U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-10-2016, 09:29 PM
 
3,460 posts, read 2,204,919 times
Reputation: 6131

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40 View Post
OK - I agree executive pay is outrageous. But I just added up all of these salaries, arriving at a total of $409,840,000. Let's assume there are 50 million people who really need help with healthcare expenses. If the government took ALL of this money, and allocated it to those 50 million, everyone would get about $8.19. So my point is, the executive salaries really aren't the problem.
Exactly. All those executives could work for free and it wouldn't make any difference. It is costly to do research and development for drugs. They have to spend an insane amount of money including clinical trails and even after all that, they might not even be able to market the drug. If you can't market the drug, then all the money is wasted. That's the real cost in all this. Finally, if it gets FDA approval, they only have the patent for like 10 years and after that, a cheap lab someplace came make and sell it without having to have paid for all the research. The money has to come from somewhere.

Anyone who has been in the work force long enough knows that insurance costs are going up and so have the deductibles. It got to the point where even if the employer offered health insurance, low paid hourly employees literally couldn't afford it. So when they got sick, they went to the ER, and this drives health care costs up for everyone. Something simple which could be detected and prevented with annual doctor visits were now being treated under ER hospitals and that's very expensive. ObamaCare is like the auto insurance to require everyone to have it so it kept the cost down lower. ACA is a great thing, I know many people who told me they have health care coverage where they couldn't afford it before.

The more money you make, the more you can afford the insurance which is what ACA is all about. People should go there, to this easy to use website and see:

https://www.healthsherpa.com/

If you are making $100K a year, the insurance costs are higher than the same coverage for someone who is making $30K a year. Now, I know some will tell you that the person making $30K a year should get a higher paying job. I agree, they should be making a lot more money, but by them leaving their $30K a year job for a $100K a year job, doesn't eliminate the $30K a year position. We still need the role of a janitor.

 
Old 11-10-2016, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,123 posts, read 13,636,147 times
Reputation: 22167
Looks like Paul Ryan is wasting no time: Paul Ryan Says Medicare Privatization Is On
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,556 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Today's Baby Boomer seniors are in a financial mess largely because they ignored the lessons of their Great Depression era parents--that prosperity is not guaranteed and that saving is important. They also began the era of expecting the government to do for them instead of a bigger focus on self sufficiency, family and community before running to the government.
The only boomers in a mess are the upper middle class spendthrifts, who wouldn't be able to live on the max SS age 70 joint couple benefits, even if they tried. The rest of us are doing fine.
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,556 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverBird View Post
I'm not so sure. Remember that Pence, Giuliani, and Christie are going to drive everything now. Trump will turn to them. Pence is the one to fear, and he will be advising and driving his sick policies.
Exactly. Trump didn't develop all that real estate, because he's an expert architect, plumber, and electrician.
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:30 PM
 
26,032 posts, read 33,040,777 times
Reputation: 32280
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
The only boomers in a mess are the upper middle class spendthrifts, who wouldn't be able to live on the max SS age 70 joint couple benefits, even if they tried. The rest of us are doing fine.
Yup.
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,556 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
We only have minor insight on how Trump will actually govern. I think many of the concerns are overblown, and frankly, misguided.

Most people see Trump as some sort of conservative ideologue. Many of Trump's positions are not traditional conservative positions, and this goes across the board. I honestly think Trump is not that ideological and is going to be a lot more pragmatic than people anticipate. I think he is going to put the well-being of the country and its people ahead of ideology.

This USA Today piece provides a good summary. These plans are pretty centrist and inoffensive.

What President Trump means for your pocketbook
The problem people are having, is that they're reacting to the celebrity Trump, instead of what the Presidential Trump may or may not be.
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,547 posts, read 17,565,977 times
Reputation: 16777
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen View Post
I have an ACA policy, too, so I know what you're talking about. I think you are an example of one of those "who has insurance now," but you can't really use it much, if at all, because of the high deductible.

I had a high deductible, too. This year was the first year I got a lower deductible. But my problem was that it took me a couple of months to find a doctor who would take it. Then when I did, I moved before I could make an appt. Changing the ACA policy to the new location was a nightmare.

Upshot is: I've only used the ACA policy once this year at one of those primacare centers for emergency treatment of a dog bite. That's it.

I'm glad you will soon have Medicare. I have a way to go, so I'll be glad when Obamacare is repealed, if it's done, so I can get a policy tailored for my needs and at more reasonable cost. I supported the ACA, but it turned out to be horrible for me. It has serious problems. (Don't get me wrong...I didn't support Trump, even though I agreed with some of his policies. I objected to the type of person he is.)
It's been fortunate that I didn't need to use it. Before when I was on soonercare, they had to do a revision on my surgery. I explained every detail of the previous one and why it didn't work right, and what not to do. The surgeon ignored all that and created more problems so I don't want anything to do with them and they must dig up the old records first. I have a feeling if it hadn't been soonercare they would have worked harder.

At this point, still with issues, I want to be picky about the doctor, so hopefully it will work well enough. I think as the state insurence I had before my disability went up a small amount and I became ineligable for soonercare did the simple and hoped it worked since they have limitations on payment.

I'm getting all these compare your medicare plan emails. I know one thing I want to know their exact policy about treatment options, including a real history at least. I wonder if they cancel the ACA before that, if those of us not yet 65, but close will end up with a lapse.

I'm still stunned by the vote, and that we have elected a president who can be described as well dressed con man.
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:55 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,556 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie45 View Post
Since Obama has been in office we have seen the lowest COLAs in the history of COLAs since 1975. The head of the BLS is a dem appointed by Obama....and some claim that has nothing to do with it. Costs have risen (Google it yourself) since 2009. I'm sure those who have mega retirement funds will repute this, but that's not surprising.

The last nearly eight years should have been the time for people to start complaining; not now when they have no idea what, if any changes will take place.

Realizing some are still upset their candidate lost, it's not surprising they're panicking now.
The alleged manipulation of the CPI and COLA's, falls under the category of conspiracy theories. Do you really think a politically appointed commissioner could instruct a bunch of career, high GS scale civil servants, to bend the numbers, without at least one of them crying foul and running to the media?
 
Old 11-10-2016, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,556 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
I did not support Trump but I agree with you. SS is a Holy Cow that no one wants to mess with, especially mess withthose already collecting it.

You may see changes for future collectors, but not for present collectors nor for those say 15-20 years away from collecting.
It would be the same as when a major natural disaster occurs, and the federal government says they have no money to help. I've never seen that happen. Shutting off SS to current recipients, would have the same effect, only on a grandiose national scale.
 
Old 11-10-2016, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,556 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratman View Post
Big deal. A few years ago I received a SS statement in the mail. I was running some numbers when DW came in and asked what I was doing. I told her I was calculating how much I would have if I had been allowed to invest my SS money myself. She said, "don't do that. It will **** you off." I kept working.


At the time, my SS statement said I would get $1700 per month at FRA. Knowing what I had paid in every year and knowing how my investments have performed, I calculated that at FRA, I would have had not $1700 per month but $10,000 per month. And that's only counting my share, not what my employer had to put in. DW was right. I was pissed off. If I were a young person today and given the option of SS or doing my own retirement, I would certainly opt out of SS. The return sucks.
The question arises as to what criteria would be established to allow someone to opt out? Is everybody allowed to opt out? What happens to the 65 year old, whose dreams at age 18 didn't quite materialize the way they thought they would?

The opt out ideology, always comes from a retrospective view of personal success.

Last edited by BLS2753; 11-10-2016 at 11:30 PM..
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top