I am a 63-year-old semiretired physician. If I saved $2 million for retirement, should my Social Security become optional?

Your recent article (" I will definitely claim Social Security early. Why do so few people talk about the elephant in the room? ") mentioned a phaseout for people with more than $2 million in retirement accounts. That strikes me as an excellent threshold at which individuals could be given the option to opt out of Social Security while also eliminating or substantially increasing the limits on retirement-account contributions. Such a policy would shift more of the responsibility for retirement security from the government to the individual.

These are the toughest places in America to sell a home right now

Why fixing the housing crisis for under-40s could trigger 10% Treasury yields

Lockheed Martin's stock skyrockets as push to build more missiles faster pays off

Someone who has accumulated $2 million or more in retirement savings has demonstrated financial discipline and competence. At that point, they arguably no longer need the government's retirement safety net. Interestingly, from what I have read, the $2 million–to–$4 million range is also around the point where many financial planners consider self-insuring for long-term care instead of purchasing long-term-care insurance.

Related: 'I claimed Social Security at 62': At 76, I'm working at Walmart. Why do I still owe payroll taxes?

If your scenario existed in a laboratory, maybe. But people do odd things.

They don't act in a linear or predictable fashion. They save money and then go to Atlantic City and blow it on the slots. They suffer unexpected and debilitating health events, often through no fault of their own, and end up under a mountain of medical bills — health-related issues are still the No. 1 cause of bankruptcy. They become caretakers and give up work early, losing years of potential income. They fall victim to Ponzi schemes and other scams. People sit on top of the world one moment, and they experience a brutal reversal of fortune on the stock market the next.

You are correct that most forms of insurance can be declined, with some exceptions — homeowners insurance is typically required by a mortgage lender. Social Security cannot be waived. Insurance is intended to protect people who want or need that protection. If an individual voluntarily relinquishes all future Social Security retirement benefits, why shouldn't they be allowed to assume that risk themselves? Unforeseen events could eventually leave them dependent on public assistance, re-creating the kind of poverty that Social Security was designed to prevent after the Great Depression.

Market corrections, recessions, depressions, pandemics and human folly, along with investing in individual stocks despite the standard advice to diversify your holdings, can all take a toll on retirement savings. Investors can enjoy success and become overconfident, or simply take their eye off the ball. What will happen next? Spin the roulette wheel, if you like, and none of us will find out. That's why Social Security exists, even for people who are comfortable. It is an insurance program, not an optional investment strategy like a 401(k), IRA or REIT.

Should wealthier individuals be allowed to voluntarily assume that responsibility? Such a policy would reward self-reliance while preserving Social Security for those who depend on it. In practice, I'm not so sure. Life has a way of upending even the best financial plans. Moreover, Social Security is more than a retirement program. It also provides disability and survivor benefits, and any opt-out proposal would have to address those protections. What happens if someone later becomes disabled, or leaves behind a spouse — or even a divorced spouse — who qualifies for survivor benefits?

If you opted out of Social Security — assuming the government, in some bizarre reversal of long-standing policy, ever allowed that — and instead invested your former Social Security contributions in the stock market, would you still expect to receive a Social Security check every month based on those earlier contributions? Using an insurance analogy, the answer is no. Once you stop paying premiums, your coverage ends. Likewise, opting out of Social Security would mean giving up the benefits that come with continued participation.

Related: My second husband and I have kids from previous relationships. Should my house go to him or my children if I die first?

The average check is $2,000 a month, and, while that's a lot of money to some people, it's going to make for a modest retirement after paying for rent, utilities, food and transportation. And yet it's not as unusual as you may think. Approximately one-third of Americans say they expect to rely solely on Social Security in retirement. Social-insurance programs guarantee lifelong income for all Americans, particularly low-wage workers; provide protection for disabled workers and their surviving family; and spread potentially catastrophic healthcare risk across the population.

Mark J. Warshawsky, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right think tank in Washington, D.C., wrote in a paper earlier this year that a $2 million threshold would reduce program costs by about 13.6%, while a gradual phase-out would save 11.8%. Neither would be enough to fill the projected shortfall. Even those projections sound optimistic. Less than 2% of all U.S. households have actually managed to save $2 million in retirement accounts, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances.

There are no easy answers. Thank God for Franklin D. Roosevelt and Social Security. No one wants to rely solely on Social Security. But some people do, and they must rely on government organizations for food and housing support. A Florida man , for instance, wrote to the Moneyist earlier this year to say he's in a bad place. "I am 60 years old, and am a server," he said. "I'll probably be working until I die. I also have $4,400 in credit-card debt, which I'm paying off. Last year, I had to buy a used car because my previous one died. Right now, I'm working on building a $1,000 emergency fund."

People claim Social Security early because they need it. Most working Americans do not plan to wait until age 70 to claim, despite reducing their lifetime benefits by claiming the benefit sooner. Many retirees lack sufficient retirement savings; others claim early because they don't expect to live long enough to benefit from delaying, and believe the Social Security funds will run out of money in 2033, if Congress does not act first. And one in five Americans believes Social Security is all that's necessary, even though it replaces only 40% of the average worker's wages when retiring at age 65.