5 ms·

Social Security pays some benefits to people who have not fully paid enough into the system to have their benefits covered. I wished to exclude these people fr

Social Security pays some benefits to people who have not fully paid enough into the system to have their benefits covered. I wished to exclude these people from consideration and talked about the portion of beneficiaries who have. The latter group is a very large majority of beneficiaries and I used the term "vested" w.r.t. to this group. The point ought to have been clear and being pedantic on it is pointless. Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. I should have phrased my statement differently. As it is, it is incorrect. It is true to say that at present the situation is unseemly (and immoral). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21308569 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21308569

anamax 15y ago
>>Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. > You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. Are you suggesting that there's some law that gives SS recipients a claim on payouts or a constitutional provision? In the case of "a law", theu can be repealed by Congress and the judiciary won't stop (and shouldn't) stop them. If you're suggesting a constitutional provision, precisely which provision do you think guarantees SS "rights"? For example, http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ says "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." > It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. Not in the US. They have health coverage. What they don't have is insurance. Yes, there are limits on the "free" coverage in the US. Surely you don't believe that any place else is different.

anamax 15y ago

>>Congress could decide tomorrow to divert all SS payouts to hookers and blow and retirees would have no legal recourse. > You don't understand the role the judicial branch plays in the U.S. if you think this is true. Are you suggesting that there's some law that gives SS recipients a claim on payouts or a constitutional provision? In the case of "a law", theu can be repealed by Congress and the judiciary won't stop (and shouldn't) stop them. If you're suggesting a constitutional provision, precisely which provision do you think guarantees SS "rights"? For example, http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/ says "Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits." > It's clear that millions of peoples' lives are adversely affected by lack of access to health coverage. Not in the US. They have health coverage. What they don't have is insurance. Yes, there are limits on the "free" coverage in the US. Surely you don't believe that any place else is different.