Can the US afford socialized medicine?

[Magic Man]

Ah, yet another misconception that my line of work is sort of a hobby.

We're professionals with years and years of training and peer review, with intense dedication to our fields, and who believe in offering in the greater benefit to society. And the assumption of flexibility is rather off, too. There might be the illusion of flexibility because a performer hasn't landed a role in a while.

But....I'd hate to derail the thread further into a "myth-versus-fact-about-performance-artists" section. If this is about the necessity for a retirement income and health insurance as entitlements - and if we can afford it - folks in my field have been doing without for a very long time. Perhaps there is a little bit of an insistence that we don't have "real jobs", and therefore don't deserve not just these entitlements but even a living wage. And that if we've survived for so long on so little, that other folks in other fields might have to face the possibility that they ought to as well in order to avoid bankrupting the country.

But what do I know, right? My story is different because I'm just a lowly dancer.

I was hoping you wouldn't read too far into my comments. I did not say you don't have a real job, and I didn't say you're just a lowly dancer and so you know nothing. Regardless of the years of training and work involved in your line of work, are you saying most people who do it don't do it because of how much they love it? I'd be shocked if it was common for someone to be a performing artist just as a regular job.

And no one here said or implied that you don't deserve anything. I'd love for you to be able to retire like anyone else. You should have that option. My point was that one reason for people in your profession to work into their 80's and 90's is that they love it so much.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I was hoping you wouldn't read too far into my comments. I did not say you don't have a real job, and I didn't say you're just a lowly dancer and so you know nothing. Regardless of the years of training and work involved in your line of work, are you saying most people who do it don't do it because of how much they love it? I'd be shocked if it was common for someone to be a performing artist just as a regular job.

And no one here said or implied that you don't deserve anything. I'd love for you to be able to retire like anyone else. You should have that option. My point was that one reason for people in your profession to work into their 80's and 90's is that they love it so much.

Or because we have to. Or because it's more like a life calling. I can assure you that love is certainly a part of the equation, but it's more dedication to it than anything else.

But, don't worry about me, Matt. I can get annoyed, but all my comments are tongue-in-cheek. I still think you're as freaking adorable as ever. :hugkiss:

 

[Reverend Rick]

I even agreed with Matt in this thread. Strange days indeed.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I even agreed with Matt in this thread. Strange days indeed.

Cool. I take full credit.

 

[Magic Man]

Or because we have to. Or because it's more like a life calling. I can assure you that love is certainly a part of the equation, but it's more dedication to it than anything else.

I guess the thing is there are people like that in every field, but I would assume the dedication to it is mostly because of the love for it. Usually you're dedicated to something because you love it. That's why people commonly get dedicated to something like performing arts but not to working in IT or retail.

But, don't worry about me, Matt. I can get annoyed, but all my comments are tongue-in-cheek. I still think you're as freaking adorable as ever. :hugkiss:

Well, thanks. Right back atcha. But my point was never to downplay your profession or anything. I'm not saying you don't have a real job or that you shouldn't get to retire like everyone else. You do have a real job and you should get to retire like everyone else. I understand it's probably a sore subject for you because a lot of people I'm sure are condescending about your line of work. But all I was saying is that the higher percentage of performing artists working into their 80's and 90's is most likely due to the fact that it's a career that has a lot of people who just love doing it, unlike many other things like retail.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think there are some faulty assumptions going in with the who supports who equation. The thing is that assuming that the vast majority of people in a nation actually work and pay taxes surely they are, at least mostly, paying for their own retirement? I mean, these pension funds should by all rights be set aside for exactly that purpose, right?

I'll use myself as an example:
I've always had a job of some kind ever since I was 16 and while I don't presume that 16 year olds should support themselves let's assume they can at least from the age of 20, either through jobs or student loans. A 20 year old who doesn't either study or work is a total waste in my opinion.

Now assuming a conservative age range, let's say full time work from at least 25 to 67 years of age. If I continue along the current path I've done so far, economically speaking, that means 42 years of full time work with a fairly average annual income (for Norway at least) of about 65.000$ (about 50.000 Euro).

From that I pay 36% income tax which amounts to 23.400$ (18.000 Euro) a year for 42 years. That means that during my employed life I will have paid almost 1.000.000$ (750.000 Euro) worth of taxes when I retire at the age of 67.

In Norway, the average minimum pension is slightly above half of what you made when you were working which means that a pension of around 30.000$ (25.000 Euro) is to be expected.

Now, I know that the equation is more complicated than that and that taxes of course goes towards paying for a lot more than my pension, but surely one would have to say that to a large degree people pay for their own retirement?

Or did I miss something vital?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Well the money should be set aside for our retirement, but in the States the money goes into the general fund and gets spent. The government issues guarantees.

The bottom line is, your parents paid for your grandparents.
You pay for your parents.
Your children pay for your retirement.

The thing is, we have had a surplus because of the baby boomer generation and the government has enjoyed robbing the piggy bank all these years. As boomers retire, there will no longer be a surplus to steal, (I mean borrow) from.

The government is going to have to pay the money back as more people retire and smaller generations take on the burden.

Who is the government? We are.

Who will suffer? The people paying more for all this and the pensioners who will have to receive less each year.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well the money should be set aside for our retirement, but in the States the money goes into the general fund and gets spent. The government issues guarantees.

The bottom line is, your parents paid for your grandparents.
You pay for your parents.
Your children pay for your retirement.

The thing is, we have had a surplus because of the baby boomer generation and the government has enjoyed robbing the piggy bank all these years. As boomers retire, there will no longer be a surplus to steal, (I mean borrow) from.

The government is going to have to pay the money back as more people retire and smaller generations take on the burden.

Who is the government? We are.

Who will suffer? The people paying more for all this and the pensioners who will have to receive less each year.

So in short you are being screwed over by the utter and complete lack of foresight by your elected officials? :sarcastic

 

[Reverend Rick]

So in short you are being screwed over by the utter and complete lack of foresight by your elected officials? :sarcastic

I consider that an accurate assessment.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ah, yet another misconception that my line of work is sort of a hobby.

I think it's ironic that as you bristle at the misconception of your profession as a hobby, when you're compared with a writer, you assume that your profession is being considered a hobby.

Well the money should be set aside for our retirement, but in the States the money goes into the general fund and gets spent. The government issues guarantees.

The bottom line is, your parents paid for your grandparents.
You pay for your parents.
Your children pay for your retirement.

The thing is, we have had a surplus because of the baby boomer generation and the government has enjoyed robbing the piggy bank all these years. As boomers retire, there will no longer be a surplus to steal, (I mean borrow) from.

The government is going to have to pay the money back as more people retire and smaller generations take on the burden.

Who is the government? We are.

Who will suffer? The people paying more for all this and the pensioners who will have to receive less each year.

Wait... so this year's Social Security payouts are funded by this year's general revenue?

If so, that's nuts. Every proper pension fund collects the money it's going to need through contributions while the recipient is still working. There might be some variation between individuals based on need or ability to pay, but overall, the group of people going onto Social Security this year should have paid for their Social Security benefits over the last several decades.

 

[Reverend Rick]

the group of people going onto Social Security this year should have paid for their Social Security benefits over the last several decades.

Oh they paid alright, but the government spent the money and then some.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's ironic that as you bristle at the misconception of your profession as a hobby, when you're compared with a writer, you assume that your profession is being considered a hobby.


Wait... so this year's Social Security payouts are funded by this year's general revenue?

If so, that's nuts. Every proper pension fund collects the money it's going to need through contributions while the recipient is still working. There might be some variation between individuals based on need or ability to pay, but overall, the group of people going onto Social Security this year should have paid for their Social Security benefits over the last several decades.

The Social Security Tax is just that....a tax. From Wikipedia:
"The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for covered wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported..."

 

[Smoke]

The Social Security Tax is just that....a tax. From Wikipedia:
"The Supreme Court has established that no one has any legal right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for covered wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported..."

That's odd. I thought part of the reason Valentine Byler won his case against the IRS -- resulting in the Amish be exempted from Social Security -- was that Social Security is insurance. I don't know what year that was, but I'm thinking 1962 or 1963. It's been a long time since I read about the Byler case, and I'm a little fuzzy on the details.

 

[Smoke]

That's odd. I thought part of the reason Valentine Byler won his case against the IRS -- resulting in the Amish be exempted from Social Security -- was that Social Security is insurance. I don't know what year that was, but I'm thinking 1962 or 1963. It's been a long time since I read about the Byler case, and I'm a little fuzzy on the details.

Fuzzier than I thought. Byler didn't actually win his case; the Amish got an exemption from Congress. From here:

Social Security was called a tax and administered by the IRS beginning in the 1950’s. The Amish recognized it as a form of insurance, and refused to pay the "premiums" or accept the benefits.

When an Amish farmer, Valentine Byler, living near New Wilmington in western Pennsylvania, refused to pay, he became a sort of "test case" for the federal government. By 1959, he owed four years of Social Security taxes which, with interest, totaled $308.96.

Since he had no bank account against which the IRS could levy the tax due, it was decided to seize and sell some of his personal property. Valentine was literally in his field with his team of horses doing some work prior to spring plowing when his horses were taken. He needed these horses to prepare his fields, do his planting, reap the harvest, and earn his living.

<-snip->

Further meetings and public reaction mainly in support of the Amish continued through the year 1964. And so it came to pass that in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. As Wayne Fisher writes in The Amish in Court, "Tucked into the 138 page bill was a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. After Senate approval in July, the signing of the bill by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 13, 1965, made it official and canceled tax accounts of some 15,000 Amish people amounting to nearly $250,000."
​

 

[Revoltingest]

That's odd. I thought part of the reason Valentine Byler won his case against the IRS -- resulting in the Amish be exempted from Social Security -- was that Social Security is insurance. I don't know what year that was, but I'm thinking 1962 or 1963. It's been a long time since I read about the Byler case, and I'm a little fuzzy on the details.

Insurance to which one has no contractual rights seems less than insurance to me.
But I don't have an Amish perspective....just one of someone who buys a lot of insurance.
If someone tried to sell me a policy with revokable & undefined benefits, I'd send the scalawag packing.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think it's ironic that as you bristle at the misconception of your profession as a hobby, when you're compared with a writer, you assume that your profession is being considered a hobby.

LOL oh.....hush yo mouth, Jeff. I was responding to the verbiage such as "flexibility", "do this because we love it", and basically how our field is simply different from other fields because of the people and the nature of the work. It wasn't specifically because of the comparison to writers (one of my closest girlfriends is a writer and is finishing two books as we speak, but the indexing and the use of footnotes isn't quite what the editors want, so she's facing some obstacles right now.)

Oh, and for the record, I don't bristle. I either throw shoes or crack my whip depending on my mood.

 

[Revoltingest]

LOL oh.....hush yo mouth, Jeff. I was responding to the verbiage such as "flexibility", "do this because we love it", and basically how our field is simply different from other fields because of the people and the nature of the work. It wasn't specifically because of the comparison to writers (one of my closest girlfriends is a writer and is finishing two books as we speak, but the indexing and the use of footnotes isn't quite what the editors want, so she's facing some obstacles right now.)

Oh, and for the record, I don't bristle. I either throw shoes or crack my whip depending on my mood.

Women are so cute when they have hobbies.
Now....where's that whip?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Women are so cute when they have hobbies.
Now....where's that whip?

Awww, men are so adorable when they momentarily stop sounding like cavemen and actually string an entire sentence together ("bunga bunga bunga"). :foryou:

My whip is close by. I strike when you least expect and when you least want it. Be afraid....

 

[Copernicus]

If someone tried to sell me a policy with revokable & undefined benefits, I'd send the scalawag packing.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has been happening from private insurance companies, but people didn't know or expect it. They often tend to deny coverage and drop people who submit claims. That is part of the reason why "Obamacare" passed. We depend on the government for protection against insurance company thieves.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately, this is exactly what has been happening from private insurance companies, but people didn't know or expect it. They often tend to deny coverage and drop people who submit claims. That is part of the reason why "Obamacare" passed. We depend on the government for protection against insurance company thieves.

Is this your experience? My experience with insurance companies differs.
I've found that they even cover me when there'd be wiggle room not to.