Retirement Crisis

Cue the deafening silence from the "privatize Social Security" folks. :roll:

Social Security is the only income many of these folks have - and can't even delay a couple years for higher payments.

Retirement Crisis: Baby Boomers Near 65 With Retirements In Jeopardy

"If I'd been smarter and planned and had the bucks, I'd wait until 70 <to take Social Security>," says Vanatta, who is divorced and rents an apartment. "It's my fault. For years I was making plenty of money and spending plenty of money."

Vanatta is in the majority. Some 51 percent of early boomer households, headed by those ages 55 to 64, face a retirement with lower living standards, according to a 2009 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

That sounds like me: I spent all my money on food, clothing, mortgage, gas, beer...them dadgum necessities ate a hole in my "retirement". And besides, I thought I would die before I got old...dang!

Cue the roar from "my retirement is someone else's responsibility" folks.

Cue the deafening silence from the "privatize Social Security" folks. :roll:

Social Security is the only income many of these folks have - and can't even delay a couple years for higher payments.

If that's really the case, there are going to be a lot of greeters at Walmart over the next few decades. You can't survive off SS income.

As for ss privatization, it wouldn't effect these folks, so it's not relevant.

If that's really the case, there are going to be a lot of greeters at Walmart over the next few decades. You can't survive off SS income.

As for ss privatization, it wouldn't effect these folks, so it's not relevant.

You would be surprised what little money some people are surviving on now so SS income will do them just fine compared to no retirement at all.

There are many people who survive on SS alone...perhaps not the lifestyle they would like, but it's all they have...

A lot of people when they get old and their health goes to pieces, all they need is affordable heatlth care and a comfortable place to live. Some may not even be able to drive, so there goes the need for a car. If their house is paid for or their mortgage is low, social security may provide them the money they need for their living expenses. Unfortunately for them, many of the older folk are simply not capable of living an extravagant lifestyle. They are just fortunate to be living at home perhaps with healthier friends and relatives to help them out.

Perhaps if primary care physicians were paid by Medicare to advise elderly patients of other "options", besides trying to extend their unproductive lives, The US could save money and reduce the carbon footprint in one fell swoop.

Perhaps if primary care physicians were paid by Medicare to advise elderly patients of other "options", besides trying to extend their unproductive lives, The US could save money and reduce the carbon footprint in one fell swoop.

are you really bringing up the "death panels" again...:idontno:

Perhaps if primary care physicians were paid by Medicare to advise elderly patients of other "options", besides trying to extend their unproductive lives, The US could save money and reduce the carbon footprint in one fell swoop.

Get a grip.

The government didn't pay me and I had that discussion with my parents - because they are legally in charge of me and I am legally in charge of them.

It's called planning ahead - and it's a good thing.

What...No welcome back?

are you really bringing up the "death panels" again...:idontno:

I wouldn't go so far as to label it death panels but definitely rationing.

Perhaps if primary care physicians were paid by Medicare to advise elderly patients of other "options", besides trying to extend their unproductive lives, The US could save money and reduce the carbon footprint in one fell swoop.

Has your doctor advised you to extend your unproductive life?

There's nothing unproductive about me. Perhaps you need a visit.

There's nothing unproductive about me. Perhaps you need a visit.

I did and he said he had a patient named AndrewG who is such a burden on society he was going to euthanize him next visit.:cool:

I did and he said he had a patient named AndrewG who is such a burden on society he was going to euthanize him next visit.:cool:

Can I watch??? (Just joking FTLOC!!!) :cool:

soylent green......is.........people

WASHINGTON ? What you paid in Medicare taxes shows up on your W-2 income tax form every year. So when you retire, you want your money's worth.

That's how most Americans see it. In an Associated Press-GfK poll nearly 6 out of 10 said they paid into the system so they deserve their full benefits ? no cuts.

But a newly updated financial analysis shows that what people paid into the system doesn't come close to covering the full value of the medical care they can expect to receive as retirees.

Consider an average-wage, two-earner couple together earning $89,000 a year. Upon retiring in 2011, they would have paid $114,000 in Medicare payroll taxes during their careers.

But they can expect to receive medical services ? from prescriptions to hospital care ? worth $355,000, or about three times what they put in.

The estimates by economists Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute think tank illustrate the huge disconnect between widely-held perceptions and the numbers behind Medicare's shaky financing. Although Americans are worried about Medicare's long-term solvency, few realize the size of the gap.

"The fact that you put money into the system doesn't mean it's there waiting for you to collect," said Steuerle.

By comparison, Social Security taxes and expected benefits come closer to balancing out.

The same hypothetical couple retiring in 2011 will have paid $614,000 in Social Security taxes, and can expect to collect $555,000 in benefits. They will have paid about 10 percent more into the system than they're likely to get back.

"With Medicare, we are all still making out like bandits, shoving all those costs to future generations," said Steuerle. "At another level, we know that this system is totally unsustainable."

Your Medicare taxes won't cover what you'll cost - Yahoo! News

Rationing and "early after life planning" may well be the only way to keep government funded healthcare solvent.

Rationing and "early after life planning" may well be the only way to keep government funded healthcare solvent.

Isn't rationing socialism? Just asking...:cool:

Isn't rationing socialism? Just asking...:cool:

When in Rome... 😀

Really, since government is a bottomless pit of funding controlled by self serving politicians, it's easy for entitlements like this to spiral out of control. Europe is a perfect example, as is our Medicare system. To control costs of anything funded by the government (vs. the individual market which is regulated by income availability) you have to cap costs some how. Every government funded health system out there involves rationing. We'll end up doing that with ObamaCare once the all-you-can-eat system democrats have designed blows up in our faces.

Down the road this opens the door for rationing pension plans that are spiraling out of control and underfunded.

I wouldn't go so far as to label it death panels but definitely rationing.

.

From the best source of bipartisan research and fact checking I have found:

Health care reform: A simple explanation, updated
PolitiFact | Health care reform: A simple explanation, updated

'Rationing' and other scare words in health debate
PolitiFact | 'Rationing' and other scare words in health debate
John Boehner:The health bill's plan for comparative effectiveness research "would be used by the government to ration care."


Sarah Palin: Seniors and the disabled "will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."

PolitiFact | Statements we say are Pants on Fire!

Nancy Pfotenhauer: The president's health care proposals will cause "most Americans to have their premiums increased, not decreased, and hundreds of millions of people lose their current insurance coverage."

PolitiFact | Health care reform does not increase premiums and boot people out of their coverage

John Raese: Under the new health care law, "the first person (a) patient has to go to is a bureaucrat. That is called a panel."

PolitiFact | John Raese says health care law forces patients to go to a bureaucrat before a doctor

chain e-mail: "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services."

PolitiFact | No free health care for illegal immigrants in the health bill



.

You're focused on the wrong people. What are the people around the President tasked with structuring policy saying... I'm more focused on those in power than those trying to get elected.

Rationing and "early after life planning" may well be the only way to keep government funded healthcare solvent.

or actually paying for the services through taxation. mindboggling idea, no?