Mandatory payments nothing new

  • Follow Letters

In considering all the furor over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), please consider the fact that we’ve had mandatory payment into Social Security for a very long time.

The dictionary defines an annuity as “a payment of a fixed sum of money at regular intervals of time or an investment yielding fixed payments during a persons lifetime,” which clearly defines Social Security. So forcing people to purchase a product is nothing new.

What’s the difference is making people pay into Social Security, which is an annuity, and forcing people into purchasing health insurance? I really don’t understand the objection to ensuring everyone is involved in paying for their own health care. The current system of those with health insurance covering the cost for those who don’t doesn’t seem very equitable.

Comments (8) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 06/10/12 - 04:45 am
5
1
You see, but do not see. The

You see, but do not see. The difference is the federal government is forcing someone - an individual doing nothing more than breathing - to buy a commercial product against their will.

As to your other point regarding the similarity between SS/MEDICARE and an annuity, remember your SS/MEDICARE contribution is legally a tax, doesn't get deposited in a account set aside for you upon deposit, you don't earn any interest, and you payments never end once they begin until you and your family members are no longer eligible. If I started drawing SSDI today after working and paying in for 33 years, SSDI would pay me back in full in just over 5 years not including MEDICARE, and benefits my kids would be eligible for. 3.7 years including my kids benefits. No annuity pays like that and survives.

carcraft
24201
Points
carcraft 06/10/12 - 12:35 pm
3
1
W there are TWO BIG

Wel there are TWO BIG differances between Social Security and manditory purchase of health insurance. SS is a TAX!! Repeat Social Security payments are TAXES! The other problem witn Mr. Larson's reasoning is that Social Security is not an annuity. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS per a ruling of the Supreme coourt! So Social Security is a tax not an annuity payment. And you get money from social security at the bennevolance of the federal government not because of any contractural responsiblity incured by the government because it collects a tax called social security tax!

Conservative Man
5303
Points
Conservative Man 06/10/12 - 10:26 am
3
1
Fund vs. product

The letter writer also fails to see he fundamental difference between the two. Social Security is a fund. Insurance is a product.
Let's hope for the sake of our republic this "Obamanation" will we overturned by the Supreme Court.

gcap
270
Points
gcap 06/10/12 - 11:01 am
3
1
If the rest of us have to pay

If the rest of us have to pay for the medical care of those who can't afford it, we are still infinitely better off than paying taxes to provide insurance for all. If we pay national health care, care for the poor will not change. Costs to the taxpayer will go way up.

desertcat6
1140
Points
desertcat6 06/10/12 - 02:37 pm
0
2
Soapy, Administratively

Soapy, Administratively imposed fines, penalties, fees, and taxes are all different, but can be categorized as revenue by the government.

dichotomy
30620
Points
dichotomy 06/10/12 - 06:49 pm
1
1
"I really don’t understand

"I really don’t understand the objection to ensuring everyone is involved in paying for their own health care"

Everyone will not be paying for their own healthcare. We, the working people, will still be paying for the same people we have always paid for PLUS if our employer decides to pay the fine instead of buying private insurance we and our families will be thrown into Medicaid and be getting worse healthcare than we have been getting.

itsanotherday1
40220
Points
itsanotherday1 06/10/12 - 11:22 pm
2
1
Just to echo the last part of

Just to echo the last part of dichotomy's observation in case some aren't paying attention. I will shout it in case someone's vision is impaired..

OBAMACARE HAS A PROVISION TO ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO OPT OUT OF EMPLOYER SUPPORTED HEALTH INSURANCE BY PAYING A "FEE".

Just how long do you think it would/will be before companies start dropping like dominoes in an effort to buoy their bottom lines and we are ALL on Obamacare, (a.k.a single payer, a.k.a. socialized medicine)?

As it stands, healthcare benefits are an important part of the benefits package they must offer to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining quality employees; but given an out, they would do away with it, just like most corps are now phasing out defined benefit plans for retirement.
If there is a phasing out of healthcare with commensurate pay increases to help the employee buy their own insurance, it may actually be a good thing; but a system that will certainly incentivize single payer is not.

itsanotherday1
40220
Points
itsanotherday1 06/11/12 - 10:22 am
1
0
Soapy, I've been preaching

Soapy, I've been preaching that for a while. You have to ask, "why do they want to turn the system upside down for everyone when it is only 15% or so that are not covered?"

I think we all know the answer to that.

Back to Top

Top headlines

School safety chief touts restructure

Last year, Alfonzo Williams announced that he would conduct a massive overhaul of the Richmond County School Safety department to cut down on inefficiencies and increase accountability. 
Search Augusta jobs