Koch to Hayek: Use Social Security!

christiefan915

Catalyst
Social security. If it's good enough for Koch's cronies, it's good enough for the rest of us.

"There’s right-wing hypocrisy, and then there’s this: Charles Koch, billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal retirement insurance and healthcare programs.

This extraordinary correspondence regarding Social Security began in early June 1973, weeks after Koch was appointed president of the Institute for Humane Studies. Along with his brothers, Koch inherited his father’s privately held oil company in 1967, becoming one of the richest men in America. He used this fortune to help turn the IHS, then based in Menlo Park, California, into one of the world’s foremost libertarian think tanks. Soon after taking over as president, Koch invited Hayek to serve as the institute’s “distinguished senior scholar” in preparation for its first conference on Austrian economics, to be held in June 1974.

Hayek initially declined Koch’s offer. In a letter to IHS secretary Kenneth Templeton Jr., dated June 16, 1973, Hayek explains that he underwent gall bladder surgery in Austria earlier that year, which only heightened his fear of “the problems (and costs) of falling ill away from home.” (Thanks to waves of progressive reforms, postwar Austria had near universal healthcare and robust social insurance plans that Hayek would have been eligible for.)

IHS vice president George Pearson (who later became a top Koch Industries executive) responded three weeks later, conceding that it was all but impossible to arrange affordable private medical insurance for Hayek in the United States. However, thanks to research by Yale Brozen, a libertarian economist at the University of Chicago, Pearson happily reported that “social security was passed at the University of Chicago while you [Hayek] were there in 1951. You had an option of being in the program. If you so elected at that time, you may be entitled to coverage now.”

A few weeks later, the institute reported the good news: Professor Hayek had indeed opted into Social Security while he was teaching at Chicago and had paid into the program for ten years. He was eligible for benefits. On August 10, 1973, Koch wrote a letter appealing to Hayek to accept a shorter stay at the IHS, hard-selling Hayek on Social Security’s retirement benefits, which Koch encouraged Hayek to draw on even outside America. He also assured Hayek that Medicare, which had been created in 1965 by the Social Security amendments as part of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs, would cover his medical needs.

Koch writes: “You may be interested in the information that we uncovered on the insurance and other benefits that would be available to you in this country. Since you have paid into the United States Social Security Program for a full forty quarters, you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World. Also, at any time you are in the United States, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage.”

Then, taking on the unlikely role of Social Security Administration customer service rep, Koch adds, “In order to be eligible for medical coverage you must apply during the registration period which is anytime from January 1 to March 31. For your further information, I am enclosing a pamphlet on Social Security.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security
 
I have yet to see a Koch-sucking Tea-rorist refuse to accept their government benefit check.
 
I don't understand what your accusing Koch of ....wheres the " right-wing hypocrisy"

Did you not understand this statement.....I'll hi-light the pertinent words for you....

Since you have paid into the United States Social Security Program for a full forty quarters, you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World. Also, at any time you are in the United States, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage.”

When you've been forced to pay for something, forced to buy something, only a fool would not accept that which is his ......
Its not welfare, its not a hand out, its what the person is entitled to because he paid for it....

It looks to me like Hoch is advising a friend to accept what hes already paid for.....good advise, I might add.....

If you FORCE me to buy a new car I didn't want, you'd have to be an asshole or an AssWipe, to criticize me taking ownership of it....
 
I don't understand what your accusing Koch of ....wheres the " right-wing hypocrisy"

Did you not understand this statement.....I'll hi-light the pertinent words for you....

Since you have paid into the United States Social Security Program for a full forty quarters, you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World. Also, at any time you are in the United States, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage.”

When you've been forced to pay for something, forced to buy something, only a fool would not accept that which is his ......
Its not welfare, its not a hand out, its what the person is entitled to because he paid for it....

It looks to me like Hoch is advising a friend to accept what hes already paid for.....good advise, I might add.....

If you FORCE me to buy a new car I didn't want, you'd have to be an asshole or an AssWipe, to criticize me taking ownership of it....

Let's see.

Koch owns IHS.
Koch invited Hayek to be a "distinguished senior scholar" at IHS.
Hayek initially declined because he was worried about health insurance coverage.
An IHS executive says it was all but impossible to provide affordable coverage for Hayek in the US.

Why didn't billionaire Koch provide coverage for Hayek? Seeing as how they both have philosophical differences with social programs.
 
Hayek on Social Security:

"Though all insurance involves a pooling of risks, private competitive insurance can never effect a deliberate transfer of income from one previously designated group to another.

Such a redistribution of income has today become the chief purpose of what is still called social "insurance"-- a misnomer even in the early days of these schemes. When in 1935 the United States introduced the scheme, the term "insurance" was retained-- by "a stroke of promotional genius"-- simply to make it more palatable. From the beginning, it had little to do with insurance and has since lost whatever resemblance to insurance it may ever had had. The same is now true in most of those countries which originally started with something more closely akin to insurance.

Though a redistribution of incomes was never the avowed initial purpose of the apparatus of social security, it has now become the actual and admitted aim everywhere. No system of monopolistic compulsory insurance has resisted this transformation into something quite different, an instrument ofor the compulsory redistribution of income....

It is essential that we become clearly aware of the line that separates a state of affairs in which the community accepts the duty of preventing destitution and of providing a minimum level of welfare from that in which it assumes the power to determine the "just" position of everybody and allocates to each what it thinks he deserves. Freedom is critically threatened when the government is given exclusive powers to provide certain services-- powers which, in order to achieve its purpose, it must use for the discretionary coercion of individuals.

The difficulties which social insurance systems are facing everywhere and which have become the cause of recurrent discussion of the "crisis of social security" are the consequence of the fact that an apparatus designed for the relief of poverty has been turned into an instrument for the redistribution of income, a redistribution supposedly based in some non-existing principl of social justice but in fact determined by ad hoc decisions....

It seems to be the fate of all unitary, politically directed schemes for the provision of such services to be turned rapidly into instruments for determining the relative incomes of the great majority and thus for controlling economic activity generally....

It has been well said that, while we used to suffer from social evils, we now suffer from the remedies for them. The difference is that, while in former times the social evils were gradually disappearing with the growth of wealth, the remedies we have introduced are beginning to threaten the continuance of that growth of wealth on which all future improvement depends."


Oops.


http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/08/quotational_the_33.html
 
I don't understand what your accusing Koch of ....wheres the " right-wing hypocrisy"

Did you not understand this statement.....I'll hi-light the pertinent words for you....

Since you have paid into the United States Social Security Program for a full forty quarters, you are entitled to Social Security payments while living anywhere in the Free World. Also, at any time you are in the United States, you are automatically entitled to hospital coverage.”

When you've been forced to pay for something, forced to buy something, only a fool would not accept that which is his ......
Its not welfare, its not a hand out, its what the person is entitled to because he paid for it....

It looks to me like Hoch is advising a friend to accept what hes already paid for.....good advise, I might add.....

If you FORCE me to buy a new car I didn't want, you'd have to be an asshole or an AssWipe, to criticize me taking ownership of it....

What part of "had indeed opted in" did you not understand?
 
Now you've changed from Social Security to health coverage...

I don't know why Hoch didn't buy the man health insurance, or a new
boat, or a house, or a 747... and its all irrelevant...

The man was informed that because his had already enrolled in US Soc. Sec.\
and had paid into the system, he was entitled to it....
Is that what you find hypocritical..?
Informing a person of a benefit they paid for and are entitled to ?
And if he PAID FOR medicare, he was ENTITLED to that also.....

Hoch didn't make the laws....he had nothing to do with enacting these
programs.......
So, what the hell are you ranting about ?......

Like all normal people....if you force me to buy something, I'm sure as
hell gonna demand you give it to me whether I need it or not......


Try again, this horse is indeed just about dead.
 
Hypocrisy isn't illegal, and you plainly don't think it's wrong or unethical.
 
I tell ya, you people are getting scary funny! For real!

Stop the presses... sound the alarms... we've found the mother of all scandals! One of these evil Koch Brothers actually advised someone to sign up for Social Security, and even gave him *gasp* a pamphlet! Oh my God! We must band together and stop this corrupt evilness! First it's pamphlets, next it will be BROCHURES!
 
What part of "had indeed opted in" did you not understand?

Whats your point ?....Of course 'he opted in'....he was paying for 10 years....and didn't realize he was entitled to these benefits...
Are you implying, that because Mr. Hayek chose SS that he should not accept it when the time came....?

When I talk about being forced to pay for something, I obviously mean the people today,
 
Hypocrisy isn't illegal, and you plainly don't think it's wrong or unethical.

What's hypocritical about it? I don't get that part either? If we pay in to Social Security, aren't we entitled to benefits? If someone buys health insurance, shouldn't they expect insurance coverage? Where is the hypocrisy? Where is the unethical wrongness in that?
 
I tell ya, you people are getting scary funny! For real!

Stop the presses... sound the alarms... we've found the mother of all scandals! One of these evil Koch Brothers actually advised someone to sign up for Social Security, and even gave him *gasp* a pamphlet! Oh my God! We must band together and stop this corrupt evilness! First it's pamphlets, next it will be BROCHURES!

Whats really funny is that Poor pathetic AssWipe \()/, just doesn't get it....

I don't believe that Koch ADVISED him to opt into SS...just that he was advised that after 10 years, he was entitled to it....big difference...
 
Whats really funny is that Poor pathetic AssWipe \()/, just doesn't get it....

I don't believe that Koch ADVISED him to opt into SS...just that he was advised that after 10 years, he was entitled to it....big difference...

Well they obviously think something is wrong and unethical about it... oh yeah, and hypocritical... but I can't figure out what.
 
Whats really funny is that Poor pathetic AssWipe \()/, just doesn't get it....

I don't believe that Koch ADVISED him to opt into SS...just that he was advised that after 10 years, he was entitled to it....big difference...

I guess you didn't read his own words where he criticized SS as being "an instrument for the compulsory redistribution of income...."

Opting in means he had a choice. It means there's a disconnect between his words and his actions. Hypocrisy.
 
Now you've changed from Social Security to health coverage...

I don't know why Hoch didn't buy the man health insurance, or a new
boat, or a house, or a 747... and its all irrelevant...

The man was informed that because his had already enrolled in US Soc. Sec.\
and had paid into the system, he was entitled to it....
Is that what you find hypocritical..?
Informing a person of a benefit they paid for and are entitled to ?
And if he PAID FOR medicare, he was ENTITLED to that also.....

Hoch didn't make the laws....he had nothing to do with enacting these
programs.......
So, what the hell are you ranting about ?......

Like all normal people....if you force me to buy something, I'm sure as
hell gonna demand you give it to me whether I need it or not......


Try again, this horse is indeed just about dead.

Yes, your argument is indeed dead.

Hayek opted in. He was not forced to buy anything.
 
Whats your point ?....Of course 'he opted in'....he was paying for 10 years....and didn't realize he was entitled to these benefits...
Are you implying, that because Mr. Hayek chose SS that he should not accept it when the time came....?

When I talk about being forced to pay for something, I obviously mean the people today,

The topic is Hayek, not "people today".
 
Now you've changed from Social Security to health coverage...

I don't know why Hoch didn't buy the man health insurance, or a new
boat, or a house, or a 747... and its all irrelevant...

The man was informed that because his had already enrolled in US Soc. Sec.\
and had paid into the system, he was entitled to it....
Is that what you find hypocritical..?
Informing a person of a benefit they paid for and are entitled to ?
And if he PAID FOR medicare, he was ENTITLED to that also.....

Hoch didn't make the laws....he had nothing to do with enacting these
programs.......
So, what the hell are you ranting about ?......

Like all normal people....if you force me to buy something, I'm sure as
hell gonna demand you give it to me whether I need it or not......

Try again, this horse is indeed just about dead.

First of all, he opted in. He wasn't forced.

Second, Medicaid is part of SS. (Medicaid was created on July 30, 1965, through Title XIX of the Social Security Act.)

Next, the libertarian think tank exec admits that it would be prohibitively expensive for Hayek to buy private insurance because of his pre-existing condition.

Then Koch talked him into applying for Medicaid, a social program both men had "philosophical differences" with.

Ergo, both Koch and Hayek talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. Hypocrisy.

I don't know how much more I can dumb it down for you.
 
I guess you didn't read his own words where he criticized SS as being "an instrument for the compulsory redistribution of income...."

Opting in means he had a choice. It means there's a disconnect between his words and his actions. Hypocrisy.

Wait, when did Social Security become optional? Isn't this at the root of the debate over 'privatization' of SS? I think if we could make it an OPTION it would be GREAT, because a lot of people would OPT OUT! But you see, you're not talking about Social Security now, you are talking about opting in to a private health care plan, there was no mandatory SS in 1951. I'm still not seeing hypocrisy, or unethical behavior.
 
Back
Top