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 03-12-2017, 08:25 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,756,785 times
Reputation: 32309

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Yes, my investments are doing swimmingly. But, not everyone has a portfolio. Not by a long shot.

So, unfettered, unregulated capitalism trumps (no pun intended) ALL??

No, sorry, in my view the world is too heavily populated and there is too much imbalance in all areas of life in the US and elsewhere - there need to be controls via regulation - "innovation" needs to slow down - and redistribution via taxation within the bounds of common sense needs acceleration - starting with a rollback of the unnecessary and unfunded tax cuts - so that people are assured of at least the basics.

We've gone way too far to go back 100 years.

My ancestors arrived in the US from Europe in 1910. Right now, given the Congressional extreme r-wing nutjobs and our know-nothing, bi-polar puppet president who appoints government enemies like Pruitt, De Vos and the failed Puzder, and who will do whatever Ryan/Price/Bannon/Pence recommend, it's beginning to look like 100 years may very well be the sell-by date.
This is not the Politics and Other Controversies Forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2017, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,543 posts, read 44,068,928 times
Reputation: 15160
Oh, I agree - but when the subject of early retirement health care migrates into profit and capitalism - which has been discussed at length now for the past few pages - the goalposts on this thread have been moved miles. Read back the past few pages. We should be discussing the AHCA - not capitalism v. socialism. Hard to do when the subject of the AHCA is entirely to do with the social fabric of this country which is clearly a P&C issue. Read the post directly above mine, one of a long series of similar posts even invoking Ayn Rand, is what did it for me. Nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed AHCA and all about profit and deregulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 08:49 PM
 
29,809 posts, read 34,894,042 times
Reputation: 11730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
This is not the Politics and Other Controversies Forum.
I understand her response and it is a very valid reaction to the consequences of acceleration and innovative change that is more expensive than what it replaces. That is part of the problem. The improvements in medicine are often more expensive and become out of the affordable range for many. Should senior health care become standardized based on a current standard and more expensive advavancememts up to the individual to afford? That may be the future of Medicare. If so folks better Save and plan for increasing out of pocket cost as new medical advancements come on line
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 08:59 PM
 
29,809 posts, read 34,894,042 times
Reputation: 11730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Oh, I agree - but when the subject of early retirement health care migrates into profit and capitalism - which has been discussed at length now for the past few pages - the goalposts on this thread have been moved miles. Read back the past few pages. We should be discussing the AHCA - not capitalism v. socialism. Hard to do when the subject of the AHCA is entirely to do with the social fabric of this country which is clearly a P&C issue. Read the post directly above mine, one of a long series of similar posts even invoking Ayn Rand, is what did it for me. Nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed AHCA and all about profit and deregulation.
Perhaps it is at the heart of the moral authority/reasoning that is at the heart of the health care debate and perhaps at the core of future social security/medicare reform debate. Doesn't it seem that the call for free market solutions is in daily use by those advocating repeal of the ACA? Sometimes in order to discuss a complex problem the full field in play needs to be part of it and that may expand the goal posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 08:59 PM
 
1,490 posts, read 416,165 times
Reputation: 862
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthofHere View Post
Personal experience. Husband retired early I stopped working years ago. Current health care is a joke, though we are healthy we pay over $15K a year for basic medical coverage (currently COBRA but cost is similar to what we could get on the open market). Cobra will expire before he hits 65 and I have a year or so afterwards. I would love to get coverage for catastrophic events only paying out of pocket for doctors visits etc. at a reasonable rate but can't. I have to get health coverage that covers pregnancy, birth control pills and other things I do not need but I pay twice or more as those who are younger and will most likely utilize pregnancy benefits. Before Obama care my husband looked into what health care would cost and it was half the amount we currently pay. Our health hasn't changed, in fact, retirement has probably made us healthier. As to subsidies, quite frankly unless you are retiring early for health reasons you aren't retiring on an income that qualifies you for subsidies. As to the proposals of the current administration we aren't so happy with that either. Would we change retiring early? No way. My husband is healthier and happier not working and is enjoying retirement very much.
Obamacare allowed insurance companies to charge folks like us (62) 3 times what young folks pay
Ryan's plan will allow them to charge 5 times what young folks pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 09:50 PM
 
3,460 posts, read 2,204,919 times
Reputation: 6131
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthofHere View Post
Personal experience. Husband retired early I stopped working years ago. Current health care is a joke, though we are healthy we pay over $15K a year for basic medical coverage (currently COBRA but cost is similar to what we could get on the open market). Cobra will expire before he hits 65 and I have a year or so afterwards. I would love to get coverage for catastrophic events only paying out of pocket for doctors visits etc. at a reasonable rate but can't. I have to get health coverage that covers pregnancy, birth control pills and other things I do not need but I pay twice or more as those who are younger and will most likely utilize pregnancy benefits. Before Obama care my husband looked into what health care would cost and it was half the amount we currently pay. Our health hasn't changed, in fact, retirement has probably made us healthier. As to subsidies, quite frankly unless you are retiring early for health reasons you aren't retiring on an income that qualifies you for subsidies. As to the proposals of the current administration we aren't so happy with that either. Would we change retiring early? No way. My husband is healthier and happier not working and is enjoying retirement very much.
Why did you decide to elect to continue with COBRA instead of go to ACA (ObamaCare)? If you are both retired and maybe collection Social Security you would be at a lower income. A lower income lowers the cost of the health insurance under ACA. Do this to simplify the costs, go to this website:

https://www.healthsherpa.com/

Put in your zip code, income a few quick questions and within a couple of minutes you will have plans to look over with their costs.

After you do this, please let us know the monthly costs for the health insurance it comes up with. It is based on income, which is why it was named the Affordable Care Act, so that the janitor gets the same health insurance as someone who earns a lot more, but gets it at a lower cost, therefore, making it affordable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 09:51 PM
 
3,460 posts, read 2,204,919 times
Reputation: 6131
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
With auto insurance you are allowed to CHOOSE the level of coverage you want and what you don't want. If you only want liability and have a paid for car you don't need to get collision. If you don't have a car you don't need insurance. If your house is paid for you don't need home owners insurance. The ACA mandated insurance and a penalty and what that insurance provided whether you could actually use it or not.
That's not true. With ACA (ObamaCare) you select the plan you want and how much coverage.

https://www.healthsherpa.com/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 10:01 PM
 
29,809 posts, read 34,894,042 times
Reputation: 11730
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastguyz View Post
That's not true. With ACA (ObamaCare) you select the plan you want and how much coverage.

https://www.healthsherpa.com/
Not true for multiple reasons most importantly you are forced to pay for thing you don't want and will never because of gender use. Programs with minimal coverage and less cost were eliminated. Insurance companies didn't have decision making about what to offer government did. That is why so many are angry and voted for folks who would repeal. Employers had to pay for coverage they didn't want to offer. Wasn't that a Supreme Court issue. What happened to just major medical coverage?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 10:12 PM
 
3,460 posts, read 2,204,919 times
Reputation: 6131
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Not true for multiple reasons most importantly you are forced to pay for thing you don't want and will never because of gender use. Programs with minimal coverage and less cost were eliminated. Insurance companies didn't have decision making about what to offer government did. That is why so many are angry and voted for folks who would repeal. Employers had to pay for coverage they didn't want to offer. Wasn't that a Supreme Court issue. What happened to just major medical coverage?
Give us your gross income, age of you and spouse, zip code, and other questions asked and let's see what it comes up with using https://www.healthsherpa.com/ which gives you a quick answer. Must better than the government website for ACA.

No, people are angry because of misinformation and political reasons. Pure and simple.

Employers do NOT have to pay more than 10% of the costs if they don't want to. But what would happen, is someone works a low paying job and can't afford the same $1200 a month that someone making over $100K gets. So even if the employer pays the 10% required in some states, that still leaves $1080 a month for the employee making minimum wage. So what would happen, is they didn't get the coverage at all because they couldn't afford it. Then when they got sick this employee and family members go to ER and that runs up the costs for all of us. Going to the ER for anything is the most expense thing to do. But if the employees had coverage, then they would be able to go to the doctors like everyone else at an affordable cost. ACA lowered the cost so this employee doesn't pay $1080 a month, much lower cost. The employer is crying about nothing, a crummy 10% is nothing, and they just take it out of whatever raises and bonuses the employee would have gotten. They don't take it out of their pocket. And before you complain these people who get better paying job, yes, they show, but the company still needs a janitor, and someone to bus the tables. These are low wage and low skilled jobs and people need to work in them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,457,551 times
Reputation: 15684
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMKSarah View Post
Oh Lord,

Misty,

I've got some very good legal experience as a federal litigation paralegal in the employment litigation field for the defense of the big corps.

Finding counsel that will take your case for no MONEY is next to impossible. I have only seen two, which was a 5 year fight, which our side settled in the end to the detriment of those that fought our side. They paid so much, we, I am ashamed to say had the deep pockets to grind them into the ground and I was right in there making it happen. They took a settlement, it was not enough to my opinion, but there was no way they could continue without a backup. I am sure they mortgaged their homes, borrowed from friends and family, raised their credit card debt to the limit and beyond.

Was it worth it. I will never know. That being said, I left that field after that. I knew they had a case, but their attorney did not ask the right questions. Oh. I knew the answers. But they did not ask the right questions. So I knew. But they did not and we did not have any legal duty to tell them the questions nor the answers.

And yes, Misty, they filed under disparate impact. Did not mean S@it. We won.
TMKSarah, Thanks for the real-world anecdote. A question: were these individual plaintiffs? Or was there a class? What about the EEOC - was there a complaint?
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