Stephen's Secure Blog #432
These stories about Stephen began was when he was 10 years old, and
moving to a new part of the country to attend a special school for
gifted students, in the 1950's. This was from a time before computers
would fit on a desk, and when people communicated with friends in other
countries by actual letters sent through the postal service. He wrote
225 of them to a friend. He stopped writing to his penpal, but found he
still wanted to record his life, in case he lost his memory again, and
wrote 30 entries in his first logbook. Then he wrote to an artificial
intelligence called Geenee, in the master computer in his school for
gifted students, which he started attending in 2016. Now it's after
2018, and he's continuing to save his memories in a secure blog.
All characters are fictitious, even if some of them might have names
that belong to some actual people, or act like people we know.
The stories may not be posted in chronological order.
Stephen is 23 in this story, in Fall of year 14 of his special school.
Stephen's Secure Blog #432 "Social inSecurity"
START Page
Back at home, Rose said, "You know." I grinned, and said, "For how
long?" I got poked a lot while I was laughing. That they knew I wasn't
going to tell them who would be giving world wide love to the Nagindra,
made it even more funny, which they knew. What they didn't know, is
that they, and only they, could have figured it out if they had tried.
The CNN Social Security panel was assembled. I ported in, and after
they introduced themselves, I said, "Greetings. I am Stephen. I am here
for a very important reason. To encourage people to watch this show,
which is of a topic which would bore most of our audience, most of whom
would not find me quite as boring. Are there any here who think I'm
wrong about that?" My grin encouraged most to grin back and not
disagree with me. I said "So, to start letting our audience see if they
are correct about me, I should state part of my own opinion on the
Social Security system, which includes Medicare, as it now stands, and
as it's expected to continue to stand. Ready? Deep breath? Here it
goes; I think the Social Security system we have here in this country
is so seriously flawed, that it should be done away with now, rather
than let it continue to torture the country by its slow agonizing and
bankrupting death. I want us here to try to do something useful about
this situation. Show of hands; who here didn't expect this from me, in
their wildest dreams?" All raised their hands. I said with a big, grin,
"Good!" Laughter.
I said "Before we get started on positions and ideas, let us be
informed of what it actually is that we are talking about murdering,
er, correcting." Chuckles. I asked a guest to speak, and he described
the program. Then another described the problems with it. Then I
thanked them, and said, "Now open for open mic time, I assume that each
of you have your opinions about what we should do about this, from
doing nothing different, to making changes, do not having anything at
all which provides these services. There will be no opinion here which
is to be considered invalid. ALL thinking, and the expression of it, is
useful. Let us begin on this end." That was the Liberal end, which I
think some had noticed. In fact, he said, regarding that, "I see you
organized us by ideology. Liberal on this end, and conservative on that
end, with moderates in the middle. Why?" I said, "I thought that would
be obvious. There are two reasons. One, a consensus is likely to come
from the middle, which I am closest to, for discussing convenience, and
better eye contact with my steely gaze." Some chuckles. I said "The
other reason is, organized this way, it is less likely for this panel
to require emergency medical assistance after a fight." More chuckles.
I said "Now, please stop waisting our time with trivialities, and say
something useful, which I hope you came here to do, or pass." He
passed. I stabbed the next in line with my gaze, and he talked well,
about some slight modifications. That went down the line, getting more
radical as it went, from privatizing the whole thing, do not having
anything like it at all. I said to the first two who had spoken, "Your
solutions are small stopgap measures only, and won't even accomplish
the little you propose them for." Then on the conservative side, I
said, "Pure privatizing is a good idea. Or it was when it was tried,
until it was seen that it just didn't work for the majority of
Americans it was for. We'll go into that later. Now let's go to break."
Off air, I said, "Best stock up on refreshments. Looks as if we are
going to have a dry ride." Some chuckles. I said "Anything you want,
but intoxicants, just ask. In spite of what some of you have been
called, no embalming fluid, either." Laughter. I ported to them what
they asked for.
Back from break, "I said "Now the last proposal. That this country
should not have anything like it at all. Senator Pall, please expand on
your position." He said "The Government should not be involved with
this. It's the individual's responsibility to provide for his future."
I said "Alright panel, and those of you at home. Ready for a shocker?
Here is is. Senator Pall, I agree with you, and I admire your adherence
to your position and ethics." They were really shocked. I said "Good
thing I checked for weapons." Some chuckled in spite of themselves. I
said "Hey, don't jump to hasty conclusions. I'm not going to catch you.
Back to work. I agree that no government should have to take care of
people who should have provided for their future while they could.
However, this government does, and so do almost all of the of major
industrialized nations. There must be SOME reason why this was done
when it was started, and why it has been allowed to continue. Who will
help us with that?" Silence.
I said to the man on the end that I had words with, "Now's your
chance to shine." He nodded, and explained it very well, to which I
said, "You are correct, sir. It was seen that with industrialization,
and the suburbanized breakup of the extended family, that the elderly
who had expected to be taken care of by that extended family, were not.
And they were voters. Also, the Great Depression had wiped out a lot of
savings, for all walks of life, INCLUDING THE RICH. America was in
danger of a new kind of collapse, and desperate measures were needed.
Other countries also had seen the scribbling on the wall, and
instituted their own programs, some being more rational and successful
than others. Most of those countries had universal health care by then.
We didn't. So, something involving health care was added into the
package, called Medicare. All of that was expanded to take care of the
disabled."
I said "Anybody want to tell us what would have happened, if all this
hadn't been done? This side now. Don't let's speak all at once." I
said, "You're in this business. It's your JOB to know about these
things. You don't want the public to think you're incompetent, do you?"
One in the Right said, "I'll say it. It would have been a disaster. The
country would have crashed and burned, and what we feared the most
then, the Communist and Socialists who pushed for it, would have taken
over." I said "Very well said. My hat I'm not wearing, is off to you. I
agree. Do any of you think the same thing would happen today?" I said
very fast to Senator Pall, "Not you this time! We all know where you
stand. Er, sit." A lot of smiles, and from him, too. I said "Alright,
show of hands. If you think that could happen now, raise your hand. Not
doing that means you don't think it would happen." One hand went up. I
said with a wolfish grin, "You thought you could get away without
participating, didn't some of you." Some chuckles. I said "I agree, it
wouldn't happen like it would then. Rope necktie parties, could,
though. Think about it. Giving or not giving something the first time
is a lot safer than taking away something people have had for
generations. It's not just political survival here, we're talking
personal survival of millions. And that applies to those who take it
away. So if we disregard that, what would happen if the program would
just stop now?" One the Left said, "For the disabled, too?" I said
"Either way."
He said "Lawyers would have a field day. I er, think I would join
them." I said "As a new lawyer, I admit that gigantic ambulance is just
begging to be chased." Some nods and chuckles. I nodded for him to
continue. He said "It would be tied up in courts for years, a lot of
years, with injunction after injunction." I said "To be honest, nobody
would win that but the lawyers." He said "I have to agree." I said "For
the lawyers of you, do you think that would be the same or similar, if
it were replaced by a voucher system?" Three of them in the middle said
it would. I said "Senator Pall, I'm sorry, but while pure idealism is
great, we need to work with practical realities. We can't rebuild the
government from scratch. The country won't let us. Will you work with
us to do the best we can to fix what we have? While still poking at us
with what you really believe? We need that reminder." He said, "With
how you put it, I can't refuse. At this time." I gave him a big grin,
and a little bow. He had to smile. I said "Let's go to break." Off air,
I said, "You've got six minutes this time. Bathrooms that way." I
pointed, and some went.
Back from break, I said "Why are these programs in trouble? Please
think, and respond." One said "It costs too much. It can't support
itself." I said "Correct. Second point first, causes a question. WHY
should it support itself? Does the military support itself? The
Department of Justice? Congress? Does ANY major part of the government
support itself? You all know the answer." On the right, one said,
but it's an insurance policy. It's supposed to support itself." I said
"They are, yes. So, why isn't this one doing that?" Silence. I said "If
Silence. I said "Didn't I look mean enough?" Chuckles. One said, "Costs
have gone up." I said "Yes, they have, but that's not the answer. Free
market policies are still making profits." One on the left, said, "I
honestly don't know." I said "Who is in the same boat with him?" Some
hands. I said "Well, we have here our very own expert on insurance,
who's going to explain all about what insurance actually is, and with
fancy charts, hopefully while we are still awake." Chuckles. The
professor did a very good job, and I thanked him. Then I said, "What is
Social Security NOT doing as an insurance, that makes the process
successful?"
He said "You have to change the eligibility when the demographics
change. When Social Security was first set up, the average life
expectancy was 65. Notice that's when the benefit starts paying out?
That is a viable system for retirement insurance. You can't pay out
more than you take in PER YEAR. Insurance is a betting system. We bet
you won't need to withdraw what you put in, because some will die
before they withdraw, and you are betting you will live longer to do
that. When more people live longer after retiring, that throws
everything off, and you lose money. Think of car insurance. Over the
lifetime of the policy, the average policy holder will pay more in
premiums than they withdraw in claims. Some receive nothing back, when
they don't have any claims, and some have more claims than what they
paid in premiums, but it all balances out so some money always stays in
the company. That's how the insurance company maintains profitability.
Those who's demographics show they are more at risk of an accident, pay
higher premiums, to be fair to the other policy holders. But you've
managed Social Security like a government program, and NOT as an
insurance policy that it really is, so of course it's losing money. You
should have raised the retirement age every ten years minimum, to keep
up with the rise in life expectancy. That's what a real insurance
company would have to do to stay in business. Or raise the premiums to
an exorbitant amount. Your problem is you can't do that without being
kicked out of office." I said "You didn't REALLY have to remind them of
that, did you?" He said "Oh. Sorry." I said to the panel, "As you can
see, we haven't actually met before this show." They nodded with wry
expressions.
I said "So, to fix the Social Security system we have now, you have
to do one of two things, or more usefully both of them. Raise the
future qualifying age for those of a certain age now, say 40, and put
money into it from the general fund, to make up for past poor
management. But what if we do it differently? Suppose we contract a
private company to run this. Comments?" One on the far Right said, "We
should. Government shouldn't be doing it." I said "But it would, as the
contractor, be having ultimate responsibility. And the premiums would
still be as payroll tax. The insurance company would be doing the
actual work, though, and setting the age of entitlement, too." One said
"That's something like the Obama health plan." I said "It is, but only
a little, which was like the Romney plan it was modeled after, and like
the Dole plan that was modeled after. But not quite. The premium
payment plan is different, and there is no choice of plans. The real
question is, is the split responsibility workable in the long run, for
Social Security?" No answer. I said "Is the lack of answers legitimate
this time?" They nodded.
I turned to the professor, and said, "I'm not sure if I should ask
responsibility in any business venture, is prone to conflict and abuse.
The side with the oversight will try to keep abuses from happening, and
costs low, or not, as the political winds blow, and the other side will
try to cover up abuses and errors, and run the costs higher, because
the precent of profit comes from that. That will both drive up the
costs, and cause a lot of abuses, and who pays the legal fees for
lawsuits and the judgements? And there is profit. A private company
needs to have that, and pay its people well. The government doesn't
have to that much. Over all, I think that approach will cost everybody
more than if the government runs the whole thing responsibly. And it
will eventually crash and burn from abuses and legal issues." I said
"Thank you for that dismal prognosis. Well done, though. I would like
to find fault with that, but I can't. Anybody else? No takers I see."
One in the middle said, "I see something as an aside. May I speak?" I
said "Sure. Go ahead." He said "It's about you. You aren't pushing an
agenda here like I expected. I think you really want this to work, and
all of us do something good and meaningful here, whatever the outcome."
I said "Of course. Who wouldn't? Why wouldn't anybody here? This is OUR
country. Wouldn't we all want the best for it? The best we can do? I
will never hold public office, and have no party allegiance. Neither I
nor my family will ever be using Social Security or Medicare. I have no
agenda to push but honesty and good will, and practical solutions most
of our people can accept and live with. I haven't tried this before, so
I thought we might see if this can accomplish something useful, because
this situation needed it. Was I wrong?" All of them said I wasn't, and
some had some not so dry eyes. I said "Let's let somebody else make
money from this, and go to break." Some chuckles.
Back from break, I said, "I probably should clear up some more things
about this conference. I didn't choose any of the people here but the
producer. I did specify that I wanted some experts who could speak so
that we could all understand, and the full range of ideologies from
Congress, who could also communicate well. I don't know who helped the
producer choose, but I don't have any complaints about the results. If
you're interested, I don't know if you should take that as a complement
or an insult." Laughter. I said "There is one more thing I have to tell
you. It's about me and health care. I won't be here forever, doing the
love and health broadcasts. I estimate nine or ten years more, maximum.
I've known I've been on borrowed time since I discovered who I was, and
who owns me in this life. I've already been called home. This time we
have together now is just a compassionate extension. I can't guarantee
the love and healing broadcasts will continue without me. I still have
some more tests and experiments to do to try to see if it could be
possible. So, anything that comes of this little get together, should
be calculated with that in mind, that we er, you, won't still have the
reduced health care needs that you have now. You might not have it
later." There were a lot of wet cheeks. Some of that surprised me.
I said "Now back to work. We've considered some possible fixes and
options for Social Security. One more. Why does it need to be an
insurance? Why not just provide the service as it is, with either
assigned revenue, or out of the general fund? A point. The amount of
money that a client receives is calculated based on what was put into
the program while they were working and paying payroll taxes. That
seems fair, but is it truly fair? Even those who have paid the most
into the fund, receive from it at a less than comfortable subsistence
level, which, if that is the only income they have, puts them below the
poverty level. So, some with low paying jobs receive even less. That
puts the burden on other federal programs for the poor, which still
isn't enough, and so the States have to pitch in, too. Maintaining all
those separate programs, which can serve at cross purposes, actually
costs the government and tax payers more than if it was all managed by
only one program. Other countries do that, so we KNOW it costs less,
being much more efficient. Thoughts, anybody?" On the Left, one said,
"You mean something like an Elder and Disabled Care Program, where they
get everything they would get with separate programs, as a one stop
solution?"
I said "Something like that, yes." Another said, "That would mean
that the client would have just one caseworker team, and only have to
fill out one set of documents. That WOULD reduce costs!" One said "We
have something like that in my State, but it's a coordinator position.
I interned in it in my youth. I think most of you just can't conceive
of all the different State and federal programs they could qualify for,
and the unending load of paperwork, and how many individual caseworkers
for each program who are totally incompetent, which is why we have to
provide a lot of legal services, just to get them to do their jobs
right. It's a real nightmare! And most of the clients who qualify for
these programs don't even know about them, which is why we have to pay
a lot of outreach workers to inform them of it. Some of the elderly DIE
without ever knowing that help actually existed. Sometimes we find them
frozen in their homes!" He actually cried. I went to him and hugged him
love. I said to the camera, "Break!"
Off air, I said, "I'm sorry. I didn't know of your experiences." He
said "Thank you. Those of my party are thought to be heartless. I think
I just broke a rule about that." The man next to him said, "There is no
rule. We are ALL human beings!" The man I hugged said, "All of you
here, before you leave, get Stephen to hug you. Believe me, it's an
experience you do NOT want to miss!" I went back to my podium, and said
with fake sadness, "And after all we've been through, you have to
embarrass me?" Some chuckles. Back on air, I said, "We have a proposal
on the table. More comments?" One said "I agree that would lower the
cost at all levels, but wouldn't that put even more power into the
federal government, and take away from the states?" One said, "I don't
think so. The feds already have all the power for that, with the
payroll tax, and the bulk of the services in Social Security and
Medicare. I think it would actually help the states to not have to do a
lot of what they have to do now." One said "And there already is
Supplemental Social Security for those who haven't worked enough before
drawing it, and other situations." I said "Of course all that can still
be funded the same way it is now, but I think you know it's a lot more
than just an insurance program now. So, what do you think. Keep it as
an insurance program, or a direct benefit that isn't tied to actuary
tables? To clarify, every elder gets what they need to live on,
adjusted to the cost of living where they are, after a certain age if
they are not working, and are not rich. Ah, I see your surprise. I do
support a means test, which we can do fairly only if it's NOT an
insurance." There was a lot of approval for that idea.
I said "But it's still a redistribution of wealth." Some looked
embarrassed. I grinned, and said, "Interesting reactions. Well, there
is this. These people we are talking about BUILT our nation! They gave
their efforts and sometimes their health, they SACRIFICED, to make this
country, and us, great. We who are young enough and able to work, OWE
it to them to take care of their needs in their declining years. To let
them suffer and die before their time, when we don't have to, would be
a true SHAME. But for circumstances we and they mostly couldn't
control, we could be THEM. They are of US, as much as we are of THEM.
We are ALL Americans! Show them, if nothing else, that we care. That we
love them. That we won't desert them. Let's go to break." Off air, I
wiped some tears, and said, "Sorry. I get a little carried away at
times." They all said it wasn't a problem, while wiping their own
tears. I said, Back from break, "We still haven't addressed why this
country can't just let people save for their retirement on their own.
Anybody want to comment?"
I looked at the far Right. He said "Aww, do I have to? What about my
ideals?" I said, "You're honest. You're a doctor. You know people,
perhaps better than most." He sighed, and said, "Oh, alright. Most just
won't do it. Even those who can afford it. They know it's a risk, but
for a piece of the American dream, they'll take it." One asked to
speak, and said, "And even if they do save, an emergency comes along,
and they have to use that savings, and they are wiped out. And then we
all have to pay to support them later. That's actually not fair. I
don't believe I'm saying this as a Conservative, but if we have to
raise payroll taxes to support Social Security, I'm for it. We can't
let them suffer and die in old age, but it's not fair to make others
pay for it more than they have to. Stephen! We all know you are fair to
a fault. Do you agree?" I said "Not with the fault part [chuckles], but
yes, I agree."
I said "Now it's time to summarize what we have discussed. We have
found that we need Social Security and Medicare to continue in some
form, because getting rid of it would cost way too much, even if it
were possible, politically or legally. We have learned why it's in
trouble is because as in insurance program, it wasn't managed like an
insurance program. To make it work as it is, the age of entitlement
must be raised, and new funds must be put in to compensate for the
incorrect management. We have seen that changing it from an insurance
system to a direct comprehensive support and entitlement system, would
be more efficient and cost less, and more qualified recipients will
actually receive the services they are currently entitled to. We have
seen that party lines don't mean a hill of beans when it really comes
to compassion for and service to those who made us who we are today. We
are ALL people who value and love our fellow Americans, and those who
depend on us to LIVE. While I've been talking, I've been writing up
what we discussed, as comprehensive proposals. A lot of them. I'll give
them to you before you leave, and CNN will post them on their Web site
after I tell them to do it. Well, we did earn them some money with this
show. It's the least they can do." Some chuckles.
I said "Now what some might consider to be a threat. I see that
REALLY got your attention." Chuckles. I said "To Congress and the
President. To me, if you are going to do nothing about this, that is
NOT an option. You do NOT want to disappoint me, do you? Or the
American people! On their behalf, well, I'm not always as pleasant to
some people as we would all like. Got it? You've got work to do. Do it!
Now to all Americans. Don't let them ignore this. Light some fires
under their butts. MAKE them do something useful for your country. For
services YOU might depend on for life itself, someday. Panel? Final
comments?" There were comments of support. Then I said, "And so ends
this conference. To all who worked on this to make it happen, please
accept my heartfelt thanks. To the experts and panel [I listed them by
alphabetical order], I really appreciate your work, and apologize for
what I put you through. Er, a little." Some chuckles. I said "Thank you
for being here. Good night, and may all you believe is holy, bless you
with love and care." Len announced from the control room, "Off air, and
closed."
I said "On your podiums are those proposals. Your bosses have large
piles of them on their desks. That might surprise them a little. Not as
much as thumbtacks on their chairs, but that's an idea that's VERY hard
to resist." They had to laugh. I went to the left end, and offered to
hug. He accepted. I helped him to sit down. Then I went down the line,
and nobody refused. Then I went back to in front of my podium, and
bowed, and ported to the control room. I handed Len a memory card with
the documents. He said "We'll get it on the site before business
tomorrow. Do you think it will do any good?" I said "I don't know, in
the short term, but in building an eventual critical mass, everything
helps." He said "Ah! I understand more now. Thank you! Really!" I
hugged him, and offered it to the crew, and they all came for it. I
ported home, and received a lot more hugs. I didn't complain at all.
END Page
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Grant
|
|