Skip to main content

View Diary: If Ayn Needed Medicare, How Can We Do Without? (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  From your block quoted piece: (4+ / 0-)
    Since she had worked her
    entire life, and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it
         I could be wrong on this point but whether she worked her whole life or not I have read that she qualified for SS and Medicare because of her husbands contribution not her own.  She was "self employed" as a writer unless she worked part  time in the "fast food or house cleaning industry" making her in the end the same type of so-called parasite she constantly railed against.

    ",,, the Political whorehouse that is Fox News." Keith Olbermann

    by irate on Fri Aug 17, 2012 at 04:09:05 AM PDT

    •  Unless things were very different then... (10+ / 0-)

      Self-employed people pay SS and medicare. I certainly have for my self-emplyment income.

    •  SS tax "theft" (3+ / 0-)

      It could be argued, by those sharing Rand's position (which I do not), that had her taxes during her working life been retained, saved and invested, she would have added to her wealth and thus had more resources to pay for her health bills in retirement.  This is what the privatization folks want: for individual households to adopt what they call fiscal discipline, save the money which would have been paid in taxes, and be responsible (more like thrown to the wolves) for their own health expenses.

      •  Yeah (8+ / 0-)

        I thought about that predictable libertarian objection.  I think my answer would be several things:

        1) Is it really plausible that Rand's SS and Medicare taxes amounted to enough so that she would have been confortable paying for cancer treatments on her own?  How much money are we really talking about here?  If she was worth $500,000 in 1974, maybe she might have been worth $600,000 without those taxes?  That doesn't put her into some kind of new wealth class where suddenly medical bills become a trivial expense.

        2) In a society where there's no SS and Medicare, how many fewer books would she have sold, because people need to save every penny they earn to build retirement nest eggs, and have to spend extra caring for elderly impoverished parents?  

        3) Even if we argue that a no-SS/Medicare society would have allowed Ayn Rand personally enough wealth to avoid needing Medicare, are libertarians/objectivists really arguing everyone who "works hard" in such a society will end up so comfortably wealthy that medical bills are affordable?  Rand would already have had to be in the top 5% of retirees by wealth.  What good is a society where only 1 in 20 people can afford medical care once retired?

      •  Yes, well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        until they can get the banking laws, and the securities regulators on the side of the small investor, libertarians can go whistle.

        I always figured that social security was a tax that somehow the establishment would weasel away, lock box or not (Carlin influence).  So I saved (a little), and invested with E F Hutton. That first IRA  was a bust in the loose your lunch black Friday of 1983.  Ok. So then the advise was invest in your own company, you can keep your eye on it.  It got asset stripped in 1987.  So I bought real estate. You know how that worked out.  My husband got stock options in the high tech industry.  You know how that worked out. While we are not walking barefoot in the snow, a major medical problem could become a major financial problem.

        Until the financial industry is well regulated, we need the safety net.

        Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob" -= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-

        by sailmaker on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 12:15:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site