Well, Looks Like a Choice of Three Dems for the White House........

[tryan]

Senators (and reps) are not exempt from SS.

I thought they - and the federal workers union - did not contribute to social security because of thier lucrative pension plan. Yeah, if they join the dreaded private sector they can contribute to SS.

 

[FinanceDude]

We spend $2 trillion a year on health care. About $600 billion of that is on new treatments with little or no benefit over existing procedures.

We spend ~$625 billion a year on defense while the #2 country (China) spends $65 billion.

I'm just saying, if we wanted to find the money, we probably could.

If we can find the money without raising taxes for businesses, I am ok with it. However, the track record on social programs.

As far as defense spending goes, we have spent MUCH more than any other country forever, that is not likely to change. America is after all the "world's police" not likely to change anytime soon...........

 

[Khan]

I thought they - and the federal workers union - did not contribute to social security because of thier lucrative pension plan. Yeah, if they join the dreaded private sector they can contribute to SS.

Senators, reps, federal employees et al have been part of the Social Security system for about 25 years.

In-Depth Research - Legislative History

Senators and reps are also in the same pension plan as other federal employees (those feds hired since 1984): FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System).

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Publications

Google Answers: Social Security for Senators and Reps

As of 2000, 409 retired members were receiving benefits under CSRS at
an average rate of $52,464 per year and 53 had retired under FERS with
$46,932 per year in average benefits. Members do not automatically
received lifetime pensions. How much they receive and how long they
receive it depends on many factors, including age, length of service
(including military) and choice of plans, etc. So, while it's
conceivable that some may receive pay-outs totalling more than a
million dollars by the time they die, it would be the exception, not
the rule...."

 

[youbet]

I thought they - and the federal workers union - did not contribute to social security because of thier lucrative pension plan. Yeah, if they join the dreaded private sector they can contribute to SS.

Perhaps what you think and actual reality are drifting apart?

I used to be under the same impression until one of our fed worker board members set me straight.

Federal Government Employment

 

[Insanity]

Someone needs to show me how e can provide nationalized health care without bankrupting the economy before I am willing to give it a chance........you guys must love taxes, because an increase in taxes has traditionally been the only way to fund social programs of magnitude.........

Why fear the taxes? It's pretty clear that the US economy is already spending the money. It's equally clear that we're not getting our money's worth out of what we are spending. There's a lot of waste . . . the government looks efficient by comparison. And, even though we spend lots of money, there are lots of people who die because they don't have health care coverage or their coverage isn't sufficient to pay for needed therapy. (Therapy that would have been paid for in Canada or the UK, etc, even though they spend less on healthcare than we do.)

And what's the alternative? A fool is someone who keeps doing the same thing, expecting a different result. Are we fools, or are we hostages to those who reap the benefits of a health care system that throws buckets of money at the problem without expecting satisfactory performance?

 

[aenlighten]

Dealing with healthcare

will be critical to a functioning economy. Doing nothing will bankrupt us all. The government already pays for half of healthcare. Comparing our healthcare to that of any other industrialized country demonstrates we aren't really getting our moneys worth for it. Adopting any other countries system would save us greatly. Singapore's system offer a dynamic combination of public and private incentives to provide efficient care while still allowing innovation. Healthcare reform will mean tough decisions to provide cost effective basic care, but combining basic care with the option for people to spend more on their own need not cost more than we are currently spending, while trying to provide full service to everyone would end up uncontrolled. The choice isn't reform or not, but what form of reform would be best.

 

[tryan]

Senators, reps, federal employees et al have been part of the Social Security system for about 25 years.

Interesting ... so they DO have some incentive to fix SS. Thanx for the info.