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.
It's like those single mothers on welfare. It makes more sense for them to stay on welfare instead of working for $25K a year because they figure they can get more in benefits by not working and staying at home on government assistance.
Already record numbers of people are taking early retirements (either they've been laid off) or just want to retire early. But one of the main reasons for delaying retirement is because of non-eligiblity for health care subsidies (IE medicare).
Most people who take early SSN benefits have a working spouse with health insurance that the early retiree can go under.
I think you are wrong.....many people look to retire BEFORE they get too old to enjoy things
myself I 'plan' on retiring at 55...6 years from now...I have 30 years on the job....and it will be my 2nd pension...plus SS when I hit 62......and it has NOTHING to do with medicare or the age of eligibility for it.
I think you are wrong.....many people look to retire BEFORE they get too old to enjoy things
myself I 'plan' on retiring at 55...6 years from now...I have 30 years on the job....and it will be my 2nd pension...plus SS when I hit 62......and it has NOTHING to do with medicare or the age of eligibility for it.
Actually you answered your own question here. Who's paying for your health insurance premiums here after you retire early? Or you will be on your spouse's healthcare plan?
You mention pension. I'm assuming your pension is taking care of paying most of your healthcare premiums while you retire early.
What if you didn't have your pension paying some of your healthcare premiums? Would that make your decision to retire a little different?
Most younger workers don't have pensions to look forward to. They don't have pensions that help offset the costs of healthcare premiums that allows them to retire early?
That's my whole point of allowing people medicare eligibility if unemployed starting at 55 I'm not saying people will retire at 55. Those that retire that early already are either well off, or have nice pensions to offset their incomes.
What I'm saying is that more people will look at age 62 as their early retirement age because that's when they can collect social security benefits plus get medicare eligibility if they are not working. This will put an even more strain on social security. There will be more going out of the social security system faster than what's being put in. And making people eligible for medicare even earlier will be a direct consequence of the Senate medicare proposal.
Look the US Senate is trying to compromise on the health bill. But they are just idiots.
Not only are they going to bankrupt Medicare by expanding it to age 55 year old for those without insurance but as a consequence they will accelerate the bankruptcy of the SSN program.
Once again, the democrats are not trying to address the root causes for high costs in healthcare, nor are they trying to lower the costs on health insurance, all they are doing is widening the big government net, and forcing taxpayers and the private sector businesses to absorb the costs.
I would retire at 62, however the cost of private inusrance until i reach 65 would make retring at 62 a problem
Yep, that's what I've been trying to say.
I think people are so short sighted on reducing the age of medicare eligibility to 55.
It sounds like a good idea. However, I feel it's going to open the floodgates on people who will do the basic math and feel it's better just to retire and start collecting social security at 62 and go on medicare as opposed to keep on working (to keep health benefits at work) till age 65 in order to qualify for medicare.
This will create even more of a mess on the social security system.
Actually you answered your own question here. Who's paying for your health insurance premiums here after you retire early?
Some people will have no problem retiring at age 55, and forcing two or three families, struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck, to pay for their Medicare for ten years, as if they are somehow entitled to it.
Somebody needs to cite some references here. I've heard two financial advisers state that, for many people, retiring at age 62 with a reduced Social Security benefit is a financially sound decision. Therefore, without citing reliable statistics, you can't claim that this policy change will lead to a stampede of people trying to get in the Social Security office to sign up and bankrupt the system.
What makes you think they will retire at 55? There will probably be many that opt for Medicare ins. as opposed to higher price of private ins. thru their company. The company will be happy to not have to provide ins. for these elder workers, which may result in increasing their ability to hire more people. The trigger option also talked about is nothing new, and most thought that was the way they were going to go for quite a while. The Public Option is a hard thing to get thru with all the Repubs and Ins. Cos. fighting so hard against it. But down the road, there is little doubt the trigger will be pulled, unless, of course, you believe the Ins. Cos. will all of a sudden switch their objective to you as opposed to themselves. Health Ins. cannot survive as a for profit business.
One of the criticisms of WalMart is that they don't pay benefits for their parttime employees forcing those employees to apply for Medicaid. Thus WalMart pushes its employees onto the public rolls. What you're suggesting is precisely what WalMart does. How is it a good thing to allow workers to opt into Medicare and relieve their employers of the cost of providing insurance for them?
One of the criticisms of WalMart is that they don't pay benefits for their parttime employees forcing those employees to apply for Medicaid. Thus WalMart pushes its employees onto the public rolls. What you're suggesting is precisely what WalMart does. How is it a good thing to allow workers to opt into Medicare and relieve their employers of the cost of providing insurance for them?
I know of some people who make only minimum wages. When they need medical care, they are given a form to fill in which a person must complete in detail, e.g. wages-salaries-tips, living expenses e.g. gas-electric-phone-foods-car insurance (if a mtr. veh. is owned) and so forth. Assistance for medical care is either medicaid or from the state/county or all. It depends on the person whom is applying, their individual circumstances. Medicaid covers people in many different situations, people who are disabled, people who cannot work for certain reasons other than medical, and so forth.
If I were a city-data member and concerned about eligibilty requirements, I would not believe anything in the OP, if I were you, I would do my own research and find out what the truth really is.
Somebody needs to cite some references here. I've heard two financial advisers state that, for many people, retiring at age 62 with a reduced Social Security benefit is a financially sound decision. Therefore, without citing reliable statistics, you can't claim that this policy change will lead to a stampede of people trying to get in the Social Security office to sign up and bankrupt the system.
It's pretty straight forward. Health care costs count into a big decision when people are on the edge of "early retirement" If you can gain eligiblity of medicare by age 62 years, it's almost a no brainer to get early social security benefits.
If you have co-workers near 60 years old. Ask them how much longer they want to work (if they are pretty financially set). Social Security and medicare go hand in hand. Why do you think people want until 65 years? It's because they have get medicare AND social security. It's kinda of pointless to get early reduced social security at age 62 and retire unless you are super well off or have a working spouse who can obtain health insurance with.
If the Senate's reduced age medicare eligibility passes, it will open the floodgates to people applying for social security benefits at age 62. Try to obtain private health insurance at age 62 (without employer subsidizing 70-80% of the costs). That's why people keep working to maintain health benefits until they are eligible for medicare.
Who on this board has taking early social security at age 62 and obtained their own health insurance. I am talking about those who do not get pensions which subsidized their health plans or those who retire early and hook on to their working spouse's health insurance.
But if you know you are eligible for medicare at age 62 as long as you retire early (ie you are unemployed), it's almost a no-brainer to get early reduced benefits.
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.
