Hi Bill,
As to #1, there is no reason the States could not have a supplemental insurance one could purchase if one's employer didn't provide this. This prevents the current double billing that those like my husband are currently essentially being penalized with. A balance could be struck with incentives for business to offer such insurance, plus there is still the notion that employers offer such perks to attract higher quality employees.
The State programs could kick in automatically if one loses one's job/private insurance in advance of becoming fully disabled. And/or the industry could be regulated such that if a person has lost a job due to the onset of a disability, one could compel extension of the disability coverage from the previous employer. My husband will at some point be receiving a workman's comp settlement for his wrist injury. It wouldn't matter if he was no longer with the company, that company will be paying whatever the award is. If he became disabled while employed and unable to work, it seems reasonable that disability would track back to the last place insured provided one kept that current.
It would cost far less to insure only those who fall through the cracks of private industry than offering the blanket system we currently do. And AFAIC, this is where SS as retirement income should move as well. If it is indeed welfare for those seniors who saved inadequately or fell on hard times, then let's call it what it is. But there are some who don't need their SS payments, yet it would be unfair to deny them that which they have been compelled to pay into vast sums. I again see no reason this has to be done at the Federal level.
I see many posts suggesting that SS should be taken out of the general fund and invested. Sorry gang, ain't gonna happen. The only way to change this is to decentralize that power by taking the dollars out of the politicians' kitties and putting it back into the control of individuals. I can see that someone might think a poor person with little financial acumen might just spend hogwild anyway. But if the places that 6% could be put were limited, and the penalties substantial for early withdrawal, once the #'s start to add up that person is likely to be motivated to look for ways to increase the bottom line -- human nature! Consider this, the states often issue bonds to raise revenue. Well, they can offer retirement annuities in a similar fashion. The security of a government issued payment but still the flexibility and ownership of the money.
The unemployment insurance issue is a similar debacle. If Diana (using you as an example because you have shared your current situation with us) had been able to save that portion she paid into this plan (and that her employers paid on her behalf) in a rainy day account, I bet she would still be drawing on that account today. But the current scheme sets us up for further setback. Studies have shown that unemployment bennies tend to cause people to put off finding a new job. Most want to use it all when given the opportunity because they feel (rightly) entitled to get something back that they've paid into. But the payments are not equal to one's former salary, and while you can supplement the income, you are discouraged from taking a job until something better comes along because you then lose those bennies. So you have to drain your other savings and/or go into debt. If you had the money in an account, then any income one might be able to bring in only extends how long that rainy day fund lasts and there is no benefit to not finding a job as soon as possible or penalty for taking a job in a different field until something better comes along. Also, rather than the government offering all sorts of job training and whatnot, you could also merely decide to use your money for tuition, etc. Rambling off topic now, but all these issues are interrelated.
Evie 