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.
Seems like it would make more sense to compare Medicare to an insurance policy.
I figure that over the years I have paid in about $300,000 in private health insurance premiums (several times that when my family is included). Of course I've paid into Medicare on top of that.
However, what I've gotten back from insurance is less than 30% of that. The premiums have gone up every year. In addition, if I miss a payment the whole thing goes up in smoke and there's no credit for the money I've paid in the past. What's worse, until last year, I could never get insurance again -- at any price -- due to a pre-existing condition.
Medicare is closer to a guaranteed (at age 65 or disability) defined benefit plan. But because of the huge expense of caring for seniors, there are huge central subsidies. So overall Medicare is the greatest of deals for seniors. And as we all hope to be seniors one day, it is a great equalizer. Most all of us will similarly benefit before we croak.
She wants her free sh*t and she wants it now. She believes she shouldn't have to pay into anything. She hasn't been negatively impacted by Obamacare. Yet.
She believes she will never live to be 65, as all 20-somethings do.
Last edited by Goinback2011; 03-21-2015 at 06:52 PM..
Medicare is closer to a guaranteed (at age 65 or disability) defined benefit plan. But because of the huge expense of caring for seniors, there are huge central subsidies. So overall Medicare is the greatest of deals for seniors. And as we all hope to be seniors one day, it is a great equalizer. Most all of us will similarly benefit before we croak.
You're completely correct. Except most seniors refuse to admit the huge windfall that comes their way. They call the ACA/Obamacare socialism while blissfully ignoring the huge costs they incur themselves. They don't cover their own costs by a long shot.
I gave you household numbers and they weakened your argument
No, you gave an individual income number instead of a household income number, and failed to adjust for inflation. Furthermore, you stupidly believe the ridiculously low 2% compounded growth rate that even the article's author doesn't believe, as expressed in the footnotes.
Except 2% is a reasonable number. That money could have been lost just as easily. And you want to say the average household income in 1960 was $60,000. You're whole premise is based on false data. You post a link, I'm using that link. It's your link. It's not my fault you don't like interest.
Look at investment growth over the last 40 years. 2% is too low. Yes there have been times of loss but there have been times of fast gains as well. As bad as things are now, my financial analyst tells me to use 5% for future growth on investments. That doesn't mean I'll see 5% every year. I made 10% last year. I may go backwards this year but over the long haul I can probably expect more than 5%. That's conservative.
Right now 2% is what I can get investing less than $100k in an interest bearing account. Interest rates suck right now. When I was 16 and just started working, I earned over 5% on my pass book savings account. Interest rates are VERY LOW compared to where they've been throughout my lifetime. 2% may be reasonable today but it's not over the last 40 years and that's the amount of time I've been paying into SS.
Case in point, I started buying savings bonds for my kids when they were little even though the interest rates were lousy because it was easy to do through payroll deductions. Most of them are paying over 3% interest and savings bonds pay lousy interest. You must be young to think what is NOW will be forever. Don't worry. We'll see inflation again and increased interest rates. Now is the time to buy a house with interest rates so low. 10 years from now you'll be glad you did. I refinanced last year for less interest than the savings bonds I bought my dd pay.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 03-21-2015 at 07:03 PM..
You're completely correct. Except most seniors refuse to admit the huge windfall that comes their way. They call the ACA/Obamacare socialism while blissfully ignoring the huge costs they incur themselves. They don't cover their own costs by a long shot.
Most Medicare recipients don't realize the huge unfunded benefits they have and will receive.
Many with Medicare feel that they have paid in what is due, and what will cover their HC needs after age 65. Esp as they pay yearlies, monthlies, copays and deductibles. Whereas they see Obamacare as providing subsidies where the beneficiary has not paid in.
Both systems are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and deficit spending.
Look at investment growth over the last 40 years. 2% is too low. Yes there have been times of loss but there have been times of fast gains as well. As bad as things are now, my financial analyst tells me to use 5% for future growth on investments. That doesn't mean I'll see 5% every year. I made 10% last year. I may go backwards this year but over the long haul I can probably expect more than 5%. That's conservative.
Informed wants to use 11% across the board.
And also wants to use an average household income of $60,0000 all the way back to the 60s.
And based on that, comes up with a number of $1.5 MILLION for Medicare alone. Which the creators of these charts would openly point and laugh at.
I think the poster just likes to use the inflated numbers because they are mad that they were born after 1959 and Paul Ryan wants to give them a voucher toward private insurance.
Most Medicare recipients don't realize the huge unfunded benefits they have and will receive.
Many with Medicare feel that they have paid in what is due, and what will cover their HC needs after age 65. Esp as they pay yearlies, monthlies, copays and deductibles. Whereas they see Obamacare as providing subsidies where the beneficiary has not paid in.
Both systems are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and deficit spending.
Exactly. Both are. They just don't want to admit it.
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.
compounded growth rate that even the article's author doesn't believe, as expressed in the footnotes.
