Single-payer is better referred to as “Medicare for All” precisely because this name ties it to a particular program that the voter knows perfectly well is not “socialized medicine”.

But while the CSRS employees do not pay into Social Security, they DO pay into Medicare.

The only way they can collect on Social Security is if their spouse is entitled, and any benefits they might receive are subject to the Pension Offset (which means they get little in the way of SS bennies). Those who jumped to FERS mostly did so because they were exempted from the Pension Offset rule and to take advantage of the Thrift Savings Plan.

But even before 1984, Feds still had to contribute part of their income to their own pensions under CSRS, still had to pay their share of premiums for whatever health insurance plans they were covered under, and started paying into Medicare in the 1970s when Congress was attempting to increase its solvency.

And being a Federal employee does not exempt anyone from paying taxes; so I can’t see how you could figure it to be a ‘free ride.’

RockPaperScizzors @ 39

Here’s a question, do federal government workers including the pres, vp, senators, congresscritters, supreme court justices pay into social security, medicare, and a pension? Or do they get a free ride off the taxpayers when they retire?

No, we don’t get a “free ride.” (And as a Federal employee, I’m damned insulted by that statement.)

We pay into Social Security, Medicare, and our pension fund in addition to our own version of a 401(k), the Thrift Savings Plan. We also pay taxes, Federal, State and Local. We also have to pay our share towards our health insurance, and most of these plans have co-pays.

Where in Ghu’s name do you get the idea that anything a civil servant gets is “free?”

I knew fed employees that didn’t pay into Soc. Sec. and medicare
All members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Federal judges, and most political appointees, were covered under the Social Security program starting in January 1984
Executive and judicial branch employees hired before January 1, 1984 were given a one-time irrevocable choice of whether to switch to Social Security or stay under the old CSRS.
So there are still some Federal employees, those first hired prior to January 1984, who are not participants in the Social Security system
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Here’s a question, do federal government workers including the pres, vp, senators, congresscritters, supreme court justices pay into social security, medicare, and a pension? Or do they get a free ride off the taxpayers when they retire?

No, we don’t get a “free ride.” (And as a Federal employee, I’m damned insulted by that statement.)

We pay into Social Security, Medicare, and our pension fund in addition to our own version of a 401(k), the Thrift Savings Plan. We also pay taxes, Federal, State and Local. We also have to pay our share towards our health insurance, and most of these plans have co-pays.

Where in Ghu’s name do you get the idea that anything a civil servant gets is “free?”

Edwards is making the same mistake.

Not exactly — what he’s trying to do is appeal to the people who think “single payer” will take away their ability to choose a doctor, hospital or other type of care.

So it’s a two-pronged program designed not to scare the Nervous Neils and Nellies. If it’s done right the single payer side of the equation will give better and less expensive care to its subscribers, and eventually everyone will switch to it…voila! Single payer.

kulshan @ 89

just for clarification….. I am NOT a Mountain in the pacific northwest.

And I’m not really an adjective. Just so you know.

Well I actually AM, in fact, a small hawk.

That’s why my responses are often so slow – ever tried to type with a beak?

Loo Hoo. @ 37

COST OF MASS INCARCERATION???

i *think* it’s about our “normal” levels of mass incarceration (which i believe are close to the worst anywhere in the world)…. not some new ICE/DHS program.

the witnesses include:

Dr. Glenn Loury, Economics and Social Sciences Professor, Brown University
Dr. Bruce Western, Director Inequality and Social Policy Program, Harvard University
Alphonso Albert, Executive Director, Second Chances
Michael Jacobson, Executive Director, Vera Institute for Justice

i hope someone brings up one horrific cost – new incidences of AIDS

We really need to take the bull by the horns and desensitize the american public to several of the sound bites that republicans have used for years to keep us “under their spell” and unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

Socialism is not a bad word. The greatest countries in the world have adopted some forms of socialism mixed with regulated capitalism.
My hope is that Americans never forget what happens when you let corporate america make their own rules. They need to be regulated, and the down jones does nothing to regulate the morality of the corporate machine.

Peace is not a bad word. It has long term benefits despite the fact that there is no profit for corporations, in the short term, by resolving and avoiding violent conflict long term benefits to quality of life, strength of economy do occur. Destruction absolutely has a way of causing the need for rebuilding. But what it destroys in the process, and the people who are benefited most do nothing to improve the whole of society. In that sense war benefits only the very wealthy corporate machine.

Taxes are not a bad word. They are the way every society takes care of it’s people. It is the way we build roads, repair bridges, take care of the sick and the poor, which in turn decreases crime rates, which benefits us all. Taxes must be regulated through a system of checks and balances but taxes are not inherently evil nor do they “ruin” an economy. Many economies with high taxes do very well economically, but it depends on what you are measuring. Quality of life should be the goal, not profit.

Dems need to stop running from these words. The very act of running reinforces the notion that we have something to fear by the words themselves. This behavior must be stopped. It is bad for america to let the republican sound bites dominate the american narrative.

I wish dems would learn that with every action there is an emotion. When you have “fear” about something that has no valid risk to life or well being, you reinforce the emotion and give it validity. The dems run every time these words are used. The words, the ideas, the concepts do not create a risk to any one’s life or well being. The fear is unjustified. Therefore the only valid reaction by dems and us alike should be to CONFRONT THE FEAR. It will only decrease if we are willing to do this.

Scarecrow great post…a good beginning to decreasing the fear in america about socialism, but we don’t have to deny that we have socialism in our country. We need to embrace it. There should be absolutely no fear as long as capitalism is allowed to flourish with it.

Brilliant!!!