Ever see how bare bones The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) {H. R. 7260} was?

[NNN0LHI]

Here is a link to the entire act: http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html

-------------------------------------

Here is a link to some of the improvements after its first passage: http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Q4: Is it true that Social Security was originally just a retirement program?

A: Yes. Under the 1935 law, what we now think of as Social Security only paid retirement benefits to the primary worker. A 1939 change in the law added survivors benefits and benefits for the retiree's spouse and children. In 1956 disability benefits were added.

Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program. (Full text of the 1935 law.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q8: When did COLAs (cost-of-living allowances) start?

A: COLAs were first paid in 1975 as a result of a 1972 law. Prior to this, benefits were increased irregularly by special acts of Congress.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q3: When did Medicare start?

A: Medicare was passed into law on July 30, 1965 but beneficiaries were first able to sign-up for the program on July 1, 1966.

[Enrique]

1. it is actually more comprehensive than I thought

The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program.

Basically the bulk of our safety net in one act. And by the way, Aid to Dependent Children was discontinued a short time ago.

[joshcryer]

4. The grants weren't paid for by Social Security itself. Later amendments fixed that.

The grants were just that, grants to the states to aid in their own health and welfare programs.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. "first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for ..."

From your quote:

"Keep in mind, however, that the Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program."

So the original Act actually covered many millions of Americans in dire straights. The part that we *now* call Social Security was limited compared to today (although it also applied to many millions of Americans right off the bat).

Of course, President Obama has repeatedly claimed that Social Security originally only applied to widows and orphans. And Alan Simpson claims that it originally only applied to the destitute, it was not intended as a retirement program. It would work better if the Third Way would agree on a common fib to use for snatching the Social Security Trust Fund for the wealthiest. It would be nice if they kissed me, too, because I like to be kissed when I'm getting... ah, never mind.

[joshcryer]

3. Kind of like how ACA covers millions of children?

Or how by 2014 ACA will cover every single person in 133% poverty?

Social Security only applied to workers. It did not have within it a mechanism to help dependents or spouses.

1939 fixed that: http://www.ssa.gov/history/1939amends.html

It still didn't cover disability for people.

1956 fixed that: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally56.html

Supplemental social security still was lacking for the poorest of the poor.

1972 fixed that: http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/ssi.pdf

The legislative history of Social Security is a long arduous process. Some new additions have been a step back, some have been a step forward. But the end result is always a move forward. I have listed only the most significant (to me) that have happened over the history of Social Security.

You can read the entire legislative history here: http://www.ssa.gov/history/law.html

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Broadly similar

The ACA has some very good benefits.

But SS and ACA are very different in scale and philosophy. Before Social Security, roughly 50% of retirees lived in poverty. Now it's less than 10% (and it will grow, of course, if the bipartisan war on SS makes progress). This has directly helped many millions of people, kept many from starving or freezing. I believe that the number of children who will actually be helped by ACA will be not so great - many more children will get coverage, but *relatively* few children get serious illnesses compared to other age groups.

Also, Social Security is a direct payment to workers, rather than a trickle-down scheme. It would be far, far less expensive to simply expand Medicare. ACA will transfer a lot of money from the 99% to insurance companies (which is why insurance stocks shot up when it became clear that it would become law). Because of this great expense, Obama claims he needs to cut spending and has asked that the eligibility age for Medicare be raised to 67 - this will cause great harm to many Americans.

[girl gone mad]

7. You should really be fighting for lower health care costs..

rather than subsidized insurance industry profits.

These goals are worlds apart and in direct conflict with one another.

[joshcryer]

8. ACA is shit. I just don't want us to regress.

All it takes is one progressive congress and you legislate a public option. 5 years later once the insurance industry collapses you turn it into Medicare for all / Single Payer.

[leftstreet]

5. Irrelevant. Private corporations don't sell SocSec/Medicare

Not yet anyway

[girl gone mad]

9. The ACA mandate would throw that door wide open. n/t

[eridani]

10. What Social Security NEVER was, at any time

--was a demand that people invest in Wall Street for their retirements.