Tell me if you think this is milking the Social Security System?

[MasterBlaster]

Martha:

The tyranny comes when others believe that what you have is theirs to give away to those they deem to be more worthy. So by force of law you take what is not yours.

 

[armor99]

Believe it or not travelover I agree with you 100%. Let me clarify my position....

Charity = Good
Forced Charity = Bad

If people want to contribute to help these problems through various religious or other groups. I think that is great. There will always be a segment of our society that needs help, and there will always be those, including myself, that will be willing to help out.
But when the govt FORCES you to do things of that nature, I believe it to be bad, and destructive.
When I go to the local McDonalds, I order a Big Mac because I choose to. It would be a very different matter if I was forced by the govt to order a Big Mac at a McDonald's because they claim it helps "society" or that the workers their NEED to be paid, therefore I am obligated to eat there. This is really the only problem that I have with it, the issue of forced vs. voluntary contribution.

 

[Martha]

It isn't tyranny because our constitution allows it.

Redistribution occurs all the time, everywhere. It is the nature of society. Labor gets exchanged for dollars and if the laborer has little bargaining power the laborer may feel his labor is stolen. The land my home sits on was taken from the native population. Soldiers die and their mothers feel their lives were stolen. I have no children yet pay for schools. Crops are subsidized. The dollar you make may be "stolen" from someone else. The disabled baby gets cared for in the public hospital. And the world goes around.

 

[armor99]

It isn't tyranny because our constitution allows it.

Redistribution occurs all the time, everywhere. It is the nature of society. Labor gets exchanged for dollars and if the laborer has little bargaining power the laborer may feel his labor is stolen. The land my home sits on was taken from the native population. Soldiers die and their mothers feel their lives were stolen. I have no children yet pay for schools. Crops are subsidized. The dollar you make may be "stolen" from someone else. The disabled baby gets cared for in the public hospital. And the world goes around.

A very interesting point of view Martha. But how exactly can a laborer's work be stolen from him? A worker and a company are free to set up any sort of deal they want. If the worker feels he is not going to be paid enough, he is free to seek employment somewhere else. If that line of work does not pay enough for his needs, he is free to attempt to educate himself so he can get a better job. If he is not smart enough to educate himself to make more money, then does he not deserve to be right where he is? Do people who are naturally more intelligent "owe" something to those that are less so? I will never have the looks of Brad Pitt, who obviously makes the salary that he does because of it. Does he "owe" money to uglier people because they did not get the same opportunities as him? Certainly not. People are born into this world with a unique blend of talents and abilities. Some are better equipt than others. But we all have the right to try for better. And no one has a right to more than what they are able to achieve for themselves.

 

[TickTock]

I see a huge range between "All people must have the same money, enforced by the government" and "No government redistribution of wealth". It's not an either/or.

While I tend towards libertarianism, I do think that some kind of basic safety network is a good idea. Whether it should take a tax 15.3% of earned income is another matter...

I'll also argue that such a social net does benefit everyone - less crime, unrest, and so forth. It doesn't benefit everyone equally, of course, but then again, taxes for roads/firemen/police don't benefit equally, either.

 

[travelover]

Believe it or not travelover I agree with you 100%. Let me clarify my position....

Charity = Good
Forced Charity = Bad

If people want to contribute to help these problems through various religious or other groups. I think that is great. There will always be a segment of our society that needs help, and there will always be those, including myself, that will be willing to help out.
But when the govt FORCES you to do things of that nature, I believe it to be bad, and destructive.
When I go to the local McDonalds, I order a Big Mac because I choose to. It would be a very different matter if I was forced by the govt to order a Big Mac at a McDonald's because they claim it helps "society" or that the workers their NEED to be paid, therefore I am obligated to eat there. This is really the only problem that I have with it, the issue of forced vs. voluntary contribution.

I see your point. I hate that my tax dollars are supporting an ill conceived war and killing our finest, for what I consider a lost cause. But for me, that is part of the cost of living in a society. I get to vote, but I don't always get my way. I'm OK with that.

 

[ChrisC]

Well, taken to its logical extreme, the Government has no right to mandate conscription for our military needs or require any form of public service -- it has to be all volunteer, right? As Martha suggested, if I disagree with the policy in Iraq -- my conscientious objection to that War should trump the needs of my Government. The idea that you can draw the line and say there are some essential services, like police and military protection, that we all must contribute because we all must benefit, and not others, such as education and health, that all of us directly or indirectly benefit as well, is baffling to me. What's the standard or metric for this distinction? It can't be the idea that Armor posits that the basis for the distinction is when the service directly benefits him?

Our idea of a social contract underscores the legitimacy of government and its right to make "calls" of its citizen's property and liberty to support its goals. You cannot deny that unless you want anarchy, which is not a preferred option for most of us.

 

[bright eyed]

When the reward for working is the same for not working at all,
what do you think you will end up with.

i agree w/ martha, having recently been around the bureaucracy block trying to ensure my FIL is receiving adequate health care (he has a sore on his foot, which coupled w/ diabetes, is in a bad state, so he's had a lot of complications) has been quite an ordeal.

he and his wife make about $2000 total with their social security and a tiny pension (about $300 of that) and they DO NOT qualify for full medi-cal. they are expected to pay $1300 MONTHLY in medical expenses before medi-cal kicks in. after their $1100 mortgage, they will be expected to eat cat food if they want him to continue to receive care. so even though couples that have $1500 income qualify for full medi-cal and have no share of cost, my FIL will have to shell over more than half his income, and be left w/ negative funds if his costs are not covered by medicare...he and his wife dutifully worked for over 30 years as a janitor and garment worker - what low lifes huh?

my other friend was a single mother and benefited greatly from the safety net. she received subsidized child care and free medical coverage for her pregnancy and birth. Now- she is a full time nurse, fully contributing to society. She recently got a "surprise" from the system and had a portion of her tax return "recaptured" by the government for the benefits she received earlier. so even if people think they are getting something for nothin, the gubment will come back and getcha when they can.

 

[laurence]

I agree with TickTock, we can't ignore the economic benefit we gain from some sort of safety net. Markets abhore uncertainty, and programs like social security and medicare allow for more fluid labor markets, for one, to allow for optimal use of one of our most valuable resources. You can argue about the degree to which a nation should provide a safety net, but I no safety net would have the opposite effect of what was intended by those who oppose it. My libertarian friends will always support a strong national defense budget, and part of their argument for it (other than saying it's the only thing the Constitution allows the Feds to do - which I don't agree) is how a strong defense allows our citizens to grow/innovate/profit without fear of interference, increasing the productivity and wealth of the nation. I don't understand the mental firewall that doesn't allow them to see how interference can come from a desperate man robbing your store to feed his family just as well as a foriegn army. Society gains much more than it spends by ensuring it's children are well educated, and I have yet to see the footage of the libertarian telling the fire department to stay away that he'd put his house fire out himself.

Sometimes it seems to me the libertarian argument smacks more of anti-communism or anti-socialism rather than pro-libertarian. The only thing that seems to really get them upset is wealth redistribution, and only direct redistribution at that. As with everything, it's a matter of degrees, thinking in black and white is folly when dealing with human endeavors. The spector that is raised often is the idea that no one will work because they don't have an incentive to, since the government will pay everyone the same. This extreme example is not justified in the current climate, IMHO. True, those coop farms in Russia were a disaster, but I think most people here agree there are European countries far to the left of us that are doing just fine.

So I think everyone agrees they like some government services, they just might not have thought of them during this debate. Since you will never eliminate the abuse of any system completely, one has to weigh that cost and others with the benefits that system or service provides. I'm always open to tweaking the safety net, continuous improvement is a good thing. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

 

[Martha]

The more I read these kinds of thread the more I buy into theories of evolutionary psychology. Protect the tribe against outside threats at any cost. Throw out anyone who might be a freeloader, the risks of keeping him are too high. We needed to be selfish to survive.

China's disabled children are sold into slavery as beggars | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

 

[ChrisC]

The more I read these kinds of thread the more I buy into theories of evolutionary psychology. Protect the tribe against outside threats at any cost. Throw out anyone who might be a freeloader, the risks of keeping him are too high. We needed to be selfish to survive.

China's disabled children are sold into slavery as beggars | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Not sure about this evolutionary psychology, but I recall for one of my Ethics/Philosophy classes, way back in the day, that "psychological egoism" was not a highly regarded ethical system. Well, I'm done with this debate.

 

[RetireeRobert]

I have a friend who retired about 19 months ago only because she was sick of going to work everyday and because her husband had been retired for 5 years and did nothing at home while she worked and she said she did it all. When she retired she still had lots of debt and her husband when he retired had 80,000. in credit card debt. He paid his off with a withdrawal from his lump sum. Now that she is retired they don't have much money and I believe they are having a lot of trouble keeping their bills paid. He took Social Security at 62 about the time she retired. She is 56. They never saved a dime in their lives, didn't even own a savings account! They each got a couple hundred thousand dollars in a lump sum when they retired.

She tells me today that she has applied for SSD. She says even though she retired she still qualifies! She has had the disease "Fibromyalgia" for about 20 years and says she qualifies even though she is retired. Her company is paying for lawyers to assist her. The companies stake in this is that if she qualifies, they get rid of her in two years to the Medicare system and will only have to pay for her scripts.

She is about as disabled as I am! (NOT!) She walks 5 miles a day and shops incessantly. She sells products from her home for years and delivers them every two weeks. Yes, she has mentioned her fibro over the years but I haven't seen it disable her for more than maybe 4 months. She sees a Dr. no more than once a year unless she gets a cold or needs her meds refilled.

All of a sudden she found out she could do this to milk the system even though the disease is not the reason she retired. When I told her that I did not approve and it was milking the system, she said "I deserve it because I have hurt all my life." Good Lord!

No wonder Social Security is going broke if people like her are able to milk the system like this. What do you intellectuals think? Am I being too harsh on her? BTW, she is being led by friends who did the same thing!

Back to the original query of this thread----yes, that is milking SS. Taking advantage for selfish reasons of the safety net put out there for *real* deserving cases. Thereby putting the viability of the safety net in danger, so as to take away from the truly disabled.

 

[Martha]

If she isn't truly disabled, odds are she will be denied. Even if she is truly disabled, there is a good chance she will be denied on the first go around.

 

[TickTock]

If she qualifies under the current rules (without faking/lying/exaggerating!), then no, I don't consider it milking the system. Why not take what you're eligible for? If the definition of 'disabled' is wrong, then that's a problem with the system, not the person (IMO).

OTOH, if she is lying/faking/exaggerating her status, then it's past milking the system - it's outright fraud.

 

[ChrisC]

She is about as disabled as I am! (NOT!) She walks 5 miles a day and shops incessantly. She sells products from her home for years and delivers them every two weeks. Yes, she has mentioned her fibro over the years but I haven't seen it disable her for more than maybe 4 months. She sees a Dr. no more than once a year unless she gets a cold or needs her meds refilled.

All of a sudden she found out she could do this to milk the system even though the disease is not the reason she retired. When I told her that I did not approve and it was milking the system, she said "I deserve it because I have hurt all my life." Good Lord!

Ya know, I really don't think any of us are in a position to determine whether the "claimant" is faking her pain or the purported disabling aspect of her condition -- so we can't say she's "abusing" the system or doing something not within the spirit of the system. I have plantar fasciatis -- it's very painful to me on occasion, but I can run 4-5 miles/ 4-5 days a week for months and months, then something happens and I have extreme difficulty walking a bit for 2-4 weeks -- the pain to me can be debilitating. So, I'm a bit sympathetic to the claimant -- she in fact might "have hurt all her life." And knowing how the system actually operates, the safety net doesn't really expand a lot, there isn't really a zero sum game feature to it -- in the sense that for every person who gets in, another gets left out -- and the safety net is "underinclusive" -- it keeps more deserving people out than un-derserving people in -- this really isn't an abuse to me at all.

We do know that this post appears to upset a few people, some evidently on philosophical grounds and some evidently because it appears to be almost like cheating. I'm done with debating the former grounds, but I'm puzzled by the notion that what the claimant is doing is tantamount to cheating, in the eyes of others. I just don't see that. If I had to explain my reason for not seeing any "cheating" I see it like the runner in a baseball game who gets called safe when he's really out.

I suspect that the claimant might not get to first base with the Social Security people, but if for some reason she gets around the bases and the umpire calls her safe at home plate and she was really out -- the claimant hasn't cheated the game or the other side. It's just a bad call by the umpire, right? And if I were the other side, I'd be resentful that the call didn't go my way, but eventually I'd get over it and wouldn't blame the runner.

 

[RetireeRobert]

I'm done with debating the former grounds, but I'm puzzled by the notion that what the claimant is doing is tantamount to cheating, in the eyes of others. I just don't see that. If I had to explain my reason for not seeing any "cheating" I see it like the runner in a baseball game who gets called safe when he's really out.

So it's just "gaming the system" and that's ok?

It's cheating.

 

[TickTock]

RetireeRobert,

My view is that if the claimant believes that they are qualified under the rules of the system, then it's not gaming the system - it's claiming something you're legitimately eligible for.

OTOH, if the claimant belives they're not qualified, but want to try because 'what the heck, they might make a bad call', then it's fraud.

Interesting thought - turn the situation around - what if the claimant could have taken the disability years before but did not because "I don't want to milk the system/I like my j*b/I like the social interaction/I want to earn my way/whatever"

 

[Spanky]

The chance of receiving benefits from just Fibromyalgia is slim. She can improve her chances by submitting some other medical diagnosis performed by an orthopedist or a rheumatologist.

 

[haha]

Masterblaster, why is this tyranny? Our country clearly values some sort of safety net. If not, we wouldn't have one. What is the ugliness in what I am saying?

It's that gal in the mustard colored suit right under you name.

Ha

 

[ChrisC]

So it's just "gaming the system" and that's ok?

It's cheating.

RetireeRobert,

Help me out a bit. When you say "gaming the system," I want to know what you mean. I know exactly what cheating means, so we don't have to grapple with that definition.

 

[wcv56]

My back hurts very much at times, but it does not prevent me from making a honest
living nor doing other things such as golf, walking, running, swimming, motorbiking, jetski and traveling on vacations.
Now after reading some of the post here my headaches so I have multiple problems that are painful. Where is the line I want an early withdrawl from the system too!
Is there any real anidote to the boy that cried wolf too often.

 

[travelover]

Stick a fork in this thread. It is done!

 

[Zoocat]

I read this thread with interest and thanks to all for a lively but civilized discussion. Thanks,especially, to Martha, for expressing so eloquently my own point of view without getting disgusted or giving up. I think it's really important that we learn what the other side of the issue thinks but it's hard when you feel so strongly about it. You have my admiration, Martha!