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.
What looks strange is for 65-69 net worth dropped from 2010 to 2011 yet homes and markets were all higher.
Not so strange. My wife and I have budgeted $20k for travel, and we are finally going at age 67. If we don't do it now, we will be too late. It's expensive to travel, by the time you find and pay a house sitter that can take care of animals, pay for hotels, meals and transportation. It will show up as a dip in our net worth. A lot of retired people realize you can't take it with you, so they spend the money on stuff they always wanted to do but didn't have the time.
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.
I'm not missing anything. I UNDERSTAND - really, I do. You haven't answered my question.
I have asked why it matters??? What difference does it make in REAL LIFE if Hill/Armey et al. go on their merry way - enrolled in Medicare and not using its benefits??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyllisland
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.
He only loses his SS if he disenrolls from the Medicare program in its entirety - NOT if he chooses not to use its benefits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyllisland
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".
Losing the "entitlement" to SS is VERY DIFFERENT than not using the program. This is a distinction with a very distinct difference.
Notusing the Medicare program does NOT cause one to lose "entitlement" to SS. Formal withdrawal/disenrollment from the Medicare program DOES cause loss of "entitlement" to the entire SS program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyllisland
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
It is not wrong. Anyone can choose not to use Medicare without losing ENTITLEMENT to Social Security. It is only by actual WITHDRAWAL/DISENROLLMENT from Medicare entirely that one loses their Social Security.
Please discern the differences in consequences between withdrawal from Medicare and remaining in the program but not using it.
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.
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
You're trying to make a mountain out of a patch of brown liquid.
I read the case, did you read it?
This whole thing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
What kind of insurance company would want to pay out more, instead of less? If I'm an health plan provider, I want to let Medicare pay as much as possible, before I kick in my money.
I saw absolutely nothing indicating that either Hall or Armey were harmed or damaged in any way.
Can you show me anything demonstrating Plaintiffs were denied health plan coverage, denied medical treatment, suffered financial losses?....Anything?
And don't tell me they had to pay or would have to pay back OASI, because that is after the fact, not before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyllisland
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
...shows 54,805,000 Americans receiving either OASDI benefits with 8,022,000 receiving OADI benefits.
8,022,000 / 54,805,000 = 0.1463 = 14.63%
That is not 21% in spite of what you might think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora
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.
That never happened.
The only Trust Fund to become completely insolvent was the OASI Trust Fund in 1983, and Congress appropriated money to maintain SSRBs. The OADI Trust Fund did not become insolvent.
Technically speaking --- and you can read this on the SSA website -- SSA does not have to pay OADI benefits once the Trust Fund is exhausted. It can levy an across the board cut and leave it at that. But, most likely SSA will either pay the benefits out of the OASI Trust Fund, or Congress will direct them to do that.
Legally...
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.
Again, to re-emhasize, it is the red that is deceptive and should be stricken or carefully rewordedL
"When Brian Hall, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and other over-65 retirees requested to opt out of Medicare’s hospital insurance coverage (because they preferred their existing private coverage), the Social Security Administration didn’t thank them for saving taxpayers’ money. Instead, the SSA explained that, because of a guideline in its “Program Operations Manual System†— essentially a manual that explains how to operate the Social Security system — anyone who declined Medicare benefits would lose Social Security. That is, Hall and the others could disclaim their Medicare hospital insurance coverage but only if they forfeited all of their future claims to Social Security and repaid whatever benefits they already had received..."
Translated, "hospital insurance coverage" is part A (something we do NOT pay for in a monthly premium, but something we can have—just to have it—but not use if we choose).
The Jester video is fear-mongering. It states that anyone who opts out of MEDICARE (unqualified statement, no mention of Part A or Part B) will lose their SS.
That show was mostly sensationalist nonsense. They made it sound like all or most 401k plans charge folks 2% on their accounts. Nothing could be further from the truth. Large plans usually have pretty good fund choices and reasonable to low expenses.
My plan sponsor just lowered the expense ratios again! The most expensive fund in our plan is an emerging market's stock fund that charges 1.01%. This is arguably not "have to have" core holding.
We also have a bunch of different index funds and target date funds that charge .25% or less.
There is definitely a problem with plan expenses at smaller companies, but 401k plan expenses have been coming down across the board for over 20 years now, a fact that the Frontline show failed to mention.
they failed to mention anything that would have been a postive . it would have spoiled the dismal tone of the show. never let facts get in the way of a good story.
This pubic television Frontline episode should be mandatory viewing for all - young and old.
Retirement Gamble: Frontline
Free to watch on public television when it is aired.
Another way to view free is to ask you local public library to obtain a copy. LINK
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
in my opinion it was a useless piece of a program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP
I think the show was trying to say that if more people were Bogleheads the crisis wouldn't be as bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
That show was mostly sensationalist nonsense.
My POV - If it made just one person become curious and start investigating and asking questions about their retirement plan ... it was worth it.
my pov From what we have seen, most folks even if they saw the show wouldn't understand enough to know what questions to even ask since they have such little interest.
The only Trust Fund to become completely insolvent was the OASI Trust Fund in 1983, and Congress appropriated money to maintain SSRBs. The OADI Trust Fund did not become insolvent.
Technically speaking --- and you can read this on the SSA website -- SSA does not have to pay OADI benefits once the Trust Fund is exhausted. It can levy an across the board cut and leave it at that. But, most likely SSA will either pay the benefits out of the OASI Trust Fund, or Congress will direct them to do that.
Legally...
Mircea
Actually, the OASI Trust fund never became insolvent in 1983, but was facing imminent insolvency. Similarly, in 1994, the DI trust fund was predicted to be insolvent in 1995.
In 1994, legislation was passed to address the imminent insolvency of the DI Trust fund. The portion of OASDI taxes allocated to the OASI Trust fund was reduced and the portion allocated to the DI Trust fund was increased.
You are correct that the DI Trust fund did not actually become insolvent but neither did the OASI trust fund. On both occasions, Congress waited until what could be considered the "last minute" to pass legislation to prevent the insolvency of these funds.
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.
If true, then the poster doesn't understand that there is no SSI Trust Fund. But sure, I can accept that!
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.
