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.
apparently, the website information is correct and the information on this forum is incorrect... I do however appreciate motivating me to dig and get some answers.
Thanks everyone!
J
Oh so that is Medicare PART A (the "free" part) that is being referred to. The Jester website is quite deceptive in its blanket statement that anyone who rejects "Medicare" (not specifying Part A) is going to lose SS. What a crock.
Did you all seriously think this would slide under my radar?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
But once the money ran out then what? The only option would be to collect early social security with all the penalties that come with it.
There are no penalties that come with it.
There are rewards for waiting until the full-retirement age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
That goes a long way towards explaining what appears to be extremely low benefits for the "average" retiree.
A person making minimum wage all of their life will get $763/month in Social Security benefits. That person is currently paying $96/month in FICA payroll taxes.
That, is extremely low....the benefit (just to clarify)...not the payroll tax.
Of course, having a minimum wage worker pay $96/month in payroll taxes to get a benefit of $763/month makes much more sense than the "federal" government relinquishing power and control to the States so that a minimum wage worker could pay $21/month and get $1,660/month in benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
So the average retired worker receives $1,261 while a retired couple, both receiving benefits, receive but a combined benefit of $2,048.
And the intended purpose of that disinformation is what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
I suppose $2,048 for a retired couple is adequate...
The poverty level for 2 in some areas of the US is $8,163 annually, or $680/month so $2,048 would be just over 300% of poverty level.
What's the issue?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
How can an aged widow make it on $1,214 even if she does own her own home and doesn't have debt? And those are average benefits?
Easily. I live on less than that each month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volosong
That's simply incredible! I almost cannot believe it. Maybe I'm the stupid one to keep on working.
You're right not to believe it.
The National Institute on Retirement Security is a Left-Wing Propaganda/Disinformation group.
If you want facts......true facts....
As of December 2013, there were 54,805,000 Americans collecting Social Security benefits. Of those:
1] 39,610,000 are Age 65 or older;
2] 8,022,000 are Disabled;
3] 7,174,000 are neither aged nor disabled (for example, early retirees, young survivors).
Let us do the math together, so that we might come to understand Truth & Reality.
7,174,000 / 54,805,000 = 0.1309 = 13.09%
That makes this.....
Quote:
41 percent of men and 46 percent of women retire at age 62 . Only 14.3 percent of men and 9.7 percent of women wait to collect their full check at age 66.
...a goddam lie, and the only thing worse than lies is liars.
I wanna bury that puke liar.
In November 2013, there were 54,714,000 Americans collecting Social Security benefits. Of those:
1] 39,513,000 are Age 65 or older;
2] 8,001,000 are Disabled;
3] 7,200,000 are neither aged nor disabled (for example, early retirees, young survivors).
So....what happened?
The number of early retirees and young survivors decreased by 260,000
Perhaps we should look at January 2013, in which there were 53,723,000 Americans collecting benefits and...
1] 38,518,000 are Age 65 or older;
2] 7,879,000 are Disabled;
3] 7,326,000 are neither aged nor disabled (for example, early retirees, young survivors).
So the number of those who are either yung survivors or early retirees has decreased over the course of the year. We can attribute that to young survivors reaching the age where they are no longer entitle to survivor's benefits, and to the early retirees who turned 65 years of age.
Regardless.....the claim that 40% take early retirement is a lie.
From Table V.A2.—Social Security Area Population on July 1 and Dependency Ratios we can see that there were 43,574,000 Americans 65 and older and yet as of December 2012, only 38,365,000 Age 65 and older were receiving Social Security benefits, so....
....12% if Americans were eligible but didn't bother to file for benefits.
Worse than that, from Table V.C4.—OASI Beneficiaries With Benefits in Current-Payment Status we can see that as of December 2012, the status for survivors was...
4,193,000 Widow/Widower
154,000 Mother/Father
1,907,000 Child
1,000 Parent
-----
6,255,000 total.....
7,346,000 December 2012 early retirees and young survivors.
---------- 1,091,000 Early Retirees
This is tiring fighting liars......let's cut to the chase.....
Financial sophistication varies by regions. Housing cost varies by regions as does overall COL. It is darn hard to compare apples and oranges.
Thank you for bringing that up.
Sadly, this is the United States of America -- a federal republic -- and not the Uniform Stalinistic Scandinavian States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
Isn't that what privatization would do by allowing you an actual individual account that you would then have some say over?
No, privatization would worsen things, unless, it was privatized as insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
Where is it written (besides on Jester) that "Due to regulations in order to collect Social Security you MUST enroll into Medicare or you will forfeit all benefits from Social Security"—????
Quote:
Originally Posted by jreardon
hey newenglandgirl,
So I posed that question to our financial advisor, armed with my best "you are soooo wrong" attitude.
apparently, the website information is correct and the information on this forum is incorrect... I do however appreciate motivating me to dig and get some answers.
Thanks everyone!
J
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
Oh so that is Medicare PART A (the "free" part) that is being referred to. The Jester website is quite deceptive in its blanket statement that anyone who rejects "Medicare" (not specifying Part A) is going to lose SS. What a crock.
You go girl....this is the crux of the matter here..... Because plaintiffs are 65 or older and are entitled to Social Security benefits, they are "entitled to hospital insurance benefits" through Medicare Part A. 42 U.S.C. § 426(a). But plaintiffs do not want to be legally entitled to Medicare Part A benefits.
To be clear, plaintiffs already "may refuse to request Medicare payment" for services they receive and instead "agree to pay for the services out of their own funds or from other insurance." MEDICARE CLAIMS PROCESSING MANUAL, ch. 1, § 50.1.5 (2011). So they can decline Medicare Part A benefits.
But plaintiffs want something more than just the ability to decline Medicare payments. They seek a legal declaration that Medicare Part A benefits cannot be paid on their behalf—a declaration, in other words, that they are not legally entitled to Medicare Part A benefits. But the statute simply does not provide any mechanism to achieve that objective. If you are 65 or older and sign up for Social Security, you are automatically entitled to Medicare Part A benefits. You can decline those benefits. But you still remain entitled to them under the statute.
Hall v. Sebelius, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit,667 F.3d 1293 (2012)
You ought to know by now....if there was anything to this, I'd have been all over it, but there ain't nothing to see here.
Factually....
Mircea
Last edited by Mircea; 01-27-2014 at 09:16 PM..
Reason: Sourcing
Please consider the fact that due to improper planning your Medicare premiums sky rocket and then you find yourself paying more, but instead of receiving a bill the money, by law has to come out automatically from your Social Security benefits.
With Social Security's cola's being under 2% and Medicare inflating at over 6%, there will be a point that rich people will see not only their healthcare costs increase, but will also see their Social Security benefits vanish entirely.
In fact, there will be a point, depending on the person, where someone will not only pay more and also never receive a Social Security check, but they will also have the luxury of writing a check to the government for the difference and finally be taxed on income they never received.
Oh yeah, for those that ain't rich: the Medicare premiums are expected to eat up the cola's from Social Security, so the less affluent can expect to never see an increase in income that they so desperately need.
You are stating that just because they Plantiffs can pay for their health expenses out of their own pocket instead of using Medicare Part A, the ruling doesn't stand?
Wow.
I'm sorry, apparently there is more to this than you know as, let's see which news sources ran the story:
New York Post
[url]http://nypost.com/2011/03/25/entitled-to-chains/[/url]
Where is it written (besides on Jester) that "Due to regulations in order to collect Social Security you MUST enroll into Medicare or you will forfeit all benefits from Social Security"—????
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
you only get hit with penaltys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
That's a pretty deceptively worded website, to instill senior fear. Boy are the investment "advisers" having a heyday with boomers.
apparently, the website information is correct and the information on this forum is incorrect... I do however appreciate motivating me to dig and get some answers.
Up to this point, everyone here has always been referring to penalties for late enrollment in Part B. The issue of Part A has never been on anyone's radar screen on this forum. Why would it be??? It's a very rare 65 & over who doesn't want Medicare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
Oh so that is Medicare PART A (the "free" part) that is being referred to. The Jester website is quite deceptive in its blanket statement that anyone who rejects "Medicare" (not specifying Part A) is going to lose SS. What a crock.
EXACTLY!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyllisland
Mircea
You are stating that just because they Plantiffs can pay for their health expenses out of their own pocket instead of using Medicare Part A, the ruling doesn't stand?
Your post was excellent on giving information, but again you are missing what is right in front of you
Mircea never said that. What he means is the issue is - in practical application - a distinction without a difference - i.e., beneficiary can still decline use of Part A. He doesn't need to disenroll from SS to do that. Why does it matter, anyway? If Armey doesn't want to use Medicare Part A hospitalization benefits, he is free to decline.
However, Medicare eligibility could be problematic for his private insurer. Armey needed proof he had no Medicare eligibility to keep his insurance without a Medicare carve-out - at one time, very hard to find for those 65 and over, outside of employer-sponsored health insurance for the still-working employee.
interesting mircea, they very conviently forget to mention 21% of those collecting ss are under the age of 62 right off the bat.
i guess technically it is what it is and their statistic are correct taken at face value. it really is the number of people who take ss before fra. it just paints a very innacurate picture of what it is taken to mean.
to use we assume very few retirees are waiting to collect but that isn't the case.
Up to this point, everyone here has always been referring to penalties for late enrollment in Part B. The issue of Part A has never been on anyone's radar screen on this forum. Why would it be??? It's a very rare 65 & over who doesn't want Medicare.
EXACTLY!
Mircea never said that. What he means is the issue is - in practical application - a distinction without a difference - i.e., beneficiary can still decline use of Part A. He doesn't need to disenroll from SS to do that. Why does it matter, anyway? If Armey doesn't want to use Medicare Part A hospitalization benefits, he is free to decline.
However, Medicare eligibility could be problematic for his private insurer. Armey needed proof he had no Medicare eligibility to keep his insurance without a Medicare carve-out - at one time, very hard to find for those 65 and over, outside of employer-sponsored health insurance for the still-working employee.
You are missing the reason why the court case even existed. Armey wanted to keep hos Social Security and NOT enroll into Medicare. I have no idea why that is being missed by those on this board. ANd by the way, the person who filed was Brian Hill, Armey only jumped in later.
Sure he can gladly decline Medicare any time he wants and so can you, the only thing is...you lose your Social Security benefits and have to pay back every cent you already collected.
On page 11 of the court case is the judge's decision:
"Individuals entitled to monthly benefits which confer eligibility for HI may not waive HI
entitlement. The only way to avoid HI entitlement is through withdrawal of the monthly benefit application. Withdrawal requires repayment of all [SSRB] and HI benefit payments made".
But I understand that an Appellate Court judge's ruling, along with reporting from the Wall St Journal, the New York Post and attorneys from ElderLaw Answers are lost on this Board as it seems like people could care less about receiving their Social Security, so then it's no big deal right?
And please read the entire court case before stating if someone is wrong. It's misinformation on boards like this that lead to Seniors having to choose finances over their health, because what has been uttered has been wrong
interesting mircea, they very conviently forget to mention 21% of those collecting ss are under the age of 62 right off the bat.
i guess technically it is what it is and their statistic are correct taken at face value. it really is the number of people who take ss before fra. it just paints a very innacurate picture of what it is taken to mean.
to use we assume very few retirees are waiting to collect but that isn't the case.
Those 21% are NOT collecting Social Security benefits, they are collecting Social Security Disability.
If you are going bash someone please use the correct terminology
Disability
[url=http://www.ssa.gov/disability/]Benefits for People with Disabilities[/url]
Those both have different Trust Funds, please read the Board of Trustees Report before posting
Disability benefits ARE Social Security benefits.
Yes, there is a separate Disability Insurance trust fund. So what? Those are still benefits that are awarded through the Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance Program, (aka the Social Security program). The last time the Disability trust fund ran dry, Congress authorized the transfer of funds from the Old Age and Survivor trust fund to the Disability trust fund. I expect Congress will do the same in the next year or two.
You should also read a tad more carefully. Mathjak was referring to this:
About 15 percent were persons aged 18–61 receiving benefits as disabled workers, survivors, or dependents. Another 6 percent were children under age 18.
I'm sure the statistics are further broken down elsewhere, but unless Congress decides to change the law, each of these components identifies a particular entitlement under Social Security law.
Yes, there is a separate Disability Insurance trust fund. So what? Those are still benefits that are awarded through the Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance Program, (aka the Social Security program). The last time the Disability trust fund ran dry, Congress authorized the transfer of funds from the Old Age and Survivor trust fund to the Disability trust fund. I expect Congress will do the same in the next year or two.
You should also read a tad more carefully. Mathjak was referring to this:
About 15 percent were persons aged 18–61 receiving benefits as disabled workers, survivors, or dependents. Another 6 percent were children under age 18.
I'm sure the statistics are further broken down elsewhere, but unless Congress decides to change the law, each of these components identifies a particular entitlement under Social Security law.
Lenora, don't worry about it consider this from the post you are referring to.
Those 21% are NOT collecting Social Security benefits, they are collecting Social Security Disability.
That is a contradiction because as you point out Social Security Disability is a sub set of Social Security benefits. I think they made a typo and left out the word income so it would have read:
Those 21% are NOT collecting Social Security INCOME benefits, they are collecting Social Security Disability.
I may be wrong and they can speak for themselves but if we accept that the discussion can move on.
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.
Big deal or not
