Social Services

Social Services...

Has anyone ever wondered why Social Services are called Social Services, and how the name sounds amazingly like "socialist"...???
Well wonder no more. A socialist economy or a socialist country is based on the idea that those that earn share with those that do not earn money.
Sounds fair, right?
In just about every country that has implemented a socialist system it works for a little while, then it fails. People find out that they don't have to do anything and they can still benefit from it. Those that do all the work get tired of supporting everyone else and they find ways to reduce their burden. Services skyrocket (everything from purchasing goods to getting a plumber...). The Rick leave or find ways to avert the system, the politicians get fat on the benefits.
Yet, here we are, in the USA, implementing social services at a greater rate than ever before. Trying to find ways to help those "in need."

Social Security, Public Schools, Medicare, Mandatory Minimum Insurance, etc. And the politicians are always looking for more, like socialist health care...

Socialist programs are supposed to "spread the burden"...so, why not help "spread the burden" and create programs where people can choose their methods to "do their part"...? Put the responsibility back on the People, not on the Government. Move away from Socialism and toward Freedom.

First off, you wouldn't need social security. You simply require that people have a retirement plan. If they do not elect to have a 401K or IRA or other "retirement savings", THEN the Government can provide a "social security" program that people can put money. However, be aware, traditionally the Social Security program does very poorly in return where a 401K or IRA get much better returns. Tis means that it is basically a waste of money to invest in a Social Security program, when other programs are so much better.
Now, Retirement is taken care of.

Education used to be a privilege. People who went to school did so by the work of their parents. Their parents sacrificed so their children could get an education. This means that education meant something. Now that there are laws forcing education, and the burden of education is shared by the whole of society, not just those that are using the service, it has become meaningless. The illiteracy rate is climbing, fewer people are entering college, the drop-out rate is higher now. We won't have too many more years before people being elected into office are bone stupid (oh, wait...too late). If we are going to require education for minor children, then it should be the people with children in the system that are burdened. However, I believe it would still be better to make parents pay for their children's education fully. This way, they will have incentive to make sure that their child does well. It will be an investment.

Minimum Mandatory Insurance...this is insurance which is very cheap, covers only the minimum and basics, and you can not be denied. The only problem is, it has to be funded with public funds because it operates at a loss.
While this sounds great, the problem isn't the cost of insurance, the problem is the cost of health care. My wife takes pills for her problems. These pills cost $300 for a 30 day supply. Does it really cost that much to cover the cost? Or are they making money on the misfortune of people (if you have to have the medication to live, they can charge whatever they want and you will pay it or die).
It also doesn't need to be so expensive for necessary care at a hospital. A one week stay can cost $24000... I can stay at a nice hotel for $150 a night ($1050 a week), and hire a nurse at $15 an hour ($360 a day, $2520 a week), and if I pay a doctor $100 an hour for 8 hours of work and 8 hours of follow-up in that week, that is $1600. And with medications, food, and the renting of medical equipment...maybe another $2 or $3 thousand? The grand total? Maybe $8170; and a savings of $15830.
I could eat better, get specialized attention, live better, etc, doing things my way than at a hospital...for a lot less money.
Part of the problem is, hospitals also run a small socialist economy within their own walls...they provide for illegal immigrants at no cost, so they have to recover the costs from those that can pay. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They system does not work...
And if a pharmaceutical company would charge a more equalized rate for medications, they could still make money...aspirin costs about $0.02 each; raise the cost to $0.05, and do the same for every "common and highly used medication" and lower the cost for the "specialized and life saving" medications. I know it doesn't cost as much as they would like you to believe when you can go to Canada (with similar FDA requirements as we have) and get your medications at about 1/3rd the cost of those in the US. Our local Hospital buys its medications from Canada. Yes, you read that right.
Bad business practices and socialism has caused the troubles in the Medical Industry in the United States.

The only thing to worry about are those that fail to live up to their end of the bargain, or cannot live up to their end of the bargain...(doing their part, taking their responsibility)...

The inability to work, unemployment, sickness, etc, etc.
This is not a tough scenario to fix...
However, this isn't a federal level problem.

Just because I disagree with certain programs at the Federal Level does not mean that I disagree with them at the State Level. However, this is a bit more tricky, because you don't want to go to a socialist program, even at the State Level, but other programs could be provided for PRIVATELY and I believe that to be the answer. Keep the Government's involvement in out lives to a minimum.

Employers and employees could agree upon an Unemployment Insurance program that people could pay into to survive a layoff or furlough. Only those that pay in (like any insurance program) would be able to draw out, and you would have to "pick your plan" like a 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 month plan, and your premiums would reflect your choice. Your employer could elect to defray some of the cost as part of the benefits package.

Other issues, I believe, should be handled by "social service" providers. It used to be that Churches and Humanitarian Service providers were the ones that provided for people in need. A good example is the Relief Society of the LDS Church. Another good example from the LDS Church is the Welfare program (no "free lunch" there). People in society could elect to donate whatever they want to these programs and churches, and these organizations could solicit funds from the public to keep operating. The programs work. Look at many of the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks.
The other part of this is "responsibility". The LDS Church tells us the responsibility for our care first falls on ourselves. Then to our families/friends, then to our Church, and lastly, to the Government. So when Grandma gets old, and cannot pay for things, and has used up all her savings, retirement, etc. Then it falls to her family to provide care, in either $$ or in physical care. If she had 2 children, they could pay 50/50. If these children had 2 children each, and they are of age to work and bare some burden, then you have 1/6th the burden going to each individual (and so on, you get the idea).

There are also problems that outline the issues here, like how the free market system isn't free...
What I mean is, if there is no competition, there is no savings. There must be a way to encourage and maintain competition in all markets. People will not stand for sub-standard service, and will find a provider that gives the service they want/need at a price they can agree with. Government regulation and deregulation causes problems in this system. They should be concerned about monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and not what business operates in what area with what share of the market.

Then to put the icing on top of this cake...
We need to look at the Politicians themselves. They come up with all the social services, but NONE OF THEM USE THESE SERVICES. This does not mean that they are rich (most are) and don't need them (most won't) but that they are "special" in some way as to deserve services to a greater degree than the average citizen they serve.
Take away their salary. Give them a stipend for the time they actually spend working, and require them to prove it (like any other employee on the planet). Rent them a place in DC or in the State capitals where they work for the time they are working, and pay their government related expenses. For elections and campaigning funds, they are on their own. They can fund raise but not receive any "public funds" and anything raised for campaigning is not "theirs" but it belongs to "the people" and any money left over should be used in the General Fund (or some other, more appropriate way).
They should have the same requirements and programs to deal with as the average citizen. No special insurance or retirement programs, unless those programs are also available to the general public (this is one issue with socialism, the "royalty" (our politicians) end up with "more than their fare share"...)
Any increase in their stipend (salary) while serving the people should be brought to the vote of the people they serve.
There should be term limits on ALL government offices.
Any and all legislation should be brought to the attention of the people, and they should have a "comment period" for the legislation to help let their voices be heard.
Petitions, ballot measures, and other items should also follow this pattern, and once delivered to the politicians, should be given consideration, following this pattern.
This all puts the responsibility for everything directly back on the shoulders of the People, not the Government.
This also heps the politicians make damn sure they really want to pass a law, because that law will affect them equally as it affects us.
From Social Programs to Public Responsibility and from Speed Regulation to Health care, politicians would be equal to any average citizen.