding myself mostly in high cost locales like D.C., NYC, and L.A. where the value of one's home alone is very often enough to put one at least halfway to reaching one million dollars in net worth. Add to that a lifetime of sage saving/investing and achieving million dollar net worth is all but assured.

I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishment, or the folks who achieve it. I'm merely saying that it's a "normal" one, and that's the sort of story that's more useful than is that of, say, folks with barely a dollar to their name and go on to become hundred millionaires or billionaires.

Yeah, maybe that is a bit skewed. You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is. That's how almost no one is.

The Average Retirement Savings by Age for 2016 | Investopedia

According to the GAO, the average American, at age 55 to 65, has saved up $104,000.

That's the average.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement

ONE in THREE Americans has saved a total of ZERO at retirement.

This is the real "normal".

What you describe should be normal, but it's not. Not even close to normal. Most people my age, have a negative net worth. They owe more in debts, than they own in assets.

You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is.

I don't at all think that "everyone's" financial circumstances and environments are very similar to those of L.A., D.C. and NYC residents. I'm not nearly that narrow minded, but TY for giving me no more credit than being so. <winks>

Red
FWIW, the "skew" I think applicable to my remarks above has to do with how close to achieving a million dollar net worth folks outside D.C., L.A., NYC and similar high COLA places come.

I don't really think one needs to achieve million dollar net worth to be reasonably comfortable in one's middle age and retirement years. Achieving whatever is comparable to doing that in, saty, D.C. should be adequate. That is, I recognize that one need not, for example, earn $150K or so to be comfortable (not wealthy comfortable) in Natchez, MS, but in D.C., one does. Similarly, in Natchez, MS, a net worth of "something less than $1M" is quite likely comparable to a $1M net worth in D.C.

 

[320 Years of History]

You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is.

I don't at all think that "everyone's" financial circumstances and environments are very similar to those of L.A., D.C. and NYC residents. I'm not nearly that narrow minded, but TY for giving me no more credit than being so. <winks>

You are absolutely right. I did say "you". In my mind I was thinking of people I know who have that mentality. It's like the average American being sent on a month long mission trip to Ecuador, and freaking out when they discover there's no wifi, and data cell phone coverage.

And by the way, I had that experience myself, when I woke up and realized my suburban life wasn't.... just how everyone was.

But that was unfair to slap that label on you. You are right, I am wrong.

TY. Remorse duly recognized and accepted.

 

[Andylusion]

Funding charities isn't millions of dollars. But I put at least 10% of my income towards my church which in turn funds various charitable activities

Okay....Well, that's a very different scale than what your remark led me to think. I was of the mind you were the primary "high dollar" funder of several foundations or other charitable organizations. TY for the clarification.

Your accomplishments and story of personal recovery is none the less laudable. Kudos.

Writing a book about it may yet be a wise thing to do. I'm sure others can nonetheless take inspiration, perhaps even specific actionable insights from learning of your experiences, trials and tribulations. I think too few folks who have "normal" stories of achievement bother to share them widely. Most often, what we hear about, in the news or in books, are stories of folks who've gone from one great extreme to another, stories about the exceptional achievers among us. What is likely more useful, more inspiring and informative, to many more people are sagas of regular people going from something imaginable that's clearly undesirable to something else that is equally imaginable but notably better.

The remarkable life and lessons of the $8 million janitor

Janitor who retired with $8 Million.

Yeah, it's true that the "big" stories are the extremes. But it's not uncommon.

Actually my parents are millionaires. Want to know how they made millions? Public school teachers.

Where do you think I got my method of living from? Modeled from the best. Living frugal man. It's where most millionaires come from.

Well, there again, I think we have differing views of scale on matters such as this. I see achieving a million dollar to $10 million dollar net worth as being relatively "normal," even though not everyone does so. By calling that "normal," I mean that doing so is well within the realm of what hardworking frugal folks with reasonably good, but not exceptional, jobs and investment behaviors can and often will achieve financially.

Perhaps my view of that is skewed somewhat by my, in the U.S., living and finding myself mostly in high cost locales like D.C., NYC, and L.A. where the value of one's home alone is very often enough to put one at least halfway to reaching one million dollars in net worth. Add to that a lifetime of sage saving/investing and achieving million dollar net worth is all but assured.

I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishment, or the folks who achieve it. I'm merely saying that it's a "normal" one, and that's the sort of story that's more useful than is that of, say, folks with barely a dollar to their name and go on to become hundred millionaires or billionaires.

Yeah, maybe that is a bit skewed. You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is. That's how almost no one is.

The Average Retirement Savings by Age for 2016 | Investopedia

According to the GAO, the average American, at age 55 to 65, has saved up $104,000.

That's the average.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement

ONE in THREE Americans has saved a total of ZERO at retirement.

This is the real "normal".

What you describe should be normal, but it's not. Not even close to normal. Most people my age, have a negative net worth. They owe more in debts, than they own in assets.

You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is.

I don't at all think that "everyone's" financial circumstances and environments are very similar to those of L.A., D.C. and NYC residents. I'm not nearly that narrow minded, but TY for giving me no more credit than being so. <winks>

Red
FWIW, the "skew" I think applicable to my remarks above has to do with how close to achieving a million dollar net worth folks outside D.C., L.A., NYC and similar high COLA places come.

I don't really think one needs to achieve million dollar net worth to be reasonably comfortable in one's middle age and retirement years. Achieving whatever is comparable to doing that in, saty, D.C. should be adequate. That is, I recognize that one need not, for example, earn $150K or so to be comfortable (not wealthy comfortable) in Natchez, MS, but in D.C., one does. Similarly, in Natchez, MS, a net worth of "something less than $1M" is quite likely comparable to a $1M net worth in D.C.

That all depends exclusively on how one defines "comfortably". But the sad aspect here is that, no one anywhere in this country, who works a straight 40 hours, should ever retire with less than a million dollars. There is simply no reason for it.

If you work at McDonalds, earning minimum wage, you should be able to put in $100 a month. It's not that big of an amount. And if you put in $100 a month, from working age, until retirement, you'll be a millionaire or really close.

But people don't. They consume all their money, and have nothing. Then of course they think it's societies job to provide for them. No, it's not. Sorry.

 

[320 Years of History]

Okay....Well, that's a very different scale than what your remark led me to think. I was of the mind you were the primary "high dollar" funder of several foundations or other charitable organizations. TY for the clarification.

Your accomplishments and story of personal recovery is none the less laudable. Kudos.

Writing a book about it may yet be a wise thing to do. I'm sure others can nonetheless take inspiration, perhaps even specific actionable insights from learning of your experiences, trials and tribulations. I think too few folks who have "normal" stories of achievement bother to share them widely. Most often, what we hear about, in the news or in books, are stories of folks who've gone from one great extreme to another, stories about the exceptional achievers among us. What is likely more useful, more inspiring and informative, to many more people are sagas of regular people going from something imaginable that's clearly undesirable to something else that is equally imaginable but notably better.

The remarkable life and lessons of the $8 million janitor

Janitor who retired with $8 Million.

Yeah, it's true that the "big" stories are the extremes. But it's not uncommon.

Actually my parents are millionaires. Want to know how they made millions? Public school teachers.

Where do you think I got my method of living from? Modeled from the best. Living frugal man. It's where most millionaires come from.

Well, there again, I think we have differing views of scale on matters such as this. I see achieving a million dollar to $10 million dollar net worth as being relatively "normal," even though not everyone does so. By calling that "normal," I mean that doing so is well within the realm of what hardworking frugal folks with reasonably good, but not exceptional, jobs and investment behaviors can and often will achieve financially.

Perhaps my view of that is skewed somewhat by my, in the U.S., living and finding myself mostly in high cost locales like D.C., NYC, and L.A. where the value of one's home alone is very often enough to put one at least halfway to reaching one million dollars in net worth. Add to that a lifetime of sage saving/investing and achieving million dollar net worth is all but assured.

I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishment, or the folks who achieve it. I'm merely saying that it's a "normal" one, and that's the sort of story that's more useful than is that of, say, folks with barely a dollar to their name and go on to become hundred millionaires or billionaires.

Yeah, maybe that is a bit skewed. You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is. That's how almost no one is.

The Average Retirement Savings by Age for 2016 | Investopedia

According to the GAO, the average American, at age 55 to 65, has saved up $104,000.

That's the average.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement

ONE in THREE Americans has saved a total of ZERO at retirement.

This is the real "normal".

What you describe should be normal, but it's not. Not even close to normal. Most people my age, have a negative net worth. They owe more in debts, than they own in assets.

You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is.

I don't at all think that "everyone's" financial circumstances and environments are very similar to those of L.A., D.C. and NYC residents. I'm not nearly that narrow minded, but TY for giving me no more credit than being so. <winks>

Red
FWIW, the "skew" I think applicable to my remarks above has to do with how close to achieving a million dollar net worth folks outside D.C., L.A., NYC and similar high COLA places come.

I don't really think one needs to achieve million dollar net worth to be reasonably comfortable in one's middle age and retirement years. Achieving whatever is comparable to doing that in, saty, D.C. should be adequate. That is, I recognize that one need not, for example, earn $150K or so to be comfortable (not wealthy comfortable) in Natchez, MS, but in D.C., one does. Similarly, in Natchez, MS, a net worth of "something less than $1M" is quite likely comparable to a $1M net worth in D.C.

That all depends exclusively on how one defines "comfortably". But the sad aspect here is that, no one anywhere in this country, who works a straight 40 hours, should ever retire with less than a million dollars. There is simply no reason for it.

If you work at McDonalds, earning minimum wage, you should be able to put in $100 a month. It's not that big of an amount. And if you put in $100 a month, from working age, until retirement, you'll be a millionaire or really close.

But people don't. They consume all their money, and have nothing. Then of course they think it's societies job to provide for them. No, it's not. Sorry.

Red:
Absent one's being susceptible to calamitous or special intractable circumstances beyond one's control, I agree with you.

 

[Andylusion]

The remarkable life and lessons of the $8 million janitor

Janitor who retired with $8 Million.

Yeah, it's true that the "big" stories are the extremes. But it's not uncommon.

Actually my parents are millionaires. Want to know how they made millions? Public school teachers.

Where do you think I got my method of living from? Modeled from the best. Living frugal man. It's where most millionaires come from.

Well, there again, I think we have differing views of scale on matters such as this. I see achieving a million dollar to $10 million dollar net worth as being relatively "normal," even though not everyone does so. By calling that "normal," I mean that doing so is well within the realm of what hardworking frugal folks with reasonably good, but not exceptional, jobs and investment behaviors can and often will achieve financially.

Perhaps my view of that is skewed somewhat by my, in the U.S., living and finding myself mostly in high cost locales like D.C., NYC, and L.A. where the value of one's home alone is very often enough to put one at least halfway to reaching one million dollars in net worth. Add to that a lifetime of sage saving/investing and achieving million dollar net worth is all but assured.

I'm not trying to diminish the accomplishment, or the folks who achieve it. I'm merely saying that it's a "normal" one, and that's the sort of story that's more useful than is that of, say, folks with barely a dollar to their name and go on to become hundred millionaires or billionaires.

Yeah, maybe that is a bit skewed. You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is. That's how almost no one is.

The Average Retirement Savings by Age for 2016 | Investopedia

According to the GAO, the average American, at age 55 to 65, has saved up $104,000.

That's the average.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement

ONE in THREE Americans has saved a total of ZERO at retirement.

This is the real "normal".

What you describe should be normal, but it's not. Not even close to normal. Most people my age, have a negative net worth. They owe more in debts, than they own in assets.

You live in LA, DC, and NYC, and you think that's how everyone is.

I don't at all think that "everyone's" financial circumstances and environments are very similar to those of L.A., D.C. and NYC residents. I'm not nearly that narrow minded, but TY for giving me no more credit than being so. <winks>

Red
FWIW, the "skew" I think applicable to my remarks above has to do with how close to achieving a million dollar net worth folks outside D.C., L.A., NYC and similar high COLA places come.

I don't really think one needs to achieve million dollar net worth to be reasonably comfortable in one's middle age and retirement years. Achieving whatever is comparable to doing that in, saty, D.C. should be adequate. That is, I recognize that one need not, for example, earn $150K or so to be comfortable (not wealthy comfortable) in Natchez, MS, but in D.C., one does. Similarly, in Natchez, MS, a net worth of "something less than $1M" is quite likely comparable to a $1M net worth in D.C.

That all depends exclusively on how one defines "comfortably". But the sad aspect here is that, no one anywhere in this country, who works a straight 40 hours, should ever retire with less than a million dollars. There is simply no reason for it.

If you work at McDonalds, earning minimum wage, you should be able to put in $100 a month. It's not that big of an amount. And if you put in $100 a month, from working age, until retirement, you'll be a millionaire or really close.

But people don't. They consume all their money, and have nothing. Then of course they think it's societies job to provide for them. No, it's not. Sorry.

Red:
Absent one's being susceptible to calamitous or special intractable circumstances beyond one's control, I agree with you.

Yes, I'm talking about able bodied people. I'm talking about that guy down the street who is fed, can work, and has the ability to think, and function as a human being.

Obviously, if you have your arms chopped off.... that might put a damper in your ability to earn money as a truck driver.

The irony there is, in our wealthy society, people who are disabled can still work. I worked at a company where there was a guy who had no legs. His truck got stranded on a train track, and for some reason he went back to it. No one, not even he knows why. But, he went to college in a wheel chair, got a degree in electrical engineering, and he's making a heck of a lot more money with his "calamitous or special intractable circumstances" than I am.

Nick Vujicic was born without arms or legs, and he got a degree, and his real-estate license. He was buying and selling property over the internet.

So even then.... I think most people should be able to save money and invest. I have a buddy that was in the military and had a heart attack. He's legally disabled, 25%. Whatever that means. I guess his heart operates at 25%. But he's going to college taking classes on how to program for the Android phone.

I think nearly everyone can do.... something. I don't know what... but something. And whatever they can do, they can earn money, save and invest, and retire with some cash.

 

[Andylusion]

And honestly, that's not even what fires my bacon. What burns me up, is that if you just allowed people to have their own money, namely their Social Security... we'd all be millionaires.

Minimum wage is $1,256/mo. Social Security is 12.4%. That's $155 a month.

Assuming a person works minimum wage their entire lives (they were so terrible they never got a raise, and yet not bad enough to fire... that's a trick).... Age 18 to 65.. that's 47 years at minimum wage. You put in $155 a month into good investments for 47 years, you have 2 Million dollars.

That's what really bites my butt. As much as the left says their programs help people, in reality they harm us.

 

[Picaro]

To be clear, generally I am in favor of simple mandatory healthcoverage by the same regulations and standards country wide.

"Obamacare" seems complicated and while I very much believe it is necessary it is probably unconstitutional.

It's basically a gift to insurance companies, despite the selling job of it being 'health care reform'; it worked well for auto insurance companies when states started making that a requirement to get tags, inspections, and the like, so they wanted the same windfall. Forget all the noise the industry PR flacks put out whining about it, that's all just smoke and mirrors to pump up support for it by the usual Useful Idiots that believe the Democratic Party cares about the 'little people' and 'feels their pain'.

Insurance companies are big campaign donors.

 

[frigidweirdo]

To be clear, generally I am in favor of simple mandatory healthcoverage by the same regulations and standards country wide.

"Obamacare" seems complicated and while I very much believe it is necessary it is probably unconstitutional.

I have little understanding of those who socialist though. We should all remember 2005, 1995, 1985, 1975, 1965 and back to the 50's where most hospitals have treated everyone who walked in the door my whole life.

So IMO we had a socialist system since the 50's where the homeless and the poor might not have access to the same service as the President but they do get treated and decently. My whole life the poor side of my family got their tried and true decade old Chemo treatment at cruddy hospitals and the rich side traveled to whatever city to grasp the latest straw for treatment.

There, am I middle of the road or did I just offended everyone equally lol. I called Obamacare unconstitutional, said Ronald Reagan ran a Socialist healthcare system, and said I think nationwide compulsory insurance should be mandatory.

I believe in free at the point of delivery for any healthcare which is not out of choice. i.e, you need this healthcare.

 

[Holos]

I have had a very strange experience in being offered and provided Healthcare, private (for the rich) or governmental (for the poor), in that both strongly stand as impervious to self-measured alternatives (except for being complemented by the contrasting institutions for rich and poor) and remain mandatory in registration rather than in services.

I think it would be a great advantage for all citizens if enrollment registration wasn't necessary, based on income or other civil status, but that national healthcare would be promptly accessible and initiated by educated self-assessment, proceeded to expert professionals available by call and ready to interrupt their taken activities (either leisure or another job) to meet at specialized facilities (but not by set appointment, because often the expectation also deteriorates people's health).

All the technology has already been set up, all the materials needed are available, all the knowledge has already been compiled. From hereon, what I think is most advantageous for all is to have clear information broadcast by the government about taking care of one's own and each others health, either printed in paper and posted on street corners, fences and open walls or put up as bigger signs at roads and freeways (not so efficient, except for the fact that carpools should also be increased in number). TV channels should also allow for part of their commercial time to be used by the government for the same disclosure of appropriate civil conduct for the insurance of health, and of course all official buildings (town halls, libraries, parks) should be focusing their welcome notifiers with clear instructions and the larger national benefits of abiding to self-assessed healthcare with an operating system of professionals available to attend if more questions should be necessary. With this sort of measure, not only the national budget for healthcare would lower with increased quality of life, but there would be also an abated number of people with extreme severe conditions requiring something like surgery or extended isolated treatment.

 

[320 Years of History]

In light of your following observation:

If [one works] at McDonalds, earning minimum wage, [one] should be able to put in $100 a month. It's not that big of an amount. And if [one] put in $100 a month, from working age, until retirement, [one will] be a millionaire or really close.

But people don't. They consume all their money, and have nothing.

I don't see how you can honestly believe the conclusion you state below can possibly be largely or often true enough that it'd become manifest for most people.

if [the government] just allowed people to have their own money, namely their Social Security... we'd all be millionaires.

Minimum wage is $1,256/mo. Social Security is 12.4%. That's $155 a month.

There are certainly ample instances, literally millions, of folks earning far more than one would at McDonald's, or having a good deal more than $155, or even $255, a month to put toward savings over the course of a career and not achieving millionaire status. You made that very point yourself.

According to the GAO, the average American, at age 55 to 65, has saved up $104,000.

That's the average.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement

ONE in THREE Americans has saved a total of ZERO at retirement.

I find it hard to believe you

1. actually believe all your own statements that I've quoted above, and
2. have given much rigorous thoughts to the beliefs and principles you have that led you to make each of the statements above.

For example, what on Earth gives you reason to think that merely making SSI participation optional would inspire folks to save that money rather than spend it?

 

[Andylusion]

In light of your following observation:

If [one works] at McDonalds, earning minimum wage, [one] should be able to put in $100 a month. It's not that big of an amount. And if [one] put in $100 a month, from working age, until retirement, [one will] be a millionaire or really close.

But people don't. They consume all their money, and have nothing.

I don't see how you can honestly believe the conclusion you state below can possibly be largely or often true enough that it'd become manifest for most people.

if [the government] just allowed people to have their own money, namely their Social Security... we'd all be millionaires.

Minimum wage is $1,256/mo. Social Security is 12.4%. That's $155 a month.

There are certainly ample instances, literally millions, of folks earning far more than one would at McDonald's, or having a good deal more than $155, or even $255, a month to put toward savings over the course of a career and not achieving millionaire status. You made that very point yourself.

According to the GAO, the average American, at age 55 to 65, has saved up $104,000.

That's the average.

1 in 3 Americans Has Saved $0 for Retirement

ONE in THREE Americans has saved a total of ZERO at retirement.

I find it hard to believe you

1. actually believe all your own statements that I've quoted above, and
2. have given much rigorous thoughts to the beliefs and principles you have that led you to make each of the statements above.

For example, what on Earth gives you reason to think that merely making SSI participation optional would inspire folks to save that money rather than spend it?

I don't see how you can honestly believe the conclusion you state below can possibly be largely or often true enough that it'd become manifest for most people.

Oh I absolutely believe that conclusion. You should too.
Guess How Many Americans Over 55 Don't Have Any Retirement Savings -- The Motley Fool

The number of sources for this conclusion is literally everywhere. This poll was from a bank. 30% of people over 55 had zero. 26% had less than $50,000 at 55.

Yes, I absolutely believe it. It matches my experience as well. I'm constantly amazed by old people who have nothing. Why do you think so many work drive-thur at Wendy's, and a Greeter at Walmart? They have nothing. Nothing.

There are certainly ample instances, literally millions, of folks earning far more than one would at McDonald's, or having a good deal more than $155, or even $255, a month to put toward savings over the course of a career and not achieving millionaire status. You made that very point yourself.

True. Now ask the question, are people more likely, or less likely to save if they have 15% more money in their check? Obviously more likely. Guarantee they will? No. Of course not. But I can guarantee you that they won't save and invest the money they are not getting in their checks.

More over, I would suggest to that the reason some people don't save, is because of social security. People change their behavior to fit the incentives. It's just a fact. When Hawaii pass a free health care for uninsured children program, thousands of children signed up more than which every poll suggested existed. What they found was that parents immediately canceled coverage for their children, then ran to the state to sign up for free health care. The program started running out of money, and they had to end it.

It's a fact, there are people who believe that government should take care of them. I ran into this one lady, and we were talking about this, and she mentioned she had zero. I asked her what she was going to do when she got old. Her answer "I just have to make it to (retirement age), and then social security will take care of me".

There are people like this. Many in fact. This is what drives me crazy about the left-wing. They keep trying to tell use that they care for the poor, but they have doomed people to impoverishment. That lady is going to lose everything. She can't pay the taxes on her house with social security, let alone the mortgage. At least not unless she plans to eat dog food to live on. She will live out her life in misery and impoverishment, on medicare and social security. A life devoid of self respect, decency, and walking to charity shops, looking for a deal on socks.

I have met these people. I'm tell you like it is. You need to join hospice volunteer like I have, and be sent to people's homes, and see how people who thought social security would take care of them, ended up.

Then go to a private retirement village, and see the people who didn't trust government to take care of them. Night and day man. Night and day.

For example, what on Earth gives you reason to think that merely making SSI participation optional would inspire folks to save that money rather than spend it?

People react to the incentives they are given. You tell people that they can opt-out, but then it's on them to retire, and the result is people tend to start thinking about that more.

As proof of that, I would point to ministers of the faith. I'm a Christian. It's common for our ministers to opt-out of social security. To date, I have yet to meet any practicing minister of our faith, which didn't have tons of money socked away in IRAs. And the reason is obvious. They know for a fact that they are not getting anything at retirement, except what they themselves put away.

Now are some going to be irresponsible? Sure. Of course. Always has been throughout human history. But forcing people into a bad system that is going broke, isn't a solution. And in the long run it's going to wreck the country.

Better to give incentives to make wise economic choices, and allow people out of a failing system.