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.
First of all, I don't really have any skin in this game, I have retired twice and have two pensions + SS, my husband and I also have a decent investment portfolio and more than adequate savings.
Maybe I got my 'victim mentality' because I went through a rocky time myself when I was a single mom, my husband left the state & quit his job. I never got a penny in child support for our two kids. And even though I worked two jobs there were times when I had to flip a coin to decide which bill I would pay late. I couldn't have saved a dime if my life depended on it. I came out on top but it was a rough couple of years.
I'm not asking for sympathy I'm just trying to explain to you that life is complicated and even good people can fall on hard times, and that is why we have Social Security and medicare, yes it sometimes helps people who have been lazy or made bad choices but I don't care, I don't think any 80 year old should be punished for mistakes they might have made when they were 30.
I agree with you that one or two unlucky turns in life can devastate life plans quite quickly. Single parents in particular have major struggles, especially with the cost of childcare today.
One accident, one major illness, one lay-off, or one divorce can all contribute to a very difficult situation. I am a little tired of people preaching to work 2-3 jobs - what do you do with the children? Grandma does not necessarily live around the corner these days. Some people have not a clue or are determined to hold themselves up as paragons of virtue.
I have been lucky in life and I acknowledge that, but I have seen what others have gone through and it was NOT a result of laziness or ineptitude. Sometimes life just goes sideways and hopefully you come out on the other side in better shape but sadly not always. Always good karma to have empathy.
I also say don't let the states handle it, agree! I also say don't let the feds handle it. It's the peoples money and let them handle/manage it. Why do I say this? Simply because a gov that is bought and sold/self serving in my view can't be trusted with my money, period. For those with disabilities and such, no worries, create a pool of money just for that. And be much more strict in handing out that money: Forbes Welcome "How Americans Game the $200 Billion-a-Year 'Disability-Industrial Complex'"
But I cringe at the thought of gov even managing any of my retirement money that might/might not be there decades down the road giving how inept they are at managing anything. Case and point. Hey, candidates: Social Security is broken
It's not easy to qualify for SSDI and if you see someone abusing it, call SS and report them. In that opinion piece the author (you might want to read his bio)was talking about the low percentage of people going on SSDi due to aging of the population, what is that supposed to mean? You don't go on SSDI if you have reached maximum retirement age for SS, so why would the increase be due to 'an aging population'? And regarding that dramatic graph with the number of applications for SSDI per 1,000 people, I wonder why the author failed to mention that historically only 32-33% of applicants are approved I may be wrong, but seems like you want to privatize every safety net program, take the money and give it to Wall Street so they can play roulette with it, hell they don't care if they win or lose it doesn't matter to them, they get rich on the spread and on fees. Do you also want to turn medicare over to the private sector so that you can wag your finger at them if they don't have $12,000 or $15,000 a year for their premiums?
I also say don't let the states handle it, agree! I also say don't let the feds handle it. It's the peoples money and let them handle/manage it. Why do I say this? Simply because a gov that is bought and sold/self serving in my view can't be trusted with my money, period.
You have absolutely no clue what this would mean for any person who fell on hard times and needed help such as housing assistance!
In order to get housing assistance, you have to spend down your retirement funds. I know because when I couldn't find a job at age 58, constantly told "you're overqualified", I still kept trying to keep up with my home and pay my mortgage. Unemployment money put food on the table and not much more. I tried and tried to find a job.
When I applied for HUD assistance, I was told use your IRA then come back to us. So all of my retirement funds were depleted trying to keep my home of 25+ years! Once my funds were gone, yes HUD did try to assist me but to no avail when the mortgage company failed to respond and I was foreclosed in 2009. A year or two later, I got a small settlement check from the mortgage co. like so many others did.
I started working at age 16 and like the other poster I received $0 child support for my two children. I worked my entire life until age 58. For years I traveled over an hour one-way to work in the big city where I was paid more than I could have earned in my home state and many times worked 60 to 80 hours per week paying a premium to babysitters so that I could work those hours. Thankfully, I had a small defined benefit plan that couldn't be touched when I lost my home. I made enough that my SS is a bit more than the average, but combined SS and pension is a shoestring life.
Don't be so fast to judge another until you've walked a mile in their shoes!
Last edited by Deelighted; 11-16-2016 at 09:21 PM..
Reason: spelling
I know about it, and I know why he did it, he claimed it was to 'save SS' but it actually created a surplus in the trust fund of 2.7 trillion which Reagan promptly decided should be transferred to the general fund (and no, I'm not making this up)
"The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. - See more at: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist : FedSmith.com
That's fundamentally and legally incorrect. You might want to actually read Social Security laws:
The 1935 Social Security Act quite clearly states that any excess funds shall be converted to special treasury notes. In 1935, that was literally the 2nd [Series] Liberty Bonds. In other words the excess cash was handed over to the Treasury Secretary who issued special treasury securities in the name of the Social Security Administration and then put the cash in the General Fund. You can read that here...
TITLE II-FEDERAL OLD-AGE BENEFITS
OLD-AGE RESERVE ACCOUNT
Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to provide for the payments required under this title, such amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate of the appropriations to be made to the Account.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired (1) on original issue at par, or (2) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. The purposes for which obligations of the United States may be issued under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to authorize the issuance at par of special obligations exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. Obligations other than such special obligations may be acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.
(c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at the market price, and such special obligations may be redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
(d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be credited to and form a part of the Account.
(e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available for making payments required under this title.
(f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his annual report the actuarial status of the Account.
You have absolutely no clue what this would mean for any person who fell on hard times and needed help such as housing assistance!
In order to get housing assistance, you have to spend down your retirement funds. I know because when I couldn't find a job at age 58, constantly told "you're overqualified", I still kept trying to keep up with my home and pay my mortgage. Unemployment money put food on the table and not much more. I tried and tried to find a job.
When I applied for HUD assistance, I was told use your IRA then come back to us. So all of my retirement funds were depleted trying to keep my home of 25+ years! Once my funds were gone, yes HUD did try to assist me but to no avail when the mortgage company failed to respond and I was foreclosed in 2009. A year or two later, I got a small settlement check from the mortgage co. like so many others did.
I started working at age 16 and like the other poster I received $0 child support for my two children. I worked my entire life until age 58. For years I traveled over an hour one-way to work in the big city where I was paid more than I could have earned in my home state and many times worked 60 to 80 hours per week paying a premium to babysitters so that I could work those hours. Thankfully, I had a small defined benefit plan that couldn't be touched when I lost my home. I made enough that my SS is a bit more than the average, but combined SS and pension is a shoestring life.
Don't be so fast to judge another until you've walked a mile in their shoes!
You completely took me my post out of context/sounds like you didn't even read it. To summarize....gov creating a safety net, good. Gov creating/managing my retirement via SS, bad.
The only thing I've "judged" is what I feel is an inept/bought and sold/self serving gov "managing" my and others money for retirement, nothing beyond that. Please stop the deflecting and read what I wrote carefully before responding in a way that had nothing to do with what I posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
It's not easy to qualify for SSDI and if you see someone abusing it, call SS and report them. In that opinion piece the author (you might want to read his bio)was talking about the low percentage of people going on SSDi due to aging of the population, what is that supposed to mean? You don't go on SSDI if you have reached maximum retirement age for SS, so why would the increase be due to 'an aging population'? And regarding that dramatic graph with the number of applications for SSDI per 1,000 people, I wonder why the author failed to mention that historically only 32-33% of applicants are approved I may be wrong, but seems like you want to privatize every safety net program, take the money and give it to Wall Street so they can play roulette with it, hell they don't care if they win or lose it doesn't matter to them, they get rich on the spread and on fees. Do you also want to turn medicare over to the private sector so that you can wag your finger at them if they don't have $12,000 or $15,000 a year for their premiums?
Read my above response to Deelighted for what my main point was in my previous post.
Medicare is toast. Ryan will have clear sailing pushing it to a voucher system. That gives insurance companies a piece of the action, and they are drooling.
Insurance companies have had a piece of the action since Day 1:
"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).
It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years
The American Hospital Associationhas already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."
Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965
As of February 2015, 16 Medicare Administrative Contractors (MAC) administered claims submitted by Medicare providers and suppliers. Twelve were A/B MACs that administered Medicare Part A and Part B claims for inpatient hospital care, outpatient physician and hospital services, and home health and
hospice care, among other services, in specific jurisdictions. Four other MACs administered claims for durable medical equipment (DME).
In fiscal year 2013, MACs processed almost 1.2 billion claims totaling more than $363 billion in Medicare payments.
The bottom line is, if you don't have medicare you aren't getting it, ever.
That's not entirely true and not how Ryan's bipartisan legislation reads.
The final step to save the program is transforming the benefit into a fully competitive market-based model — known as premium support.
Beginning in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional FFS Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Our plan would ensure no disruptions in the Medicare FFS program for those in or near retirement, while also allowing these grandfathered individuals the choice to enroll in the new premium support program. Medicare would provide a premium support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the beneficiary, depending on the plan’s cost.
The Medicare recipient would choose, from an array of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program. A Medicare premium support payment would be paid, by Medicare, directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, where plans compete for individuals’ choice based upon premium amount and a certain percentage
or a defined contribution – is offset by the government to lower the cost of coverage.
Additionally, the program would adopt the competitive structure proven successful by Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, to ensure affordability through market-based competition.
The Medicare premium support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
Source: https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_asse...olicyPaper.pdf
yep, Ryan is one scary dude and no matter what they put in the platform, he's already claiming he's going to privatize medicare: Paul Ryan Says Medicare Privatization Is On
Ryan's "plan" is a copy of an older bipartisan plan created during the Clinton Administration.
The National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), was charged with examining the Medicare program and making recommendations to strengthen and improve it, especially in light of the steep increase in retiring baby boomers expected by 2010. The commission’s 17 members were appointed by President Clinton and by Republican and Democratic congressional leaders. Senator John Breaux (D-La.) served as chairman of the commission, while Representative Bill Thomas (R-Ca.) was the administrative chairman.
The major component of Chairman Breaux’s proposal was the creation of a premium support system modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Under this system, Medicare beneficiaries would be allowed to select health insurance coverage from a menu of private managed care plans or opt for the traditional fee-for-service plan. Managed care organizations would offer “standard option” as well as “high option” plans; for most seniors, premium support would be set at about 88 percent of the standard plan—a cost ultimately determined by the market. Those beneficiaries willing to incur the extra cost could alternatively purchase an expanded benefit package.
Insurance companies are a for-profit business, and they make a profit.
Because private investors put up cash to ensure the solvency of the insurance companies.
State insurance regulations require that policies be backed by a certain percentage of cash and other liquid assets.
If you sell $2 Billion worth of insurance policies, then you need to have a percentage of cash on hand to pay out those policies. State insurance regulators ensure that insurance companies are financially solvent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
Imagine how expensive automobile insurance premiums would be if, every time we got an oil change or new tires or a brake job or a valve job or an A/C tune up or a fuel pump if we then --- wait for it --- submitted those receipts to the insurance company for reimbursement?
Well, actually, we know how expensive it would be. It would be the cost of the repair plus administrative fees.
That is not a very good way to finance the automobile repairs.
No it isn't, but this is where deregulating health insurance companies would help drive down at least a small percentage of the price of health insurance.
The other major factor is price transparency in hospital billing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
The study found that California women giving birth were charged from $3,296 to $37,227 for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, depending on which hospital they visited. For a C-section, women were billed between $8,312 and nearly $71,000. Few of the women in the study had serious health issues and most were discharged within six days of admission.
That's due to a total lack of transparency in hospital pricing, which is contrary to Free Market principles.
No it isn't, but this is where deregulating health insurance companies would help drive down at least a small percentage of the price of health insurance.
Just curious, can you provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that supports that claim?
That's not entirely true and not how Ryan's bipartisan legislation reads.
The final step to save the program is transforming the benefit into a fully competitive market-based model — known as premium support.
Beginning in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional FFS Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Our plan would ensure no disruptions in the Medicare FFS program for those in or near retirement, while also allowing these grandfathered individuals the choice to enroll in the new premium support program. Medicare would provide a premium support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the beneficiary, depending on the plan’s cost.
The Medicare recipient would choose, from an array of guaranteed-coverage options, a health plan that best suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program. A Medicare premium support payment would be paid, by Medicare, directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program, where plans compete for individuals’ choice based upon premium amount and a certain percentage
or a defined contribution – is offset by the government to lower the cost of coverage.
Additionally, the program would adopt the competitive structure proven successful by Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, to ensure affordability through market-based competition.
The Medicare premium support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums. Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.
Source: https://abetterway.speaker.gov/_asse...olicyPaper.pdf
This is the part that makes absolutely no sense.
Why would anyone in an Advantage plan paying $105 a month (todays dollars, it will increase some over the next 7 years but not that excessively) to Medicare with a zero monthly premium even remotely consider switching to an inferior new market based plan? To a plan that'd likely cost them say $1000-$1200 a month (at least, likely more, maybe much more given there is voucher money sloshing around) at age 70. To a plan that also has huge deductibles ($6000 a year or more). The voucher wouldn't come close to making up the differences in costs.
And this part " Medicare beneficiaries would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional FFS Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange " is pure and total BS. In short, an outright lie.
Competition between these two different types of plans is a mathematical impossibility. Unless, of course, the old Advantage plan premiums are purposely (and drastically) increased in the interim to the point that it makes that competition possible. That dishonest sleight of hand was the conclusion in my first read.
Note - this is an attempt to destroy Medicare, nothing else. The market plan portion is a total scam only devised to achieve that end.
Last edited by Weichert; 11-16-2016 at 11:17 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.
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.
