The Social Security Debate, Cont'd

[John K. Taber]

james withrow wrote:
> 
> Max: "Doesn't it make more sense, therefore,
> to maintain a distinctive definition for social insurance programs and
> try to
> include the excluded within their orbit?"
> 
>     I'd like to first agree with Max's assertion and ask a question of
> my own.  Would we be going down the wrong path if we applied social
> insurance  features to other government programs?  Health coverage, for
> instance.  Maybe wrap a few programs into one: college grants, AFDC,
> etc.  A citizen makes some contributions to the program and then she or
> her children can draw from it?
>      Unemployment compensation and workmen's comp already fit the
> definition of social insurance, I suppose-- which brings up a couple
> examples of social insurance programs that have been nibbled at by the
> right.

I also think the social insurance approach is correct, certainly
for social security, health care, and unemployment. My understanding
is that is what the founders of Social Security intended, but could
get no further than Social Security -- unemployment is handled by
the States.

I don't know if contributory social insurance can work for welfare.
It seems to me welfare has to be paid for out of general revenues
and can't be from contributions.

Still, the Germans call the entire system of social security, welfare,
and health care Sozialversicherung (social insurance).