PDA

View Full Version : (USA Residents) What do you think about SSI?



Psumi
December 20th, 2009, 02:10 PM
It's called Supplemental Security Income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Security_Income) for those who do not know. People say that they would rather not pay for other people to get a monthly, stable income just because they cannot work or have a disability that prevents them from getting work, and whatnot.

But what about you guys? Do you want to be paying for another person's income? Or would they be better off on the streets?

Keep in mind, if you stop the SSI Checks, thousands upon thousands of people will be out of money, and be on the streets just like the homeless currently are. This includes me.

Bachstelze
December 20th, 2009, 02:43 PM
I think the question applies to non-US residents just as well. And yes.

SuperSonic4
December 20th, 2009, 02:48 PM
I think the question applies to non-US residents just as well.

+1

Who in their right mind could say no to such a thing? I don't believe in condemning fellow countrymen to poverty - plus if someone is homeless they are more susceptible to illness which costs more than a roof over one's head.

social security isn't perfect and there will be spongers but the alternative doesn't bear thinking about

It usually only takes 3 things to make someone who was well off homeless

Psumi
December 20th, 2009, 02:51 PM
I think the question applies to non-US residents just as well. And yes.

I edited the title, so hopefully an admin will come by and update the thread title for forum display too.

Thank you, you guys.

Swagman
December 20th, 2009, 02:52 PM
The UK's NHS roXx0r. The only problem is people taking the **** out of it.

That includes the government.

Psumi
December 20th, 2009, 02:54 PM
The UK's NHS roXx0r. The only problem is people taking the **** out of it.

That includes the government.

National Health Service here in the USA means Medicare and Medical Assistance. Though, if you see it from Ireland's standpoint, Social Security, Medicare and Medical Assistance should be under one roof.

Bachstelze
December 20th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Who in their right mind could say no to such a thing?

I know someone here who would. Maybe he'll pay a visit in this thread...

Psumi
February 2nd, 2010, 12:46 AM
Apparently he didn't but; with this new budget plan, I'm wanting to know about even more opinions. cutting the SSI and SSDI Benefits wouldn't allow me to live anywhere, until I get a job. However, due to my autism, that... is not easily done.

Like in the other thread (About NASA), I also want to know what you want cut rather than the mentioned programs.

I agree, we should cut the tax breaks on the wealthy like Obama's doing, but not give tax breaks to the middle-class (With me, being low class or so with only 720 USD or so a month. While rental rates at an average apartment... are well over 600 USD in my city in most places.)

We should cut NASA's plans to go to the moon/mars.

We should also not build these new security devices for airports, when we've been quite secure so far.

another thing that's never been mentioned... is patent system. if we cut it, we might get the largest income increase in quite some time.

thatguruguy
February 2nd, 2010, 12:50 AM
How is this thread not a political discussion?

MaxIBoy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:00 AM
If the current heathcare bill goes through (or something similar,) everyone will be required to get insured. How does this help? It means that you will be insured before you get sick/incapacitated, so it's not a "preexisting condition."

I think that this kind of thing is a better alternative to the current SSI system. I could see a required "unemployment insurance" working out well. The main drawback is a potential for discrimination on the basis of race, genetic background, or neighborhood of origin, something which needs to be taken seriously even though it is already illegal.

Psumi
February 2nd, 2010, 01:01 AM
If the current heathcare bill goes through (or something similar,) everyone will be required to get insured. How does this help? It means that you will be insured before you get sick/incapacitated, so it's not a "preexisting condition."

I think that this kind of thing is a better alternative to the current SSI system. I could see a required "unemployment insurance" working out well. The main drawback is a potential for discrimination on the basis of race or neighborhood of origin, something which needs to be taken seriously.

if you're on SSI/SSDI you qualify for federal health insurance.

Medicare and Medical Assistance, the latter pays for the former.

MaxIBoy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:03 AM
That's all very well and good, but could you choose to have the SSI money pay for your own private insurance plan instead of a government one? (I honestly don't know the answer to this.)

Psumi
February 2nd, 2010, 01:07 AM
That's all very well and good, but could you choose to have the SSI money pay for your own private insurance plan instead of a government one? (I honestly don't know the answer to this.)

I'm quite comfortable with my federal health insurance actually:

3 USD co-pay for dental at Meriter Hospital...

1-10 USD co-pay for prescription drugs...

etc.

thatguruguy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:11 AM
another thing that's never been mentioned... is patent system. if we cut it, we might get the largest income increase in quite some time.

That's just wrong.

MaxIBoy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:14 AM
I'm quite comfortable with my federal health insurance actually:

3 USD co-pay for dental at Meriter Hospital...

1-10 USD co-pay for prescription drugs...

etc.That's good, but does not answer the question I asked. While the federal insurance might be good today, something could change in the future.

Psumi
February 2nd, 2010, 01:15 AM
That's good, but does not answer the question I asked. While the federal insurance might be good today, something could change in the future.

If the federal insurance were to be removed, people on SSI would have to pay for their own insurance, which would not be easy I believe. we'd all have to go on AARP :| or something.

And if SSI was removed, I would be on the streets.

thatguruguy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:16 AM
How is this anything other than a discussion of politics?

thatguruguy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:17 AM
If the federal insurance were to be removed, people on SSI would have to pay for their own insurance, which would not be easy I believe. we'd all have to go on AARP :| or something.

And if SSI was removed, I would be on the streets.

How is that my problem? For that matter, how is this anything other than a political discussion?

MaxIBoy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:21 AM
If the federal insurance were to be removed, people on SSI would have to pay for their own insurance, which would not be easy I believe. we'd all have to go on AARP :| or something.That's what I was getting at: It's safer to have at least an option of choosing a different insurance, just in case some disaster happens.
And if SSI was removed, I would be on the streets.And of course no one deserves this (well, almost no one.) Which is why I like the idea of a federally-required but privately-provided "unemployment insurance" for all citizens-- the government could run out of money entirely (ahem) and it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

thatguruguy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:22 AM
Which is why I like the idea of a federally-required but privately-provided "unemployment insurance" for all citizens-- the government could run out of money entirely (ahem) and it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

... and when the companies being forced to provide that money run out of money, then what?

MaxIBoy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:26 AM
That wouldn't happen. Note that the unemployment rate is still less that 15% in the US; while that is really bad, suppose everyone was required to get some form of unemployment insurance policy. That means that probably about 80% of citizens would still be making at least some kind of payment to such an insurance company. When you really consider it, it actually looks like quite a lucrative line of work. (The government is of course not currently turning a profit at this, but the free-market economy has a way of forcing businesses to streamline themselves and act competitively.)

thatguruguy
February 2nd, 2010, 01:29 AM
That wouldn't happen. Note that the unemployment rate is still less that 15% in the US; while that is really bad, suppose everyone was required to get some form of unemployment insurance policy. That means that probably about 80% of citizens would still be making at least some kind of payment to such an insurance company. When you really consider it, it actually looks like quite a lucrative line of work. (The government is of course not currently turning a profit at this, but the free-market economy has a way of forcing businesses to streamline themselves and act competitively.)

If you think that insurance companies spend less on administrative costs than the federal government, you are completely misinformed.

Your position makes no sense.

And this is STILL a political discussion.

overdrank
February 2nd, 2010, 01:30 AM
Closed for review Thread closed