Re: A Call for 'Radical Change'

ZombyWoof <Zomby-Woof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message:
evb6s2phisu2uce5uagb25a3j95orvkl9r@xxxxxxx,

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:13:19 -0800, Codeee01@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote
something wonderfully witty:
There is no reason to think that those who are well insured now
will be forced to enroll in a national health care plan. This is one
of the main objections I hear.

And there is probably a real good reason why you hear it.

Because it's a great slippery-slope argument; tell people that any
program that insures the uninsured will inevitably lead to "socialized
medicine" aka VA-style healthcare for everyone.

There is
every reason to believe that it will become all-inclusive. It's been
done before with our social "leveling" programs. It will be done
again. One of the he original arguments for Social Security was not
enough people had retirement programs through where they worked, and
didn't have the ability to save on their own.

Sure when first implemented there were carve outs for those with
access to retirement programs,

Source?
I've tried to verify that this is correct and can't find it.

There are certainly carve-outs for govt employees who have their own
retirement programs.


but slowly but surely the need for more
revenue (taxes) drove everyone to contribute, and at an ever
increasing % of income.


And in time Social Security became one of the most popular government
programs in American history and it remains so. Most people, even those
with savings and other retirement benefits rely the fact that Social
Security benefits will be there for them when they retire.

Without it, millions would be living in poverty.

Of course there is one class of people who want to scrap the entire
system and replace it with self-directed investment accounts; rich
people who don't want to pay Social Security taxes, and financial
advisors, stock brokers and others who would profit from all that
investing.

--
Juba
www.masterjuba.com


.