|
Post by joew on Oct 1, 2013 18:02:52 GMT -5
… BTW, members of Congress and their staffs are also excluded from Obamacare and are allowed to keep their "Cadillac plans." … One of two Obamacare-related things that were in the House's last offer to the Senate was a provision ending that Congressional exclusion. The other was to give individuals the same one-year postponement of the mandate that Obama had unilaterally given to businesses. Those two items were so intolerable to Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats that they preferred to see the government shut down than to lose their special status and to treat individuals the same as Obama treats businesses.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 1, 2013 23:31:49 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind if the individual mandate (and related penalty) were optional for another year while various adjustments are made (all the crashes today demonstrate it's not all ready for prime time) but I would not like to see the ability to insure "kids" up to age 26 or 29 retracted (that has made insurance available to about 3 million young people who otherwise wouldn't be covered), nor the ability to buy insurance despite "pre-ex." I see too many people sick and not getting proper care because they can't purchase insurance now.
The Congressional exclusion is actually more related to the availability of insurance than what kind of plan is offered, as employers are currently free to offer rich plans if they choose or need to do so to attract quality workers. But those who work for Congress can carry their insurance into retirement, while those who are privately insured are not.
There is too much inflexibility all around, all for political posturing instead of service to the American people that Congress "represents." Most Americans are in favor of eliminating "pre-ex" exclusions, covering young people under parents' plans until they get their own, eliminating the insurers' ability to "drop" you once you get sick. Yet Congress can't/won't work together to get a reasonable law into effect, and make modifications as needed.
And my idea of what is "essential" seems quite different from the government's ideas. Most people would rather have access to the Grand Canyon and skip the NSA reading all our emails.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 2, 2013 0:41:42 GMT -5
Please. It is already law. All the wrangling and negotiating are finished. Deciding to defund a law you don't like means that any law is fair game. It passed both houses, was signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court. As Jon Stewart said trenchantly last night, when you lose the game you don't get to negotiate for more points and threaten to shut down the NFL. democracyforamerica.com/blog/765-jon-stewart-says-exactly-what-we-are-all-thinking Several insurance execs were interviewed on NPR throughout the day and most said the only way to work out glitches is to see where they crop up. It isn't as if this deadline came as a surprise to any of them or to the states. Ours in MN is working rather well, though the phone and internet lines opened a little late. Comparing plans on the exchange will take some effort but no more than we go through for supplemental Medicare every year. I'm sick of all the bellyaching.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 2, 2013 10:19:56 GMT -5
I don't think Obamacare is the main problem at all - it is the political drama by members of mainly the House to take an unrelated matter (Obamacare) and use it to create a budget crisis that causes a lot of problems for literally millions. The budget resolution does not have to relate to ACA at all.
And I agree, Obamacare has flaws but it is the law. The political differences of opinions on ACA need to be worked out in a different arena. My point is dysfunctional government causing misery for those who pay for it. Senators and representatives aren't doing their jobs.
As a (former) insurance executive, I think those interviewed are correct - some aspects of the law will need tweaking, and modifications will need to be made, just as has happened with Medicare over the past 40+ years. We won't catch the glitches until the law is in action.
I do think that the implementation schedule was "aggressive," and delay of some provisions for large corporations is not unreasonable. The law was passed in March 2010, and there were a lot of uncertainties about specific regulations for a long time (the Supreme Court confirmation was just over a year ago, and ACA was uncertain until then). Large employers start their planning a minimum of 2 years in advance so health insurance coverage to take effect January 1, 2014 goes out to bid in winter/spring 2012 at the latest, and there is usually 6 - 12 months of planning/research before that.
Individual and small business coverage, which is what Obamacare is mainly about, must often change on a few weeks notice. I suspect those were the people crashing the system yesterday. They don't need years to prepare. And look - Obamacare is open for business while the government is shut down.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 2, 2013 11:10:34 GMT -5
I don't think Obamacare is the main problem at all - it is the political drama by members of mainly the House to take an unrelated matter (Obamacare) and use it to create a budget crisis that causes a lot of problems for literally millions. The budget resolution does not have to relate to ACA at all. And I agree, Obamacare has flaws but it is the law. The political differences of opinions on ACA need to be worked out in a different arena. My point is dysfunctional government causing misery for those who pay for it. Senators and representatives aren't doing their jobs. As a (former) insurance executive, I think those interviewed are correct - some aspects of the law will need tweaking, and modifications will need to be made, just as has happened with Medicare over the past 40+ years. We won't catch the glitches until the law is in action. I do think that the implementation schedule was "aggressive," and delay of some provisions for large corporations is not unreasonable. The law was passed in March 2010, and there were a lot of uncertainties about specific regulations for a long time (the Supreme Court confirmation was just over a year ago, and ACA was uncertain until then). Large employers start their planning a minimum of 2 years in advance so health insurance coverage to take effect January 1, 2014 goes out to bid in winter/spring 2012 at the latest, and there is usually 6 - 12 months of planning/research before that. Individual and small business coverage, which is what Obamacare is mainly about, must often change on a few weeks notice. I suspect those were the people crashing the system yesterday. They don't need years to prepare. And look - Obamacare is open for business while the government is shut down. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) You betcha! I have only one point of disagreement. Good businesses don't sit on their hands waiting to see if a court challenge will change their responsibilities. You're right that planning starts more than 2 years out, but it's been more than 3 years since the law was passed. Seriously, in large and small businesses and in government, I've been part of management meetings that got going as soon as a significant change hit their radar. One of the things I've found most amusing about all this complaining is that businesses and state governments seem willing to let themselves appear incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 2, 2013 20:17:48 GMT -5
Please. It is already law. All the wrangling and negotiating are finished. Deciding to defund a law you don't like means that any law is fair game. It passed both houses, was signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.… A. Every law on the books is still subject to the political process: amendment, funding, defunding, repeal. Yes every law is always fair game. They're laws, not the Constitution or Holy Writ. B. The proposal the Democrats rejected on Monday evening contained no provision to defund Obamacare. So IMO you have provided no valid reason for the Democrats to force a government shutdown rather than agree to the Continuing Resolution.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 2, 2013 22:38:32 GMT -5
I don't think there should be a shutdown for political purposes whether it is allegedly caused by either party. It is their job to come to sufficient agreement to allow the government to continue functioning. It appears to me that the "arguments" are political posturing.
Whether it's ACA or any of the other shutdown excuses they have used in the past nearly 40 years, the Congress needs to do the work they are paid to do to ensure that the services we the taxpayers have paid for are provided.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 2, 2013 23:37:42 GMT -5
Please. It is already law. All the wrangling and negotiating are finished. Deciding to defund a law you don't like means that any law is fair game. It passed both houses, was signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.… A. Every law on the books is still subject to the political process: amendment, funding, defunding, repeal. Yes every law is always fair game. They're laws, not the Constitution or Holy Writ. B. The proposal the Democrats rejected on Monday evening contained no provision to defund Obamacare. So IMO you have provided no valid reason for the Democrats to force a government shutdown rather than agree to the Continuing Resolution.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 2, 2013 23:40:14 GMT -5
Joe, I really think you're wrong. We don't keep arguing a law after a bill has gone through the process you describe. We put forward another bill to repeal a law. If I'm wrong about that, please explain.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 3, 2013 0:48:45 GMT -5
Medicare Catastrophic in the late 1980's was repealed via a new law, as you describe gk. Passed one year, it added about $10 per month to premium cost but protected all Medicare beneficiaries against huge financial loss. IIRC the law passed by a fairly large margin, but the following year was repealed when the majority of seniors who didn't have large bills got angry about paying the $10 per month; they let their representatives know of their dissatisfaction pronto.
I think funding/defunding is usually a political ploy, not serious legislation, but I don't really know. I think amendments are usually added to proposed legislation, not sure if I can recall any amendments proposed as free-standing new legislation.
Usually legislation is fairly broad when it's passed, and the details are then worked out in the regulations, which are created by the agency affected by the new legislation. A common problem is that Congress passes legislation and then does not give the agency enough time to develop the regs (which is a lot harder than you might think). Then you get poorly drafter "interim rules."
I'm no legal scholar, this is just what I have observed in doing policy work.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 3, 2013 9:16:54 GMT -5
Yes, "rules & regs" require real people who know how the broad law will have to be implemented, what structures exist and what might have to be created. Very likely the implementation will involve state, county and city governments - in other words, real people doing the job. It's a process, something everyone who isn't part of it is happy to denigrate as useless bureaucracy. For the fun of it I did a quick Google and came up with this 16-yr-old total count of units of government. It probably wasn't completely accurate at the time, let alone now, but it gives us a handle on why Congress passing a law is just the beginning. The 1997 Census of Government says it best... "There were 87,504 governmental units in the United States as of June 1997. In addition to the Federal Government and the 50 state governments, there were 87,453 units of local government. Of these, 39,044 are general purpose local governments - 3,043 county governments and 36,001 sub-county general purpose governments, including 13,726 school district governments and 34,683 special district governments." I don't see municipal govts in that count, but rules for functions like transportation, law enforcement, employment rights and health must be followed in all city projects as well. Passing the overall Federal budget assumes a commitment to fund enacted law. We all know that some requirements are unfunded (for example the special ed requirements that were never properly funded) but to say "rework what we don't like or you get no budget" means that Congressional committees to get bills to the floor of each house and conference committees to work out a single bill are just preliminary to the real battle of the budget. There's a long history of such battles leading to shutdowns. Even if a compromise is agreed to, Obama could still veto.The only way to work out these differences is to pass continuing resolutions so at least the work goes on. An interesting list in Wiki, which may or may not be accurate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 3, 2013 23:37:55 GMT -5
Joe, I really think you're wrong. We don't keep arguing a law after a bill has gone through the process you describe. We put forward another bill to repeal a law. If I'm wrong about that, please explain. One example is the Democrats' frequent demagogic claim that the Republicans want to "take away" people's Social Security. What happens is one Congress enacts certain rules for calculating benefits. When it becomes clear that contributions will be insufficient to pay the benefits, Republicans sometimes propose slowing the rate of increase (which is not "taking away" in the sense in which Democrats intend to scare people into believing, i.e., actually reducing the monthly dollar amount to be received). One Congress cannot bind a future Congress on matters of legislative discretion. Congress creates programs like Pell Grants, but the amount to be spent on them is subject to annual appropriation. A distinction is often drawn between "entitlements" and "discretionary spending." But neither gets spent unless Congress authorizes the amount each year. So Congress is perfectly entitled to defund Obamacare, or to set whatever level of funding they choose. It's in the Constitution: no money is to be spent without an appropriation by Congress.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Oct 5, 2013 18:07:47 GMT -5
I didn't know that, Joe. Good for you and your family!
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 6, 2013 14:34:03 GMT -5
Yes, congrats on whatever BB is talking about. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) I got a new pocket-sized Constitution this year because my old one was short on some of the amendments. (It belonged to an uncle who became a citizen somewhere in the early 60s.) But the responsibilities of the 3 branches of government haven't changed. I don't see the mechanics of appropriations spelled out anywhere, but I admit to being weak on some of the multi-part amendments. Still, I'd like you to point me to the clause in the Constitution that permit holding up an appropriations bill in order to derail a law passed 3 years earlier.
The NYT has a good piece today on the deliberate conspiracy to defund Obamacare. www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a-federal-budget-crisis-months-in-the-planning.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 I know you think the NYT is a liberal rag, but the quotes and pictures aren't invented. Moderate Republicans have worked hard to wrangle Tea Party zealots into some sort of responsible posture.
And demagoguery - especially about Social Security - has hardly been the sole province of Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 6, 2013 22:23:54 GMT -5
Article I, Section 9, "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…."
The mechanics of appropriations are not spelled out, so Congress can do it any way they want. There is nothing that compels the passing of an appropriations bill with specific content (such as to fund a given program) or at a specific time.
I've read the article about the coalition ("conspiracy" is a loaded word) seeking to defund the ACA (which nothing in the Constitution forbids — or someone would have pointed out where it says so by now). Interesting, but totally irrelevant to what actually happened last week except as background. Anybody who was paying attention to C-SPAN and C-SPAN2 Monday evening knows that the last continuing resolution from the House, which the Dems rejected, thereby precipitating the shutdown, would not have defunded the ACA. So all this talk about defunding the ACA is at best beside the point. But given the persistence of people who should know better in talking about it, I'm beginning to think it's one more example of how the Democrats and their supporters in the MSM try to deceive the people.
What demagoguery on the subject of Social Security do you think the Republicans have engaged in? Do you think it's as bad as lying to the public with the false claim that the Republicans would take away Social Security (which I can't recall hearing seriously proposed since the days of Barry Goldwater — if then)?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 7, 2013 11:06:59 GMT -5
"totally irrelevant" and "beside the point" make it clear we see through such different lenses there's no point in our continuing. Yes, I know the line in Section 9 and read it differently. As for Social Security, I think it was Paul Ryan who scared the socks off several age groups - current recipients who depend entirely on their SS check, future retirees who see themselves working till near death, and younger folks who expect to pay for the aged and never get a dime back. People in their 40s and 50s feel threatened because they know no jobs exist to keep them working as long as 69 or 70. Too many have already been pushed into early retirement and are scrambling for jobs in retail, food service, and other low-paid work. Whether the worst of Ryan's prognostications would actually materialize is highly debated, but he's the one who galvanized not just Dems but AARP. The emails and print matter I get from AARP are scarier than anything I hear from the Democratic Party. AARP is non-partisan yet fiercely (I think sometimes unreasonably) averse to any changes in Soc. Sec. However, Republicans as a party embraced the Ryan plan enthusiastically and must bear the blame for scaring people with his severe fixes. I feel only sympathy for people dependent on Soc. Sec. and can't blame them for fearing their small checks will go even lower. However I have no sympathy for people who think the income limit for the SS deduction should be left where it is. It should be at least doubled. I also think somehow we must get back to the rule that one earns SS based on one's own work, not spouse's earnings. I can't figure out when that change sneaked through, but it amazes me that a non-working spouse is paid on the working spouse's income - even a portion of it, which is how I think it works. I need my Soc. Sec. Our pensions are not high and we'd be up a creek if we hadn't saved like little ants for decades. Perhaps you don't need yours, as I understand Federal pensions are quite generous. ( www.aei-ideas.org/2011/09/how-generous-are-federal-employee-pensions/ ) The outfit publishing that analysis is quite conservative, so I expect it's truthful.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 7, 2013 12:06:19 GMT -5
I think there is a point in continuing, because there are two big questions for you. 1.) What language in Section 9., or elsewhere, do you read as compelling Congress to appropriate money for a program? 2.) What language in the Continuing Resolution that the Senate defeated on Monday evening would have defunded ACA?
In all I saw and heard that night and in the little I've read since then, I haven't seen anybody in Congress or the media point to anything that would make defunding the ACA unconstitutional, nor has anybody pointed to anything in the last CR that would have defunded it anyway — all of which gives me great confidence that neither exists.
Point taken about people in their 40's and 50's being scared about the level of benefits when they retire and the time they will become eligible to draw those benefits. OTOH, I think there is bipartisan (and nonpartisan) agreement that current levels and timing cannot be sustained for future retirees under current funding. So either, taxes must increase, growth of benefits must be slowed, eligibility must be postponed, the system must be funded from general revenue, or some combination thereof.
Point also taken that AARP may be even worse than the Democrats with their scare tactics.
I think it's very important that a widow whose husband worked in a job that provided coverage while she stayed at home and raised the kids and kept house, not be left penniless. It's been part of the system as long as I've been aware, and I'd bet it was FDR who sneaked it through.
The assumptions about federal employees are a best-case scenario. Most importantly, many do not work enough years to qualify for a full pension. When I was hired, federal employees were not in the Social Security system, and coverage applies only to those hired after the date federal employees began to be covered (except for Medicare, which we were all made subject to). So, as one example of how different things can be: I retired in 2000 with 20 years of service at age 57 — my earliest eligibility for any pension — to care for my sick mother. Because I had fewer that 40 years of service, my pension was reduced. With just 20 years, the reduction yielded a pension of 56% of my high three years (something above $40,000). I ended up with a total somewhere around $24,000 per year (with small COLA's since then), and no Social Security. For a single man who owns his home, that's certainly not poverty level, although if it hadn't been for what I get from investing my share of my mother's estate (about $10,000 per year), some of the things I do, and write about, would not be possible. I converted my TSP to an IRA, and now I have to start drawing on the approx $56,000 principal.
What I'm trying to say is that, yes, the federal pension system is certainly generous, especially by comparison since private sector employers have scaled back their plans while the federal system has stayed substantially the same. I'm certainly happy to have been under the system and to have been able to keep putting money into the economy when others had to cut back after the downturn. Just understand that 85% of high three is a maximum, not an average. Lots of retirees get well below that. (BTW if the outfit that published the analysis is conservative, that could include something of the "wasteful government spending" attitude.)
Certainly many people need the support of Social Security, which is why it's terribly important for Congress to have a reasonable discussion about it, and not be paralyzed by the "Tea Party of the Left," the AARP.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 7, 2013 19:37:45 GMT -5
But Joe, the AARP is not on the left. Seriously, it is usually the voice of well-off retirees who are looking for great vacations and/or 2nd homes where labor is cheap, advertising for minimum investment opportunities that begin at least with $10K and often much more, luxury cars, plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures - but they sure don't want to pay any more into FICA than the 108,000 they're taxed on now. (I think that's the number, or close - neither of us ever got near the top limit.) Of course, survivors of either gender should get whichever is the highest of the two SS benefits. We all know about that and agree with it. I'm talking about monthly benefits to spouses of living retirees. Truly, I was stunned when I learned this. When I went on Soc. Sec. some of my friends learned that they were eligible for benefits based on their husbands' earnings. One had worked a couple of low-paying jobs for a matter of less than 2 years. She didn't know she would get a % of her husband's benefit till the Soc. Sec. agent told her so on the phone. I recently came across a retirement brochure from 5 years ago that included information on the spouse's benefit, but I never looked at it because I'd worked 40 years and collected on my own earnings. Postponing the individual mandate defunds a huge chunk of the ACA. Those policies are designed to be subsidized by the ACA . As I understand it, many people on Medicaid will be helped to purchase their own policy. Also, right now there's a chunk of people who aren't poor enough for Medicaid but who don't work for companies that provide affordable company insurance. Anyone self-employed must buy insurance with none of group buying power of a company. I disagreed with delaying for large corporations on the grounds already mentioned - they could have gotten off their tookuses and done the work - but their employees will NOT be going without for a year during the delay. Those who started shopping for a policy when the exchanges opened will be left in the cold if ACA the individual mandate is delayed. I'm not sure about all the requirements that are included in the Oct. 1 deadline, but I think pregnancy coverage is another of them. K says insurers shouldn't be required to cover an elective procedure (I may be misrepresenting her) but I don't think having children should be classed with nose jobs or liposuction. Look at this from a very unlikely source. I'm kinda amazed. www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/30/five-reasons-americans-already-love-obamacare-plus-one-reason-why-theyre-gonna/ As for what the Constitution means, I am certain that the original intention was not to let the House pick and choose acceptable portions of a bill with periodic implementation dates. The clause says Appropriations made by Law ; in other words, they couldn't just spend money without duly passed legislation signed into law by the President. But they are supposed to appropriate funds for duly passed legislation. The current impasse over the farm bill is another interesting twist on what does and doesn't get funded. The consequence of failing to compromise on SNAP means we'll all be paying a great deal more for all dairy products by spring. Ok, that's a new tangent, so I'll quit.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Oct 7, 2013 23:29:00 GMT -5
Thanks for the response. You make a lot of good points, and that was a well-presented article.
I get your point about the Constitution, I think, but I'm not sure that the founders imagined programs involving ongoing massive payments for a social safety net. But more importantly, as I see it, the provision is against executive action. Nothing is to be paid out of the Treasury (an executive department) unless Congress has authorized the executive to do so via an Appropriation enacted by the legislative process. Congress can't spend money because they aren't in the Executive Branch.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 8, 2013 3:52:52 GMT -5
I did not say insurance shouldn't cover an elective procedure. Most surgeries are "elective," that is, not an emergency (like appendicitis or auto accident trauma). Joint replacements, cataract surgery, replacement of bad heart valves - almost always elective. Perhaps you are thinking of cosmetic surgery that makes you happier with the way you look; that is not medically indicated, so it should not be routinely covered by insurance.
What I have said is that in the past, it has been common for (individual or small group) insurers to cover pregnancy care only as an optional "rider," meaning that individuals or employees of small employers who did not plan on pregnancy could choose not to include it as a covered benefit. The rationale for that would be that for a normal pregnancy, a couple could plan in advance and save the money to pay for it, jut as one would do for cosmetic surgery. Or a new car or the purchase of a house.
Social Security was enacted when most women married and stayed home caring for the children while their husbands worked, hence the current structure. I regard homemaking as a full-time job equally as valid as being employed outside the home. Not to mention that those women (and now stay-at-home dads are not rare) are raising the future generation - who will be paying our social security. I don't have a problem with such women collecting SS based on their husbands' earnings, as they should be able to "retire" too. The contributions of women who "don't work" (but are stay-at-home moms) are already under appreciated.
Anyway, it's now a more practical matter - most families can't survive on one income, and around half of all retirees live on their SS check only - no pension, minimal or no savings. And as pointed out, we could persuade our Congress to change the law, if enough of us feel that people who haven't "worked" shouldn't draw on a spouse's SS benefits.
I do think that the SS tax should be applied to all income (just like the Medicare tax), not just up to $110,000, and I have earned more than the maximum most of my career. That alone would resolve about 75% of the projected shortfall.
Regardless of the specifics of the Constitution and the law on these matters, Congress should be meeting in conference committee and jointly drafting a suitable bill/budget without a government shut down, and endless political grandstanding. Otherwise, they should be the first to go without a paycheck, since they are not doing their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 9, 2013 0:22:30 GMT -5
Thanks for the response. You make a lot of good points, and that was a well-presented article. I get your point about the Constitution, I think, but I'm not sure that the founders imagined programs involving ongoing massive payments for a social safety net. But more importantly, as I see it, the provision is against executive action. Nothing is to be paid out of the Treasury (an executive department) unless Congress has authorized the executive to do so via an Appropriation enacted by the legislative process. Congress can't spend money because they aren't in the Executive Branch. Interesting point. Why is it under the section defining the scope of the House's authority if only the exec. can spend money? Now I'll have to vow to re-read the whole Constitution with a view to uncovering any more such - what - overlapping or interwoven responsibilities? They didn't cross-reference dependent responsibilities any place I can think of. Maybe researching that would be a good project for the snows of February. Btw, the President gave a press conference today that I only heard in pieces. It seemed to cover his view of some of the points we've been discussing, and I hope to find the whole thing on the White House page. K, your post covers so much I don't know if I can answer coherently. About Soc. Sec. I am of two minds - maybe more than two. Those of us currently collecting benefits are repeatedly told we didn't pay in enough to justify what we're getting out. However, we paid in what we were told to pay and that amount could have been raised (actually was) many times. So to learn that others are paid when they have contributed little or nothing is troubling. It was a choice to stay home and raise children, not a job at the request of the government. Many many women do both, with enormous sacrifice, because neither spouse can command a salary high enough to allow the luxury of one staying home. I don't know if or for how long you stayed home with kids, but your income must have given you some leeway. For many families, the number of kids is limited by what they can afford, and there's no hope of staying home with them. In my mother's day, there was no option but to work and hope the good Lord and a working class neighborhood of law-abiding people would keep us kids out of trouble. She couldn't afford sitters or household help after I was 6. She was an anomaly in that time, she and a sub-class of shadow women who didn't fit the prevailing structure. But I think the mothers who could stay home didn't get SS based on their husband's earnings, only as survivors after his death. I'm quite sure the benefit while both are alive is relatively new, though I still haven't looked it up. In any job that offers insurance, families pay extra, and that seems right to me given the extra medical care they require. Working spouses decide which plan to use for which family members, again a choice. Singles and childless couples usually (in my jobs anyway) pay more than their share of the group coverage. I don't mean that I want any non-working spouse or child to be without insurance. But just as they contribute to insurance, shouldn't couples pay into SS for both of them if both are to get its retirement benefits? Divorced women (and probably some men)are now also covered by some % of the ex's benefits, but I don't think that benefit is deducted from the total of the working partner's benefits. It seems right that they should split the benefit, given the mutual plans and expenditures they decided on before one of them ended the marriage. When a spouse stayed home to raise children, there was presumably an expectation of growing old together and sharing the SS benefit as well as any other savings they had managed. I'm not sure that it is society's responsibility to pay extra to cover the non-working or poorer spouse in a failed marriage. Finally, your point about people raising future taxpayers comes up a lot, and I'm unsure about that, too. Having children is not just a practical economic decision. People want families. We try to make it easier for them with FMLA, the income tax deductions for dependents, the additional child credits, and credits for daycare. To me there's something not quite right about paying Soc. Sec. to a woman because she had kids. Of course it's "real work," but so is volunteer work. And if a spouse stayed home but didn't have children, should that person still get Soc. Sec.? Or should it be a headcount of children - 2 kids and you get 1/3 of the working partner's benefit, 3 kids you get 1/2, 4 kids...and so on. Sorry to have rambled on so long. These are knotty questions. As a fierce feminist and bleeding heart liberal, I suppose I should give myself a black eye.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 9, 2013 9:59:26 GMT -5
I was totally unconnected for 5 days, so I am just now connecting one the new, haven't seen any presidential conferences. It'll take me a while to catch up.
I did not stay home with my kids for very long, as I had a busy practice to run and couldn't afford to stay home. I took a week off with the first, 4 days with the second, and eight weeks with the third because with the last I developed very serious medical complications and had to be readmitted to the hospital in critical condition, which slowed my recovery. However, yes we had leeway - my husband stayed home with the kids until the youngest was a toddler, then we hired a full-time nanny.
I wasn't around in 1935 when SS was passed, and if the benefit for spouses was added later, I wasn't paying much attention. But my father was killed in 1972 (I was 21) and my mother received SS benefits for us kids for a while - for me, for 4 months until I was 22 (because I was a college student), and my brother until he was 18 and finished with high school, as he didn't go to college, and was presumably then able to fend for himself. Those were indeed paid "per child," intended to support the larger household of a woman with children to support. I don't know if she received any SS benefits for herself until she was either 62 or 65 and eligible on her own. If they continued, I think it was at the standard rate for widows alone (the policy having been made back when women did not usually work outside the home), and was not increased because she had had children, once we kids were of age.
Think of the actual meaning "social security." The benefit paid to my mother was to help her get us kids raised to where we could get jobs and be independent. As it happened, she was working at the time (she was widowed at age 52), but it was not enough earnings to support a family of three. The "payment for having children" stopped when we finished school or reached age 18 or 22. I think that is exactly what was intended to aid widows with children.
The calculations on the amount of SS tax rate to be paid in was made to include the fact that some people who hadn't explicitly "paid in" (widows, orphans, non-employed spouses) would receive benefits; the family unit is still the basis of society so the payment arrangements reflect that. The actuaries would insist on financial soundness, and they still do. Some people will collect a benefit on the basis of their spouse's work, without having done any "work" (ie, they were volunteering or homemaking for kids and spouse) themselves if they did not have a family to raise. I still think there is immense societal value in recognizing the value of the marriage or domestic partnership (or whatever other term you like to use for a long-term couple) by allowing both partners to "retire" with some income.
The whole point of insurance is to recognize that we share the financial costs, even though some people will pay more and some will pay less than they "should" have. The premium (or SS tax) is averaged over all to reflect that. That seems to me both a liberal and feminist concept, as well as a practical and humanitarian one. The same applies to employer health insurance. There is a per person rate based on the overall group experience, and it is multiplied by a dependent factor, then divided to determine the per employee cost. Those with families do pay more. But even a young person might have an expensive disease that costs more, while a healthy married person with 4 healthy kids might actually cost less.
Many people have "not paid in enough" to cover the SS benefit they receive, though they paid what the were told. This is, I think, for two reasons. First, the government actuaries did not do a good job of accounting for longer lives and other factors causing payments to beneficiaries to be higher than projected. That is unfortunate, but beneficiaries should not be penalized for government errors; government needs to allot more funds.
Secondly, the social security system is regressive (or is is progressive? It's early here I can't think). Anyway, it is designed to pay poor people who earned little during their work lives a higher benefit than they "earned," while wealthy people paid in much more than they will receive in benefits, even though the income level is capped at $110,000 (or whatever, it goes up a little each year).
I consider myself "middle of the road" or slightly liberal (more libertarian really) in political orientation, and I think that payment structure is fair. I would like to see those at the bottom of the income ladder receive a certain minimum that is enough to sustain them in retirement, and I think it's fair that the "extra" they receive comes from those of us who paid more. Had I taken the SS tax of 15% of my income and put it in an investment "lockbox" over the 50 years I'll have worked (I hope), it would be worth more than the SS benefit I will receive. But there would not be that "extra" for widows (even if they were no longer married when the former spouse died since they may not have been able to go and earn enough for a decent retirement), children, and others for whom you find payment questionable. It's a big program and has some general rules, meaning that there will be cases where maybe people don't "deserve" payment but they get it because of general rules that allow it.
It sounds like your views are colored by your personal experience gk. That is true for most of us I guess. But it is also why there are general rules that apply to all. I do not want some federal committee looking at each case and deciding who "deserves" what. Apply the same rules to all, understanding that sometimes it won't seem fair for an individual case.
Joe's point is true. Congress does not directly expend much money. It allocates it to the various programs, and then the agencies spend it on the programs.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Oct 9, 2013 11:08:39 GMT -5
K, we do see through our own experience. I'm not sorry your mom got benefits for you kids for a while, but most single moms working to raise children with little or no help from their kids' fathers would love to get a per child SS payment. I'd have been a lot better off if my father had died. My mother might not have been gone 12 hours a day for years until she was finally able to afford to move to the town where she was employed.
What you say about insurance spreading out the costs is true, and that's what I was saying about Soc. Sec. I do think a family that plans to have a stay-at-home parent should pay into the fund that secures their retirement, just as many buy insurance plans or annuities for that purpose. We don't want people feeling aggrieved about every dime or dollar someone else gets when they believe they deserve more. But I understand the coming generation's resentment. I also think gay (legally married or not) and single people should be able to designate a SS beneficiary, which is a pie-in-the-sky dream, but I still think it's fairer than the current system.
The social changes of the last 50 years have not been addressed by Soc. Sec. We do try to even things out, but the poor are struggling way below the poverty level and the rich - whose earnings depend on other people's work - should rightly contribute more. (Of course, some very rich people make money simply by buying and selling chances on other people's work, gambling on the markets.) Do you remember the old Milton Friedman example of what it takes to make a pencil? I'll try to find it. All work supports other work and has value.
As you say, a just society should ensure that no one is poor. However, when you say, "Some people will collect a benefit on the basis of their spouse's work, without having done any "work" (ie, they were volunteering or homemaking for kids and spouse) themselves if they did not have a family to raise," I think of millions of women who do that and work outside the home as well. And I truly don't think any of us should subsidize someone else's volunteer work. Your going to Afghanistan is different from my friend who does the books for her church. She has never ever worked and her husband has made a very good salary, plus inheritances on both sides of the family. She draws SS on his years of employment.
I don't know how we can make decisions about "deserving" without government. Sometimes they do a terrible job, but it's tough. By focusing on need first and then fairness, they're trying but it's juggling fireballs.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 9, 2013 20:30:57 GMT -5
Social Security is not a means-tested welfare program; it is primarily a retirement program, with some additional benefits for widows and orphans, so inevitably there will be some wealthy people who receive SS benefits. Welfare is the program designed for poor single mothers with children.
SS doesn't "subsidize" wealthy volunteers either. Their husbands paid in the premium of SS tax during their working years (though the program was designed to fit the conditions of 1935) just as today's working husbands whose wives stay home pay a SS tax that accounts actuarily for the fact that some wives will work and earn their own SS benefit and some won't. All spouses have the choice of whether to draw on their own earnings, or take a fraction of their spouses' benefit. Though I think all married/civil union couples (gay or straight) should be equally entitled to SS benefits, I also think if someone wants to provide money to a random "beneficiary," they should buy a private insurance policy.
Social Security is a very important program but it is not designed to end all inequality in the US, nor right all social wrongs. It's an important retirement program, intended to be self-sustaining, not to be a welfare hand-out.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Oct 11, 2013 20:10:58 GMT -5
Was anybody else disappointed that Malala didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 4, 2014 1:10:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Nov 4, 2014 9:32:14 GMT -5
HA! That was ballsy!
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Nov 4, 2014 21:48:30 GMT -5
It's been a year and now Malala DID win the Nobel Peace Prize!
I was down in the valley for a medical conference the past 4 days, and had to hurry home so I could get to the polls before closing. I must have checked some box wrong because I didn't get an absentee ballot in the mail. That was OK, I like voting in person. When Washington State converted to voting by mail ONLY, I had some regrets. There is something quintessentially All-American about going to the polling place on the first Tuesday in November.
I showed my passport as ID instead of my Arizona drivers license, a habit I developed when I first moved here because my Washington State drivers license was not considered valid ID. The nice lady checking voter registration couldn't find me on the rolls, so I pulled out the AZ DL and she was able to find me and I voted.
There has been no challenge of Voter ID requirements here, AFAIK. Of course many voters here use Native American ID documents that are less common elsewhere - CIB or tribal census card for example - so that is one minority population segment that is not disenfranchised even if they lack a drivers license. There are many "undocumented workers" (aka "illegal aliens") in this state, and enough of them are violent criminal Mexican/Central American drug lords, that it seems there is not much objection to voter ID laws.
Where I have worked with undocumented workers, they have not wanted to vote or otherwise interact with authorities; they'd rather stay low profile. But who checks your voter ID when you vote by mail? I think of it in Florida every time I see those warehouses full of old people ("nursing homes") - there is nothing to stop an unscrupulous person from taking their ballots and "helping" them vote.
|
|
|
Post by BoatBabe on Nov 5, 2014 9:26:12 GMT -5
I like voting in person. When Washington State converted to voting by mail ONLY, I had some regrets. There is something quintessentially All-American about going to the polling place on the first Tuesday in November. Boy, do I agree, Doc! I miss meeting my neighbors at the polling place, chatting about neighborhood events, and then each taking our turn stepping behind the curtain to vote as a citizen of the United States of America. Families routinely worked the polling place, greeting each voter as a personal friend who was honorable exercising their right to have a voice. This sitting around the galley table and drawing circles on my ballot at least two weeks before the election doesn't have the same Patriotic Charm.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Nov 5, 2014 21:40:21 GMT -5
I love to vote! Occasionally I see a neighbor, but even if I don't know anyone we end up chatting. Yesterday was quite crowded and people were pumped. Some heard me tell Jerry about a friend in VA who always takes great food for her poll worker buddies. This time it was Moroccan chicken, some kind of savory eggplant cheese cake, and dessert bars. People all around us began to pay attention, then appreciatively “mmmm” and then look around to see if there were food in sight behind our poll workers. We saw just one lone bag of candy bars, clearly left over from Halloween. We all felt very sorry for them and talked about whether this was an inequality issue that should be addressed nationally.
I have read about some voter ID problems - Georgia in particular. It's so frustrating! If they insist on picture IDs then they should provide them. Send teams out with cameras to every potential voter who doesn't have one and produce the proper ID on the spot. I, too, have wondered about absentee ballots. Lots of room for the kind of "helping" you fear, K, and clearly there can't be picture verification. Since there's never been any objection to absentee ballots, the righteous indignation about picture ID is phony. They're particularly targeting the urban poor. Many people here don't drive. Also in MN, the Land of Longevity, many people's births were recorded in a family Bible. But we'd better be sure there are no octogenarian subversives mucking up our elections.
|
|