This concept is Marxist. You wouldn't think so, but the definition fits.

Notice, I'm not saying Socialist. I'm saying Marxist because the concept is a mirror image of that Marx line in the Gotha Programme ("From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." )

The concept is insurance. ALL insurance.
You might have heard all kinds of definitions of it, but there is only ONE: A pot of money a large number of people contribute to, with the idea that some people take from it for an unexpected illness or death.
(That is the ONLY correct definition of insurance. I used to be licensed to sell health and life in Florida and had to pass the state exam. I REALLY didn't know the correct definition was that.)
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

I didn't say Socialist because Socialism is where government OWNS all the means of production in a country. That is the proper definition.
(No, it's not government spending. You can't say paying taxes to maintain roads or pay cop salaries is Socialism.)

Notice, I'm not condemning the concept. Not saying if it is right or wrong, good or evil. Insurance is a part of our life.

(By the way, Social Security is NOT an insurance program, as much as recipients would give you a black eye if you suggest it is. According to the original administrators of Social Security, they argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security was a WELFARE program that is financed by government's ability to tax the population. If anything, Social Security as a financial tool would most likely resemble a life annuity in the private sector. I used to sell those as well. You have to be life licensed to sell them if they come from a life insurance company.)

Again, this isn't a political debate. This is a fact, according to the material. And again, I'm not knocking it. Just giving the right definition.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

redredred · M

Up until1983 social security was an insurance program. Senator Joseph Biden led a move to replace a funded insurance program with a welfare program by moving the SS fund into the general fund ancvreplacing it with T-bills, IOUs essentially.

BohemianBabe · M

@redredred Notice how the media uses words to try to shape your thinking. Social security was always a welfare program. But the word "welfare" has been given negative connotations. So in order to trick you into being against social security, they claim it was "insurance" at one point, but now it's "welfare."

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@redredred I see - an essential difference then, between the US and UK systems.

The latter was never an insurance despite the "National Insurance" name; and although you pay into it according to your means (by being a percentage of earnings) the "to each" pension and health benefits are generally equal to all.

There are additional benefits and easements for those on very low incomes.

If ours had been a straight insurance scheme the resulting benefits in pension and health-care would be individual to what we each contributed, and probably a lot lower than they really are, in the same way as a commercial pension-scheme or health-insurance plan.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

BohemianBabe · M

@Reason10

The original administrators of Social Security called it WELFARE right up front. They argued it was a WELFARE program before the Supreme Court, in Fleming V. Nestor.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Social security was always a welfare program. And it's still extremely popular today, though the word "welfare" has become unpopular. So how do Republicans change people's opinion on this program that the working-class loves? Well, simply deny that it was always welfare. Claim the reason you like it is because it used to be "insurance," but since then it's become "welfare," so now it must be cut.

Reason10 · 70-79, M

@BohemianBabe The ONLY thing in the private sector that even REMOTELY ties Social Security to insurance is the life annuity, which is available through life insurance companies. (I used to sell them when I was life licensed.)
Look at the similarities:
1. When a life annuity annuitizes (yes, there is actually such a verb) the payments are the same every month and last as long as the recipient is alive. If that recipient dies in a couple of years, the insurance company gets to keep what's left of that cash reserve. That's similar to Social Security, the size of payments being determined by the amount of FICA paid into the account for a certain number of quarters. That means a person could have contributed as much as $100,000 over a lifetime, in smaller payments, but would get a lower monthly benefit than someone who contributed much more in monthly taxes over a certain number of quarters.
The first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller worked for a short period of time paying around $22 total to Social Security before retiring. She wound up getting around $22,000 in benefits.

As far as cutting ANY entitlements, LIBERAL Richard Nixon signed a bill that would make that impossible. The Budget And Impoundment Act of 1972 put all entitlement spending on automatic increase. No government can even cut the rate of increase. It would take an act of Congress to over turn that act.

That's one of the reasons why entitlements (Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, make up around 75 percent of the entire federal budget.

BohemianBabe · M

@Reason10

redredred · M

@Reason10 one other big difference. No one (backed up by armed law enforcement) in the private insurance market, legally requires you to pay in

Reason10 · 70-79, M

@redredred There are other differences, but I admit that's a biggie.
Here's an even bigger one.
If insurance companies or ANY investment companies that sell annuities did their accounting the way Social Security did, the federal government would shut them down.

redredred · M

@Reason10 the social security program with annuity and disability support as structured, would be illegal to sell in all fifty states of the US.