Healthcare and Social Security

The following is a letter written tonight to the SF Chronicle, soon to join a long list of unpublished letters (I have a rather long manuscript entitled "...Does It Make A Sound?" As in, "If tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it..." - 74 pages and more than 26,00 words - all the letters I have written to various publications since my near-death experience 3 1/2 years ago).

My inspiration, as indicated in the letter, was the juxtaposition of an OpEd piece by Bruce Bodaker, the chairman, CEO and president of Blu Shield of California, a not-for-profit health plan serving 3.3 million Californians, and a Crhonicle editorial decrying the failure of those in Washington to address the inadequate funding of Social Security.

As the letter implies, but does not explicitly state, those who need Social Security the least get by far the most, despite the fact that most of their income (I believe after $90 thousand a year) is not even subject to Social Security withholding. One of these days I'm going to do some serious research on where and when we lost sight of the original purpose of the program.

Per my previous post on "Therapy," the most important thing for me is having an experience of speaking my mind. If someone other than a lowly intern actually reads it, so much the better. When one actually does get published, it's a bonus!

Editor:

Kudos to you for publishing "The key to healthcare affordability - everybody pays," and to Bruce Bodaken for writing it. Those of us who are pushing hard for Universal Healthcare in California have dubbed it "The Universal Mandate," and Bodaken is spot on in comparing it to Social Security, which would be in even deeper trouble if young people could choose whether or not to pay into it. That was just one more reason to reject the Rove/Bush plan to privatize Social Security.

Interesting to note that you also feature a long editorial on the failure of "Washington" (could we call that a Universal Indictment?) to provide a secure future for Social Security. One of the most obvious, if rarely mentioned solutions would be to get back to the original intention of the Social Security program. Just look at the name. It was never intended to be an investment program for everyone's retirement. It is wrong to call it an "entitlement." It was meant to provide for the retirement needs of those who have little or no additional source of income. It is a travesty give it to those who manifestly do not need it. The entire society has a moral obligation to contribute to the needs of indigent elderly (who used to be sent to "the poor farm" when I was young).

And the entire society has a similar moral obligation to contribute their fair share to ensure that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. In my lifetime, our country has become a moral cesspool.