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.
Believe it or not I didn't know anyone who worked for the federal government until I was already out of college. By then I'd picked my career. Because I didn't know much about Fed careers, I din't know that the career I'd chosen I could indeed do for the federal gov't.
I can't say I regret not pursuing a fed gig, because I didn't really know my job could be done under the fed umbrella. And while the benefits are great, and no one here has expressly said those perks are THE only reasons they got a fed gig. There's a part of me that winces when I think of a person taking a gig JUST for the benefits. How about because it's the field you want to work in, or what you want to do for 8 hours a day. Even working only 30 years, I'd hope it wasn't all just for the benefits.
Would I have been able to retire at 55, if I'd joined the gov at 25? IF the rest of my life had stayed the same..maybe? But many times you change one fork-in-the-road decision and that can change all else that comes after that. So you never know.
Believe it or not I didn't know anyone who worked for the federal government until I was already out of college. By then I'd picked my career. Because I didn't know much about Fed careers, I din't know that the career I'd chosen I could indeed do for the federal gov't.
I can't say I regret not pursuing a fed gig, because I didn't really know my job could be done under the fed umbrella. And while the benefits are great, and no one here has expressly said those perks are THE only reasons they got a fed gig. There's a part of me that winces when I think of a person taking a gig JUST for the benefits. How about because it's the field you want to work in, or what you want to do for 8 hours a day. Even working only 30 years, I'd hope it wasn't all just for the benefits.
Would I have been able to retire at 55, if I'd joined the gov at 25? IF the rest of my life had stayed the same..maybe? But many times you change one fork-in-the-road decision and that can change all else that comes after that. So you never know.
Some may have sought a federal job just for the benefits. I did not. When I graduated in 1985, oil prices had crashed and no one was hiring chemical engineers. I was lucky to get on with the federal government and was just thankful to have a job. They recruited at my college placement center where I signed up for an interview - I did not seek them out. In 1985 I did not see my benefits as anything special because most professional people that I knew had pension plans and health benefits similar to mine. Also the federal pension plan was changed for those hired after 1983 so my plan was less generous than that of GreenGene.
After 3 years, I earned 4 weeks of vacation a year but at first I had the same 2 weeks as most of my peers in industry at the time. I got a little more sick leave than most but since I don't get sick very often, it just accumulated. Nice to have if I ever have a serious illness but that has not happened in 30 years (knock on wood). But over time many industry pension plans went belly up or were frozen and employer health benefits after retirement were discontinued so now I am considered to have great benefits. Guess you could say that I was told from the very beginning that I had good benefits working for the government but it took about 20 years for me to realize that this was the case.
Since you live in a suburb of Washington DC, I'm surprised that you did not know of anyone who worked for the federal government or that they did not recruit at your college.
Besides the logistical problems of trying to create more jobs once all the work is being done, it will tank the economy. We will always have some people unemployed and it will only get "worse" as tech improves. Yes, there are some lazy people out there but they are the minority of the unemployed.
It doesn't matter....period. Whether you work at 7/11 or at the CDC as a top researcher, it ONLY works if EVERYONE is paying.....something....of course, that has to vary based on their income but, when you give 50% a pass, it's IMPOSSIBLE to fund without huge subsidies.....impossible....that's where we are now.....middle and upper middle income wage earners are kicking in too much.....the system is asking them to pay upwards of 40% more for less coverage....they can't do it....
I would think the minimum anyone should pay would be $75/$100 a month....don't have it? Get a 2nd job....that's what happens when you add that extra layer of guvmint' oversight...the money has to come somewhere...as I mentioned earlier, it would have been CHEAPER to simply give it to them than to add a layer of useless management and THEN shellac those that are paying a 40% increase to cover it all the while actually reducing coverage.
But as much as I do not like Obama's plan, I do think there are some other things that need to be reformed.....tort for one but, if you give those that benefit from Tort reform a break, you need to couple that with rate reform for insurance companies as for decades they have claimed, to some degree, that THIS is the main reason for rate increases....lawsuits, mostly nuisance in origin. Are there legitimate claims? You bet. However, suing someone for the "10 kids you might have had" is insane.....
There's some beating to go around but as always, the Democrats come up with more programs to scrounge some votes and then figure out how to pay for it later. Obamacare does NOT work....still cheaper to simply cover the indigent and get rates back to where they were prior to this debacle.
I retired at 62.5, but it was a few years before ObamaCare. I used COBRA from my last job for 18 months. Then I found a state-sponsored health insurance program that carried me to Medicare-age at 65. I don't know if state-sponsored programs have changed or disappeared since ObamaCare came into being. I seem to remember paying somewhere in the $400 to $500 range per month for a single policy. I dropped dental insurance when I retired since all the policies I investigated didn't pay back as much as you pay in premiums, and most didn't cover high end procedures like crowns, implants or bridges.
To the OP whose friend is earning $120,000 per year, I would expect someone with a nice salary like that would (should) have a rather substantial nest egg to be able to pay the $700/month. Sometimes it's not so much the price that's upsetting, but that you end up paying almost as much (or more) for health insurance than for other things you always considered expensive. Example, you pay off your mortgage and then have to pay almost as much for health insurance instead.
Just remember, if you retire before Medicare age, you are only paying the high premiums for a limited period of time.
I'm betting they blew most of it and are now complaining that it costs more than $100 a month. I see it every day (rather I have to listen to it). People whine and cry over how expensive everything is, but if you listen a little longer you learn that they vacationed for a month every year, bought a huge McMansion, leased expensive cars, and didn't save squat.
I would think the minimum anyone should pay would be $75/$100 a month....don't have it? Get a 2nd job.....
get rates back to where they were prior to this debacle.
If there aren't enough jobs to go around (and there aren't), getting a second job is not a really logical answer.
I am not sure if you saw the earlier post tracking rising health care premiums since 1999, but the rate of increase has not changed much. Because what got passed was so watered down and full of compromises, it isn't having much effect.
Issue I find is Corporate America is a Pyramid Scheme of sorts.
Take dept next to me. A typical dept. 40 people. One Head of with office around 55. Two second in charges around 45. One or two supervisors maybe mid 30s. Rest of dept is geared towards 20 somethings.
But everyone in dept is going to be 55 one day. But guess what out of 40 in dept only one person will be employed at 55, the head of dept.
Trouble is to be staff, you graduate a so so college, have a good attitude and there is your cube. You sit and work for 30 years and one day they force you out as you are way over paid and way over qualified for a cube job. No one else wants you as they all want younger/cheaper folks for cubes.
What about head job? Well you see stuff like did you get a MBA, do you have certifications, are you a lawyer, did you pass bar? Are you former BIG four, do you have a CPA. How is your networking skills, how are you at public speaking. Did you ever work at a "real" demanding company, Google, Goldman, Apple, JP Morgan etc. None of this was required to do your cube job. But one day you wake up and forced out the door.
Too late to get these skills. And no one is giving you a 400K a years job which needs CEO or CFO approval to run a large dept at 55 unless you have the qualifications on paper.
My observation is that the "cool kids" in those head jobs, once they gain a certain "tenure," are less likely to get fired or demoted. In my day this was compounded by the fact of a gray ceiling whereby there were gazillions of workers 10 years older than me, always preventing upward movement. If we actually put into practice what people like Deming preached, this concept of "management tenure" would be gone in the first review cycle. Of course, there would also be lots of "creative destruction" within each workplace as people moved up and down from management to individual contributor then back again. It would be healthier for the economy.
The premiums for anybody over 55 is extremely high
Except for the rich, how do these people for health insurance?
My employer still provides health care for my family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterno
Our government is really stupid
I can not believe people are getting subsidies while sitting in a million dollar mansion house just because their income is low on paper.
Hmm, I retired from the US Navy with an annual pension of around $20k [okay fine a bit less], I own our new home free and clear it sits on 150 acres of forest land together they are assessed at around $70k.
You need around 5 million in assets to safely retire early if you and your wife is in good health
Disagree. At a 4% SWR you are making 200k. Think one can survive on a lot less. One could take jsut a 3% SWR and feel better about the safer rate and still be making 150k. SS will also kick in. We have a lot less than 5 mil and will feel good about early retirement.
I know more people paying the fine and going without healthcare because it is still way too expensive. Only the very poor or people that are unemployed are getting the best deals through Obamacare. The working stiffs are still getting screwed paying out the ass for everyone else. It is glorified welfare healthcare at best IMO. Obamacare is doing very little to rope in the ever increasing healthcare costs. I heard today that a drug company raised a drugs price 5000% this year, that is total BS!
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.
Amen!
