Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Medicare for all will stop this craziness

You Sir have no idea what you're saying. You know nothing about Medicare.

-This years' premium is $202 monthly and climbs every year above the COLA given.
-If your income is above $109k then you have to pay a premium on top of the $202. You may have to pay up to $700 monthly if you have a high income.
-Medicare doesn't cover many medical expenses. It has a co-insurance for many procedures. It also doesn't cover eye care or dental. If you want the gap coverage i.e. Part Q, the premium is around $200mth if you're healthy.
-If you want most prescriptions to be coverered , then it's around $50mth

There you go, just for basic medicare and minimum coverage similar to workplace Insurance, you will be paying a minimum $450mth.

You're an ignoramus if you think Medicare for all is a good idea. Throw on millions of people that haven't paid a lifetime into the fund and the expenses increase exponentially raising the premiums to $1000'S.

This sounds awful. I carried my health insurance from my employer into retirement, but when I turn 65, I will have to sign up for Medicare. The work insurance I believe becomes secondary insurance. But if what you quoted is true, my insurance cost will nearly double. Nine hundred dollars for one-person for Medicare expenses is ridiculous. And then to have to pay the premiums on the secondary insurance because Medicare covers little is asinine.

Yes it is ridiculous! That is why we need universal healthcare and need to get insurance companies out of it!

I should not have to pay $1200+ per person for healthcare at age 65+, for crappy insurance I have paid well over $500k into Medicare.

Anonymous wrote:I am 43. I plan to retire in my mid 50s. I wont take SS to fund my first decade of retirement.

I understand some people want and need to work through out their 60s. But I don't think my generation views any sort of age as the retirement age. We grew unexpecting SS to die. Its not part of our retirement calculations.

I do really really wish there was a mandatory retirement age from federal politics though... we would be far better off if no one over age 70 was permitted to be elected. Its sad and depressing to see all these put of touch oldies trying to stay relevant and run the country. Please go play golf and hang out with your grandkids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone both after December 31, 1959 (January 1st 1960 and forward) Social Security Full retirement age starts at 67. Yes you can take it before 67 but big haircut. And Medicare although it starts at 65 if married both of you have to be over 65 to both be on it.

My company in last 1-3 years people are working later and later. Even people born in 1959 with phase in from 65 to 67 full retirement it is 66 years and ten months. Meaning someone born July 1st 1959 is only eligible for full retirement benefits from SS without a haircut starting on May 1, 2026.

Someone born Jan 1st 1960 their retirement date is January 1st 2027. Yet we still treat 65 as retirement but people relying on SS it is now 67. And my job we have a few people who plan to now work till 70. That is age you get max SS and one guy near me wife is 5 years younger. So she is not eligible for Medicare till he turns 65.

RMDs for 401ks have now been kicked back to 75 for these folks.

Yet at 65 we are trying to force people out? Why is that? My Moms day (she was widowed) she retired at 65 but she got full SS at 65 and Company health paid care at 65 covered part of bills not covered by Medicare and a small company pension. That same exact company she retired from, no longer offers employees pensons or medical in retirement. I dont see how it would be possible to retire at 65 today on a reduced SS payment, no medical subisdy and no pension. So why do we keep saying 65 is retirment age?

Hard to believe as we are in DC bubble but according to the Govt 58% of retirees use Social Security as a major income source. 58 percent of people retiring before 67 is not going to work as they cant afford reduced payments on the thing that pays 58 percent of bills.

And 401K balances in the bottom 58 percent of people are very low. The average balance is inflated by the 14 percent who can afford to do max ever year with high paid jobs. Joe in Alabama making 50k a year putting in 6 percent to get company match at place that does average match of 50 cents on a dollar is only putting $4,500 a year in. But Brad in DC making 300K at Fannie Mae with a 8 percent match is putting in 24K a year and getting a 24K match is puting in 48K a year. That is 10x each year the lower earner.

58 percent of people 65 is not retirement age it is 67 or even 70.

Largely because medicare is available at age 65. And while you might have enough for retirement before that, many cannot afford healthcare. EPO (non HMO Plans) in my area are $1.2K/person/month at age 55. By 60/62 they are up to $1.8K/month.

I think the analogy with child care expenses was apt. Most childcare is 2k a month. We expect 25-40 year olds to be able to afford that. Why can't 60 year olds afford $1800 a month in healthcare? They are heavy users. Their housing costs go down (as they pay off mortgages), no commuting expenses and their healthcare rises. Also, family healthcare plans average $550 a month, so it's rising from that to $1800. It's not like it was $0 while working.

Heavy users? That’s not how insurance works. Women of child bearing age use more health insurance coverage than men of a similar age, do you think women should pay greater premiums than men because their the heaviest user?

NP. Do you think young men should pay a lot more for car insurance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Medicare for all will stop this craziness

You Sir have no idea what you're saying. You know nothing about Medicare.

-This years' premium is $202 monthly and climbs every year above the COLA given.
-If your income is above $109k then you have to pay a premium on top of the $202. You may have to pay up to $700 monthly if you have a high income.
-Medicare doesn't cover many medical expenses. It has a co-insurance for many procedures. It also doesn't cover eye care or dental. If you want the gap coverage i.e. Part Q, the premium is around $200mth if you're healthy.
-If you want most prescriptions to be coverered , then it's around $50mth

There you go, just for basic medicare and minimum coverage similar to workplace Insurance, you will be paying a minimum $450mth.

You're an ignoramus if you think Medicare for all is a good idea. Throw on millions of people that haven't paid a lifetime into the fund and the expenses increase exponentially raising the premiums to $1000'S.

This sounds awful. I carried my health insurance from my employer into retirement, but when I turn 65, I will have to sign up for Medicare. The work insurance I believe becomes secondary insurance. But if what you quoted is true, my insurance cost will nearly double. Nine hundred dollars for one-person for Medicare expenses is ridiculous. And then to have to pay the premiums on the secondary insurance because Medicare covers little is asinine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people are dying before 65 that retirement at SS is a prize.

Actually, premature mortaility (death before 65) happens to only 10-15% of Americans. The U.S survival rate is actully quite high. Americans have a 75-80% chance of living to age 70.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many people are dying before 65 that retirement at SS is a prize.

Actually, premature mortaility (death before 65) happens to only 10-15% of Americans. The U.S survival rate is actully quite high. Americans have a 75-80% chance of living to age 70.

Anonymous wrote:So many people are dying before 65 that retirement at SS is a prize.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone both after December 31, 1959 (January 1st 1960 and forward) Social Security Full retirement age starts at 67. Yes you can take it before 67 but big haircut. And Medicare although it starts at 65 if married both of you have to be over 65 to both be on it.

My company in last 1-3 years people are working later and later. Even people born in 1959 with phase in from 65 to 67 full retirement it is 66 years and ten months. Meaning someone born July 1st 1959 is only eligible for full retirement benefits from SS without a haircut starting on May 1, 2026.

Someone born Jan 1st 1960 their retirement date is January 1st 2027. Yet we still treat 65 as retirement but people relying on SS it is now 67. And my job we have a few people who plan to now work till 70. That is age you get max SS and one guy near me wife is 5 years younger. So she is not eligible for Medicare till he turns 65.

RMDs for 401ks have now been kicked back to 75 for these folks.

Yet at 65 we are trying to force people out? Why is that? My Moms day (she was widowed) she retired at 65 but she got full SS at 65 and Company health paid care at 65 covered part of bills not covered by Medicare and a small company pension. That same exact company she retired from, no longer offers employees pensons or medical in retirement. I dont see how it would be possible to retire at 65 today on a reduced SS payment, no medical subisdy and no pension. So why do we keep saying 65 is retirment age?

Hard to believe as we are in DC bubble but according to the Govt 58% of retirees use Social Security as a major income source. 58 percent of people retiring before 67 is not going to work as they cant afford reduced payments on the thing that pays 58 percent of bills.

And 401K balances in the bottom 58 percent of people are very low. The average balance is inflated by the 14 percent who can afford to do max ever year with high paid jobs. Joe in Alabama making 50k a year putting in 6 percent to get company match at place that does average match of 50 cents on a dollar is only putting $4,500 a year in. But Brad in DC making 300K at Fannie Mae with a 8 percent match is putting in 24K a year and getting a 24K match is puting in 48K a year. That is 10x each year the lower earner.

58 percent of people 65 is not retirement age it is 67 or even 70.

Largely because medicare is available at age 65. And while you might have enough for retirement before that, many cannot afford healthcare. EPO (non HMO Plans) in my area are $1.2K/person/month at age 55. By 60/62 they are up to $1.8K/month.

I think the analogy with child care expenses was apt. Most childcare is 2k a month. We expect 25-40 year olds to be able to afford that. Why can't 60 year olds afford $1800 a month in healthcare? They are heavy users. Their housing costs go down (as they pay off mortgages), no commuting expenses and their healthcare rises. Also, family healthcare plans average $550 a month, so it's rising from that to $1800. It's not like it was $0 while working.

The point of insurance is to spread the costs across the demographic pool of insured people.

"Heavy users."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life expectancy used to be 70 or less in the US for men. Retiring at 67 means you have an average of 3 years to enjoy before it’s over. Kind of a crappy deal

This is not how you apply life expectancy.

Anonymous wrote:I've always considered 59.5 to be the target retirement date because that is when I can withdraw from IRA/401k without penalty, but I see your point, especially for people who are relying on SS and Medicare. Public policy is basically pushing for a 65-year-old retirement date, but incentivizing people to start SS withdrawals at 67 and not forcing RMDs until 75. Probably because our SS system is underfunded, and raising taxes is not a popular solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 43. I plan to retire in my mid 50s. I wont take SS to fund my first decade of retirement.

I understand some people want and need to work through out their 60s. But I don't think my generation views any sort of age as the retirement age. We grew unexpecting SS to die. Its not part of our retirement calculations.

I do really really wish there was a mandatory retirement age from federal politics though... we would be far better off if no one over age 70 was permitted to be elected. Its sad and depressing to see all these put of touch oldies trying to stay relevant and run the country. Please go play golf and hang out with your grandkids.

+1

Mitch McConnell should not be rolling down the halls of Congress in his wheelchair and stroking out in front of news cameras.

And DJT is not fit to serve.

No need for partisan politics on this issue... Biden and Pelosi were way too old and should have retired years earlier too. There should just be an age cut-off no matter what side of the isle you support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 43. I plan to retire in my mid 50s. I wont take SS to fund my first decade of retirement.

I understand some people want and need to work through out their 60s. But I don't think my generation views any sort of age as the retirement age. We grew unexpecting SS to die. Its not part of our retirement calculations.

I do really really wish there was a mandatory retirement age from federal politics though... we would be far better off if no one over age 70 was permitted to be elected. Its sad and depressing to see all these put of touch oldies trying to stay relevant and run the country. Please go play golf and hang out with your grandkids.

+1

Mitch McConnell should not be rolling down the halls of Congress in his wheelchair and stroking out in front of news cameras.

And DJT is not fit to serve.