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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-26-2016, 11:39 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,216 posts, read 6,313,926 times
Reputation: 9827

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
who was paying his health insurance up until now ?
He has private insurance still from his former employer. That's how I manage to retire with him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-26-2016, 04:45 PM
 
Location: Northern panhandle WV
3,007 posts, read 2,169,240 times
Reputation: 6691
I agree that vouchers if they go that way are for buying insurance, not for paying medical bills. However even if they do go that way, I believe it will be for new people applying for benefits and that those already collection and enrolled in Medicare will be grandfathered in the current rules.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2016, 07:58 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,216 posts, read 6,313,926 times
Reputation: 9827
Quote:
Originally Posted by arwenmark View Post
I agree that vouchers if they go that way are for buying insurance, not for paying medical bills. However even if they do go that way, I believe it will be for new people applying for benefits and that those already collection and enrolled in Medicare will be grandfathered in the current rules.
I've heard choices will be offered and not force. But people refuse to listen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 06:06 AM
 
210 posts, read 150,713 times
Reputation: 628
I would like to share an observation that I admit is tainted by my study of the document "Achieving a Lenist Strategy" by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis. One of the suggested strategies outlined in this document which was intended to bring about the demise of Social Security is relevant to many of the attacks on things that, quite frankly, should belong to we-the-people and not to Johnny-come-lately Congress critters and Presidents. I say this because I don't think people running for office bottom-line their true intentions, choosing instead to weasel word the electorate into assuming the politician is on their side.


In the linked document a divide and divert blame strategy is proposed. The idea is to break the supporters of a entitlement program into two or more groups who perceive that the deal they are getting is not even. For some reason people who think another group is getting a better deal tend to blame the other group instead of the policy makers who legislated the divide, pointed out the subsequent unfairness, and exploited the reaction of we-the-people to create a strong division targeted mainly toward animosity between the divided groups. Preamble over.


Changes made in the 80s to Social Security, which, by the way, were supposed to secure the future of the program created a much higher burden as a percent of lifetime income for the younger generations than for older. Perhaps social bonds or we-the-people were stronger in the 80s but there was little that I remember of the intergenerational blame that I see today. In my mind there is no doubt who gained from the 80s changes although I don't know that it was part of the plan. The trickle of excess tax collected became a substantial trust fund with old bonds earning 1980s rates and collecting interest on interest on interest as the trust fund awaited the boomer retirement. Bringing us to today and attempts to change the bargain on the boomers after-the-fact. The excess money was collected, workers loaned money to the general fund as income tax rates were reduced below governmental obligations.


Medicare is part of the larger health care cost and delivery problems in this nation. The size of a pool matters. Choice is, in case, just "another word for nothin' left to lose". If the pool is split, the majority of we-the-people will lose no matter what we choose. I let you muse on who is the winner. We need to solve the health care problem for the entire nation, not divide the nation into more and more groups that become the next haves and have-nots that are both have-nots compared to the owner class. This nation no longer solves life and death issues; we argue until we decide to "drown" everything good in the bathtub and everyone gets turned away at the inn. Vitriol will never run a country anywhere but into the ground.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 07:02 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
10,281 posts, read 4,859,674 times
Reputation: 21666
Quote:
Originally Posted by clikrf8 View Post
We just received our SSA statements for 2017. How wonderful that we now receive less than 2016 due to Medicare increase.


My son is on disability. He received a letter saying his check was being increased $4, however his food stamp benefits have been reduced $30 "due to an increase in unearned income". WTH is up with that? Is that the new common core math? You give $4 in one hand and take $30 in another? But hey, let's continue to pay for undocumented aliens to come here and collect all kinds of benefits. It makes me so mad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 10:46 AM
 
13,880 posts, read 7,391,112 times
Reputation: 25366
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnaLee2 View Post
I would like to share an observation that I admit is tainted by my study of the document "Achieving a Lenist Strategy" by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis. One of the suggested strategies outlined in this document which was intended to bring about the demise of Social Security is relevant to many of the attacks on things that, quite frankly, should belong to we-the-people and not to Johnny-come-lately Congress critters and Presidents. I say this because I don't think people running for office bottom-line their true intentions, choosing instead to weasel word the electorate into assuming the politician is on their side.


In the linked document a divide and divert blame strategy is proposed. The idea is to break the supporters of a entitlement program into two or more groups who perceive that the deal they are getting is not even. For some reason people who think another group is getting a better deal tend to blame the other group instead of the policy makers who legislated the divide, pointed out the subsequent unfairness, and exploited the reaction of we-the-people to create a strong division targeted mainly toward animosity between the divided groups. Preamble over.


Changes made in the 80s to Social Security, which, by the way, were supposed to secure the future of the program created a much higher burden as a percent of lifetime income for the younger generations than for older. Perhaps social bonds or we-the-people were stronger in the 80s but there was little that I remember of the intergenerational blame that I see today. In my mind there is no doubt who gained from the 80s changes although I don't know that it was part of the plan. The trickle of excess tax collected became a substantial trust fund with old bonds earning 1980s rates and collecting interest on interest on interest as the trust fund awaited the boomer retirement. Bringing us to today and attempts to change the bargain on the boomers after-the-fact. The excess money was collected, workers loaned money to the general fund as income tax rates were reduced below governmental obligations.


Medicare is part of the larger health care cost and delivery problems in this nation. The size of a pool matters. Choice is, in case, just "another word for nothin' left to lose". If the pool is split, the majority of we-the-people will lose no matter what we choose. I let you muse on who is the winner. We need to solve the health care problem for the entire nation, not divide the nation into more and more groups that become the next haves and have-nots that are both have-nots compared to the owner class. This nation no longer solves life and death issues; we argue until we decide to "drown" everything good in the bathtub and everyone gets turned away at the inn. Vitriol will never run a country anywhere but into the ground.
This is all about rich people avoiding the need to pay taxes to support poor people. The bipartisan commission recommendation for the Social Security fix is a 1% hike in employer/employee payroll taxes, lifting the $118,500 income cap, and boosting the full retirement age another couple of years. Rich people pay much of the tax increase because they own the corporations that pay the extra 1% in payroll taxes and they're the ones with more than $118,500 in earned income. It's pretty obvious to me that we're going to go at least another four years doing absolutely nothing because it's not in the interest of the rich people who control Congress to hike their taxes.

I'm not so sure what is going to happen with Medicare. That is the political third rail and the Paul Ryan proposals are going to see very loud opposition. I don't see how it will make it through the Senate. The system needs to be reformed but reform shouldn't be "let the poor retirees die".

Medicaid is the program that is going to get slaughtered. In terms of a retirement forum, the biggest impact is likely to be long term care planning. 31% of the Medicaid budget ($129.3 billion in 2010) goes to funding long term care. I think the 5 year Medicaid look-back rules are going to vanish. I think pretty much all states will have filial responsibility laws to force children to pay for their parent's nursing home care. I'm doubtful about Mathjak's long term care insurance strategy with New York State being worth anything 15 years from now.

I manage my mother's affairs in assisted living. At age 84 and with severe short term memory loss problems, she has about 4 years of money left at her current burn rate. At this point, I'm not sure I believe Medicaid will be there four years from now to pick up any part of the tab her state pension, annuities, and trace Social Security survivor benefit don't cover. My sister lives in Canada so the state could chase me under filial responsibility law. If there's no Federal support for the program, the states will have little option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 10:49 AM
 
71,511 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49088
you can be doubtful all you want about the nys partnership plans . i am pretty secure with it working out as planned .

the 5 year look back could have vanished years ago if states wanted . they do not want to eliminate all the tools that were left in place .

as a now famous judge in CT said in his ruling against medicaid , the last thing states want is 2 people forced on to public assistance , the spouse in the home and the stay at home spouse who was impoverished by it .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 11:03 AM
 
13,880 posts, read 7,391,112 times
Reputation: 25366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
you can be doubtful all you want about the nys partnership plans . i am pretty secure with it working out as planned .

the 5 year look back could have vanished years ago if states wanted . they do not want to eliminate all the tools that were left in place .

as a now famous judge in CT said in his ruling against medicaid , the last thing states want is 2 people forced on to public assistance , the spouse in the home and the stay at home spouse who was impoverished by it .
A judge can rule whatever they want. The state appeals it. The decision is overturned.

When there is an ever-declining pot of money and endlessly increasing demands on that pot of money, the rules change. Fully 70% of 50-somethings will be in no financial position to fund long term care if they need it. The reproductive rate is way down so there aren't children to deal with them. With increased income and wealth stratification, even if they have children, most aren't in a financial position to help. What Paul Ryan is about to do is going to crush Medicaid long term care funding. When New York gets a piddling Federal block grant for Medicaid and is looking at 30% tax hikes to make up the difference, you think your long term care insurance deal is going to survive? I think you're in dream-land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 11:21 AM
 
71,511 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49088
not only has the decision not been over turned but both ny and florida have adopted the view.

the ruling came from CT'S HIGHEST COURT on the appeal .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2016, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,056 posts, read 2,569,746 times
Reputation: 5976
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
When there is an ever-declining pot of money and endlessly increasing demands on that pot of money, the rules change. Fully 70% of 50-somethings will be in no financial position to fund long term care if they need it. The reproductive rate is way down so there aren't children to deal with them. With increased income and wealth stratification, even if they have children, most aren't in a financial position to help. What Paul Ryan is about to do is going to crush Medicaid long term care funding. When New York gets a piddling Federal block grant for Medicaid and is looking at 30% tax hikes to make up the difference, you think your long term care insurance deal is going to survive? I think you're in dream-land.
I agree. Private LTC insurance has not worked out well for insurance companies and they keep changing the policies, watering down the benefits. People have been complaining that they have changed coverage for policies for which people have been paying premiums on for years, and now they find out they won't ever get what was originally promised. LTC insurance is generally thought to be bad deal at this point.

As to Medicaid and block grants - I don't know why people think that shifting around who pays for something will make it cost less. The costs are still the same if the benefits remain the same. What is going to end up happening is poorer states will end up cutting benefits to people who need assistance.

It costs money to be socially responsible and take care of those who need help. People who want to cut Medicaid are really saying they don't care enough about the disadvantaged in our society to shell out a few more dollars in taxes so the poor can have health care.

Single payer would fix all of this. Everyone gets Medicare and everyone pays for it with taxes. End of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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