Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Social (In)Security
Message-ID: <313@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 19:00:23 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.313
Posted: Mon Jan 28 19:00:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Jan-85 01:20:45 EST
References: <766@ratex.UUCP> <566@ccice2.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: The Wall Of Fog
Lines: 70

> You want to fix SS? Fine:

> 1) Make it voluntary.

No, it would be better to remove the minimum deduction.

> 2) Eliminate the COLA. Find any other investment with a COLA. Give me a break.

It is not an investment, it is insurance.

> 3) Eliminate the minimum payment.

No, it would be better to make it voluntary.

> SS is insurance, not welfare.

It is not insurance, it is an investment.

> Separate the welfare components and call it that so RR can
> cut it (with my support).

Perhaps RR could cut it even without your support.

> 4) Eliminate heath subsidy (medicare) Why should I pay to keep someone alive
> so I can pay them more substinance money. If you want health insurance, buy
> it.

I thought SS was insurance. I thought these people had paid.
Maybe they paid for an investment.

> Also, I find INCREDIBLY DISGUSTING that politicians are already talking
> about how we are going to be able to afford the artificial heart so we
> can make it available to those who could not otherwise afford it.

Almost as TERRIBLY HIDEOUS as the cost of computers becoming less so that
now they are now available to those who could not otherwise afford them.

> Better:

Margarine?

> 5) Allow cheap (insert year here) level health care to those who cannot afford 
> better. Only update care in the areas that are now cheaper.

This will provide a fair return on their investment.

> That is, if I can extend the lifespan of someone a year for a million bucks,
> it doesn't  become free to those who can't afford it. If I can cure herpes
> for .25 instead  of $25, it does. That is, we can cut the budget,
> but not increase it.

I think I follow this. If I sell my house for $50,000, it doesn't
become free to those who can't afford it. If I fix my lawn mower
for .25 instead of $25, it does. That is, we can cut the grass,
but not sell it. Now back to Social Security.

> This would allow hospitals to exist without all the latest equipment, but
> then they wouldn't be charging you for it either.

SS recipients could be forbidden to buy anything other than food, but
then they wouldn't be depleting their checks either.

> And if you can't afford the best hospital, the guv isn't going to send
> you there and send me the bill.

My error, I guess we aren't going back to Social Security.

-- 
The Watcher
seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf