ACA and Social Security: Two peas in a pod

I just have to respond to Mr. Breen’s letter from last year, comparing Obamacare or the ACA with Social Security. Mr. Breen points to Social Security as an example of one of the “most successful programs” the U.S. has ever created and that the ACA will eventually be just as successful.

On what basis does Mr. Breen think Social Security is a successful program? It is indeed a good program for those who have paid little or nothing into it. It is also a good program for all of the Americans who have opted out of it such as large private and most government employees who have their own retirement plans. But for all working-class Americans who have paid into the system at the rate of over 7 percent of their annual income, almost 15 percent if you are self-employed, it is a very poor program.

It is a poor program because you will never get back what you put into it. It is a bad program because if you have already contributed 7 to 15 percent of your salary to Social Security you do not have much left to put into another retirement plan.

Why does the employee get so little in return? Obviously, it is because the system is basically a redistribution-of-wealth plan helping those who have little at the expense of those who do better financially. This is not bad in the sense that we do have to help those less fortunate; however, it is bad from the wage earner standpoint as he or she is left with a very poor retirement income.

Politicians cite that Social Security was never meant to be a retirement program. Well, it is obvious to all that it has become one, as the rate of withholding is equal to a good retirement plan and many of those with other retirement plans were allowed to opt out of the Social Security system. If Social Security is such a successful program, why do we not include all workers, including politicians, government employees, large corporations, unions, etc., and not let anyone opt out?

The reality is, one cannot depend on Social Security for all of the retirement income because much of the fund is siphoned off for other social programs. Why then, should the fund be paid for by only the wage earner and companies who do not have other retirement options? Social Security should be funded by all Americans as it is largely a disability and welfare program.

The politicians want to balance the books on Social Security by “means testing,” or in other words, if one has other means for retirement income their stipend from the fund would be reduced. But with all Americans paying in, we would have a more equitable solution as those not only in the private wage earner sector, but also those in large business and government sectors, would now all have the privilege of paying into the welfare programs which have been created within the Social Security system.

Now, I do fully agree with Mr. Breen that the ACA is very much like the Social Security system. It is plainly and simply a social program designed to redistribute the wealth with respect to health care. To redistribute the wealth of only a portion of the “wealthy” is, to put it mildly, unfair, and when things are blatantly unfair they will eventually collapse. With the opt-out provisions for politicians, government employees, union plans, large and influential businesses, who will be left to pay for those people who will receive a government contribution so they can buy insurance? It is stated that for the ACA to succeed, a large number of younger, healthy, primarily small business employees need to sign up in the exchanges.

Well, there you have it, Mr. Breen. It is about exactly like the Social Security system. It is a program designed for the masses, paid for by the younger, wage earning class, with the elite exempt.

Druyvestein is a resident of Rollins.