Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to correct your correction. Medicare Advantage plans come in both types, PPO and HMO. My Kaiser Medicare Advantage Plan is an HMO. If I am within their service area I have to use Kaiser facilities, doctors, and pharmacies. If I am traveling out of their areas, then I am still covered when I do not use their facilities.
Kaiser maintains several large hospital complexes in the greater Los Angeles area as well as satellite offices with doctors and labs in addition to the hospital complexes.
Well then, I guess I stand corrected for my correction because the ones with which I was familiar were all PPO's. You do learn new things on CD everyday.
I have to correct you here. Medicare Advantage is not an HMO at all. It is by all definition PPO. Physicians and hospitals are not restricted to only one facility and can sign up at any time. They do not share in one corporation as do HMO's.
MA Plans can vary a great deal. For example, they can have routine dental care twice a year and vision care with eyeglasses also included. There is no deductible and there is an out of pocket or medical gap. Prescription drugs are part of MA plans. Mine has all of these.
Of course there is no free lunch and I pay more premium for these extra benefits but it's worth it to me because those and the lower co-pays, and I unfortuantely have a serious chronic illness that brings me to the doctor a lot makes it necessary for me to use my insurance. My premium is $143 a month and well worth it. But for others who do not require a lot of coverage, there are other far less expensive plans.
I have to correct you. Most Medicare Advantage plans ARE HMOs. Where do you live that you have to pay $143 /mo for a MA plan? I have all your benefits plus a lot more and I don't have to pay any premium at all.
I have to correct you. Most Medicare Advantage plans ARE HMOs. Where do you live that you have to pay $143 /mo for a MA plan? I have all your benefits plus a lot more and I don't have to pay any premium at all.
What is offered in different areas and by different companies can vary widely.
You might find a choice of a HMO, PPO or a POS and you might find little choice.
Some cover your Plan B premium and some do not, you still have to pay it.
Monthly premiums, deductibles and co-pays can also vary greatly.
I have to correct you. Most Medicare Advantage plans ARE HMOs. Where do you live that you have to pay $143 /mo for a MA plan? I have all your benefits plus a lot more and I don't have to pay any premium at all.
Perhaps you are beginning to understand what I meant when I talked about how good we have it in California. Zero premium Medicare Advantage Plans are the norm here, but in some other areas of the country they pay through the nose. While that remains a great mystery to me, it is nonetheless the truth.
I have to correct you. Most Medicare Advantage plans ARE HMOs. Where do you live that you have to pay $143 /mo for a MA plan? I have all your benefits plus a lot more and I don't have to pay any premium at all.
I have a Medicare Advantage PPO Plan in Portland OR. There are Medicare Advantage HMO Plans here e and they are less expensive. The two MA HMO plans I know of are Kaiser and Providence Plans. You can go only to the doctors affiliated with their facilities.
With my PPO plan, you can go to any doctor or hospital who is signed up with the plan. That's why I chose this plan because my doctors weren't affiliated with either of them or any other HMO and I didn't want to lose them but they were on several PPO plans.
And I see you live in SoCal which has a lot better deals than much of the other states. While I don't know if it is true in most states that Medicare Advantage Plans are HMOs, I have learned that many are which is something I did not know before.
Yes, they automatically deduct your Medicare premiums from your social security check each month. SS is pretty much paperless these days, cost savings and it reduces theft from mailboxes.
Ideally in retirement your SS should cover your living expenses, taxes, utilities, food, health ins premiums and your "fixed" cost items, etc. Your savings should then go toward extras like house upkeep, travel, fun. If you can work your budget out to meet that, you will have a pretty nice retirement--if you have pension, all the better.
SS was NEVER EVER supposed to do what you've listed. It was ONLY created to be a supplement to a regular retirement. At no time was it ever intended to be THE retirement. Anyone who is counting on SS as their only retirement is probably going to be living in poverty. Look up the meaning of supplement.
SS was NEVER EVER supposed to do what you've listed. It was ONLY created to be a supplement to a regular retirement. At no time was it ever intended to be THE retirement. Anyone who is counting on SS as their only retirement is probably going to be living in poverty. Look up the meaning of supplement.
Where did I say it was your "only" plan? The point was to keep your fixed expenses low and use your savings for your fun stuff. You have to read the entire post before you fly off the handle. It's an ideal plan because it pretty much ensures you don't run out of money and if something happens, you have enough money to cover your fixed expenses and won't end up eating cat food.
SS was NEVER EVER supposed to do what you've listed. It was ONLY created to be a supplement to a regular retirement. At no time was it ever intended to be THE retirement. Anyone who is counting on SS as their only retirement is probably going to be living in poverty. Look up the meaning of supplement.
Well then I guess I must be a mistake because I live off SS and a very tiny pension very well. And I am by no means living in poverty. It is "THE retirement" on which I am living.
I was forced to retire on my small amount of savings after my previous large amount of savings was stolen by my union's financial investment company and a forced early retirement due to health failure happened before I was able to recoup all I had lost. So due to cirucumstances beyond my control, I found I had to rely on SS as my main retirement support.
And I have a very good Medicare Advantage Plan. I do have some savings in the form of an IRA and remainders of a 401k but have not had to use them. My liquid savings are mostly taken up by medical expenses that my MA plan unfortuately does not pay when needed but so far I have been able to live on my SS in my day to day expenses that Golfgal describes.
The short answer is rather hard, usually, but there are a lot of variables which can account for the difference of opinion expressed in the last few posts above.
For starters, not everybody's Social Security retirement benefits are the same, as they depend on these factors:
1. Length of time paying SS (FICA) taxes. (The highest 35 years of earnings are counted; people who worked less than 35 years will have lower SS benefits, other things being equal (which they aren't).
2. High, medium, or low wages while working? The higher the wages, the higher the benefits, but not in proportion (low-wage earners get a higher percentage back than high-wage earners).
3. Age at which SS retirement benefits are begun. They can be started anywhere from age 62 to age 70, and the older you are when you start them, the higher the benefit amount per month.
The average monthly SS benefit is approximately $1200, but the maximum possible is nearly twice that, so there is a tremendous range of benefits people can be drawing. If $1200 is the average, that means many folks are getting even less. In addition, there are many married couples where both spouses worked, so those folks will each be drawing a benefit, but it doesn't cost twice as much for a couple to live together.
In addition to all the above, amount of monthly income tells us nothing about whether an individual (or couple) has a paid-off house, for example, and that can make a pretty fair difference.
So my conclusion is that while some folks do fine on their SS alone, it is not an easy thing in general and for many it's a terrible struggle. It may sound like I am being vague to the point of a cop-out, but I submit that my conclusion fits the facts.
Perhaps you are beginning to understand what I meant when I talked about how good we have it in California. Zero premium Medicare Advantage Plans are the norm here, but in some other areas of the country they pay through the nose. While that remains a great mystery to me, it is nonetheless the truth.
I have always understood that we have it good in California. I talked to Health Net about it and they said it is simply because we have a large population base with a very strong provider network. We also have Kaiser which is a leader in this area. Bear in mind that it does vary here in California by the county you live in. Some are better than others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How hard is it to live on SS alone?
