Log in to become a member of Darcy DeMarco's Fan Club!
I am here to write today regarding economic issues faced by a few groups in this country. First, I would like to comment on the means testing that Social Security recipients are being subjected to at present. I will also discuss the building of most new hospitals, at present, in suburbs where people have insurance, rather than in cities, where people are underserved by doctors. Finally, I will tie this in with the taxes that some of the highest-earning workers in this country are forced to pay, and where these taxes go. A few years ago, Social Security, under the Bush Administration, had a surplus. However, because it is permissible for the government to use Social Security funds for projects other than Social Security beneficiaries - people who are currently retired - the program once again suffers a deficit. The government is attempting to make up this deficit by applying means testing to older people who are now receiving benefits. This policy has recently taken effect. It means that an elderly person with a certain number of assets who is receiving a monthly check might have as much as $70 taken out every month, with the dollar amount expected to rise over the next few years. These people, many of whom are 70 and over, are supposed to be able to afford the smaller checks they will receive. The amounts are being deducted by the Social Security Administration. Supposedly, this policy is supported by at least some Democrats and some Republicans. What I can tell you is that it is causing anger and resentment among the elderly. One argument that an elderly person could make is that they have worked for the majority of their adult life, and paid into Social Security during this time. According to federal law, every worker must pay into it. There are no exceptions, other than government employees. Social Security is not a voluntary program. It is compulsory. This means that while these people were working, a certain amount was deducted from their paychecks each week. Because of the way the program is set up, the amount was not held in an account for them, as some people would like to have done. Instead, the money was used to pay people who were retired while these current retirees were working. Now that they are ready to retire themselves - and as we all know, a large number of people are going to be retiring in the near future, as the baby boomers hit age 65 - the program is not there for them as promised. The bottom line for these people is, "We paid into it; we should be able to take out of it." Regardless of wealth, assets, etc. In addition, a curve is currently being thrown into this argument, which has many older people very angry with the federal government: some Democrats are now suggesting that illegal aliens be made eligible for Social Security. This writer has knowledge of a group of senior citizens that is circulating a petition to the government, asking them not to do this, as they feel that the money should be spent first on U.S. citizens. Why, they ask, do we not have the money for all of these citizens who have worked for 50+ years, but apparently we have it for illegals? Interesting, is it not? One result of this tinkering with Social Security is that many people who earn a lot of money want to establish Social Security as private accounts. Rather than the involuntary system that we have now - and that apparently isn't working that well - they would prefer to pay as much or as little as they want to into a private account that would definitely be there for them when they retire. At present, a person who earns more than about $90,000 a year does not have to pay into Social Security once they have hit that amount each year. Instead, it is waived. The Congress is possibly considering eliminating this waiver, and taxing everyone on the amount in question. This is angering younger people who are top earners; in addition, members of this group are well aware that by the time they are ready to retire, in 20-30 years, because of current problems, Social Security probably won't be there for them at all. Hence the interest in private accounts. Most working people, even those around 50 or younger, need to be aware that they probably won't be able to depend on Social Security to help them. This is not only true of those earning a lot of money; it probably won't be there for anyone. The people who created the program back in the 1930s could not have predicted the baby boom, or imagined the astronomical sums of money required to support boomers when they retired. It is also possible that many of today's workers are not aware that Social Security was never meant to be someone's sole retirement; it was conceived as one leg of a three-legged stool, with a person's savings and a pension or other type of plan composing the other two legs. There are people working today who are unable or unwilling to save money; what is going to happen to them when they reach age 65 or 70? These people do not read newspapers and apparently just assume that Social Security will be there for them when they retire. What is going to happen to them? Another area where the elderly, as well as the young, are being pressed is that of health. In the Summerlin community of Las Vegas, a doctor who has over 2000 patients, most of whom are elderly, recently joined a group called MDVIP. This organization requires that the doctor reduce his patient load to 600 patients. Each of those 600 will then pay the doctor $1500 a year. In return, they will receive same-day on-time appointments - an impossibility previously - and a comprehensive physical exam each year. In addition, they can contact the doctor at any time, via cell phone. Part of the reason for this doctor joining MDVIP is that he can now spend more than the insurance-mandated 8 minutes with a patient. In addition, patients would not have to wait the usual 45 minutes or longer to see him. Within a week of being notified, by letter, of this change, a large number of elderly people were looking for a new doctor. There was a meeting at a country club, held by the doctor and MDVIP officials; most attendees were elderly. Some walked out ahead of time. Because they couldn't afford it? Many people, both retirees and younger folks, move to Las Vegas because it is cheaper than California or other places. You can still buy a house here for $300,000. Food is cheap and locals can dine out for very little money at the "locals" casinos. In addition, elderly people are welcome as employees at many casinos. The author knows of one man who had to pay $900 a month for health insurance; he took a job at a local casino, and now only pays $90 a week. Regardless of whether they can afford it or not, 1400 elderly people affected by the switch to MDVIP are now out looking for another doctor. This will put pressure on nearby doctors. According to the local papers,there is a shortage of doctors in Las Vegas. The city is growing so quickly, that they cannot build hospitals and doctors' offices fast enough. Will more doctors become so pressured that they join MDVIP? Will there be a snowball effect? According to the Wall Street Journal, most new hospitals being built are being located in suburbs, rather than in cities, because people in cities do not have insurance to pay for medical care. Private hospitals, such as the Catholic St. Rose Dominican in Las Vegas, are opening several locations because of the perceived wealth in the suburbs. In addition, more and more people who are able to are going to places like Canada and Mexico for their prescriptions. Aging members of the middle class are being priced out of the medication that they so badly need. Is it right that access to health care be determined by income? We have all heard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most people think it applies to the poor, the indigent, the immigrant, etc. What about the elderly and the young working people? What about those who live in cities? I am personally familiar with one family, previously in the upper-middle to upper class, that was bankrupted by health care for a father who became very ill. What direction are we heading in when people who have worked hard their entire lives cannot afford their high-blood-pressure pills or even their family doctor? We always hear about what is happening to the poor. What about what's happening to everyone? Finally, I want to discuss what people pay their taxes for, where these taxes go, and also a bit about the various classes in this country. Many people think that the "rich" should pay for social programs, etc. I have tried to show that the "rich" are being squeezed, too. Many people are resentful at the high taxes they have to pay. I think this is due, in part, to the fact that many government programs are seen as wasteful. Sen. Nancy Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House, claims that she will seek to eliminate "earmarks" from bills that go through the House of Representatives. I think that if people are to feel less angry at what they see as a waste of taxpayer money, the government must start responding to everyone's needs. I know it's hard. It's difficult when you see human beings that need for their rights to be noticed and their needs to be taken care of, and you have to then try to figure out what to do about the monetary cost of doing this for them. There are some corporations that do not pay any taxes. That might be a good place to start. I also think that we in this country have some serious thinking to do about our immigration problem, bilingual education, etc. I will give you an example (at the risk of being attacked by a reader or readers): If I were to move to France, I would consider it a personal rudeness on my part to refuse to learn the French language. I also wouldn't have the audacity to demand social services, since I would not be a citizen of that country and also would not have contributed, through years of living there, to the economy or the society. I have attended community college classes with immigrants from the Philippines, Russia, and Colombia. All took the time to learn English. I understand that immigrants have human rights. What I also understand is that this country has to take a serious look at its finances, and try to figure out what we can pay for, and what we cannot afford. Hospitals and medical care, education, etc., are vital in the cities not only as human rights but also to prevent epidemics, etc. But this business of means-testing the elderly, who have lived here their entire lives and are already being pressed, and considering giving Social Security to people who are not citizens and have only been here a short while comparatively, when the program is already in so much trouble, is wrong. I just saw the movie, "Bobby," about Robert Kennedy. Is there anyone who can run for office who can bring everyone together, the way he did, so that these problems can be solved? I would be right there, and so might a lot of others, for someone who can face these issues head-on and assure a basic level for everyone, but would might also tell people, "You are being rude, coming here and refusing to learn the language." We are allowing people to get away with a breach of common courtesy, at the very least. I'm kind of afraid of printing this, because of what might be said and done to me, for saying this. That itself says a lot, doesn't it? I am in complete agreement that there are basic human rights, and that to be a leader in the world, the United States must try to enforce them. The problem is, exactly where is the money supposed to come from? How much in taxes did President Bush, and his family, which is rich beyond most people's dreams, pay last year? Someone has to figure this out properly, for a change, and stop hammering on the people who work. It only creates resentment and anger towards those who cannot do as well for themselves. How interesting that there is no anger directed towards those with mansions and servants, limousines, etc. Only towards those who made their money by working for years and who have no government influence. A lot was written twenty years ago about what Reagan actually did, whether he turned the earning classes against each other, to distract attention from the super-rich as money was funneled upwards world-wide. I wonder if he did. If he is guilty, do we really want to let him win?
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!