So I've been reading and watching some pieces on the pending bankruptcy for 2040 of America by it's medicare, medicade and so forth.

Apparently, there is no one arguing the fact it's coming. Our system is top heavy without the tax base to support the expenditure. The real moral issue on this is, most governments have seen this yet choose to place this large burden on future generations.

I'm interested to know what you guys think about this.

I think people should be more responsible and provide for their own healthcare.

I think, since healthcare is a necessity like clean drinking water or police protection, it should be made available to all citizens and paid for by taxes.

BrianMCG & Rolando have now set the parameters of sentiment on this particular thread.

The rest may now begin.:D

BrianMCG & Rolando have now set the parameters of sentiment on this particular thread.

The rest may now begin.:D

now we can get down to the taunting--"You're a socialist!" "You're a fascist!"

I am ready for battle and have girded my loins!!!:eek:

I am ready for battle and have girded my loins!!!:eek:


Yo, keep that sh*t in the Lounge where it belongs!


/trying to shake the vision of Rolando's girded loins from my head.

So I've been reading and watching some pieces on the pending bankruptcy for 2040 of America by it's medicare, medicade and so forth.



Offshore it.

IMO, the high cost of health care is mainly caused by the malpractice insurance that MDs must pay to stay in business. This is the result of the legal system allowing anyone to sue their doctors for whatever reason. You can sue your doctor for any reason. The insurance company will settle when the cost of defending the case in court is more than the settlement that the plaintiff is asking for (usually around $10,000). Doctors really are not affected since they just pass on the cost to the patient. The overwhelming majoritiy of MDs are now charging the patient directly for the cost of the visit. This means that the patient must file the claim to the insurance company and eat the difference.

The answer to controlling healtcare costs is tort reform. Laws should be created to allow only those who have credible evidence to initiate a law suit (e.g., disfigured in surgery or given a medication that caused a serious allergic reaction in the patient). Caps on law suits should also be adopted. Without these changes, healthcare costs will continue to soar our of control.

:idea:

If they are going to limit malpractice lawsuits they should also limit the amount of hours in day/week that a doctor can work. I think it is not surprising that mistakes are made when you routinely work 60+ hrs/week. Heck, we limit the amount of time truck drivers can put in because they become dangerous so why not doctors too.

Offshore it.

It has already started. India has started offering packages including airfare for opperations at a fraction of the cost of the US offering. They aim the package price to be slighly less then the cash portion of a plan and are taking the business out of the US healthcare system.

Here is where you're going to see compeition for that healthcare business improve the offering here at home. If India can do it cheaper, people now have a choice of where they go.

I think, since healthcare is a necessity like clean drinking water or police protection, it should be made available to all citizens and paid for by taxes.

I dont know if you're a baby boomer, however I am not. Do you think it reasonable that I should see my taxes go up 10-15% in order to cover the costs of an aging population?

Do you also think it fair that the younger generation is taxed more heavily then any pervious generation to pay for the flanderings of the baby boomers?

Seems to me if the current system baby boomers have paid can't meet their needs they should be responsible for its short comings.

I would move to taxing the users of the system and leaving the short comings to be passed to the childern of the baby boomers who enjoyed the low tax rates and didn't save adiquently. The families are responsible, not the entire population.

The answer to controlling healtcare costs is tort reform. Laws should be created to allow only those who have credible evidence to initiate a law suit (e.g., disfigured in surgery or given a medication that caused a serious allergic reaction in the patient). Caps on law suits should also be adopted. Without these changes, healthcare costs will continue to soar our of control.

:idea:

You're right, reform is needed. It will likely come down with a multitude of restrictions. However who will support such a reform that effects the largest single demographic, the greatest wealth in America and a huge voting block?

When we talk about morals and ethics this issue of passing down the problem to younger generations really bothers me. Both government and the people are immoral on this issue.

IMO, the high cost of health care is mainly caused by the malpractice insurance that MDs must pay to stay in business. This is the result of the legal system allowing anyone to sue their doctors for whatever reason. You can sue your doctor for any reason. The insurance company will settle when the cost of defending the case in court is more than the settlement that the plaintiff is asking for (usually around $10,000). Doctors really are not affected since they just pass on the cost to the patient. The overwhelming majoritiy of MDs are now charging the patient directly for the cost of the visit. This means that the patient must file the claim to the insurance company and eat the difference.

The answer to controlling healtcare costs is tort reform. Laws should be created to allow only those who have credible evidence to initiate a law suit (e.g., disfigured in surgery or given a medication that caused a serious allergic reaction in the patient). Caps on law suits should also be adopted. Without these changes, healthcare costs will continue to soar our of control.

:idea:

LOL...what a simple world you live in. You really think that everything will be solved if drs can't be sued? I'm sure they will lower their rates to something a $6/hr worker can afford. LOLZQ!

I dont know if you're a baby boomer, however I am not. Do you think it reasonable that I should see my taxes go up 10-15% in order to cover the costs of an aging population?



That "Aging Population" is made up of our fathers and mothers and uncles and aunts. I personally don´t mind contributing more taxes to see that they are well taken care of. I am strong and still relatively young and it is an honor to make sure our elderly are well taken care of.

That "Aging Population" is made up of our fathers and mothers and uncles and aunts. I personally don´t mind contributing more taxes to see that they are well taken care of. I am strong and still relatively young and it is an honor to make sure our elderly are well taken care of.

So why not pay it out of your own pocket then?

My family has been more frugal with their monies, not purchasing lavish items or over extending themselves then my parents friends. Now my folks are retired with enough savings to not 'lean' on society.

Why is it now our (non-babyboomers) problem that baby boomers were short sighted?

The future is in our childern, not in our parents and grandparents. I dont want to see myself or my childern paying for mistakes of the past.

Babyboomers represent the largest single demogrpahic and control over a trillion dollars in assets. Why should their childern be forced to pay for their healthcare in a nationwide tax increase?

So why not pay it out of your own pocket then?

My family has been more frugal with their monies, not purchasing lavish items or over extending themselves then my parents friends. Now my folks are retired with enough savings to not 'lean' on society.

Why is it now our (non-babyboomers) problem that baby boomers were short sighted?

The future is in our childern, not in our parents and grandparents. I dont want to see myself or my childern paying for mistakes of the past.

Babyboomers represent the largest single demogrpahic and control over a trillion dollars in assets. Why should their childern be forced to pay for their healthcare in a nationwide tax increase?

In other words..."I got mine and f you if you didn't." Maybe we should bring back the poorhouses?

LOL...what a simple world you live in. You really think that everything will be solved if drs can't be sued? I'm sure they will lower their rates to something a $6/hr worker can afford. LOLZQ!

Yeah, Docs should be forced to lower their rates. :idea: I mean really, after sacrificing their entire 20s by going to school and carrying debt loads of usually in excess of $100,000 min. then making a pitiful salary immediately following medical and through their residency, it only seems fair.:p

Yeah, Docs should be forced to lower their rates. :idea: I mean really, after sacrificing their entire 20s by going to school and carrying debt loads of usually in excess of $100,000 min. then making a pitiful salary immediately following medical and through their residency, it only seems fair.:p

Hey they chose the profession. My point was that rates will not go down simply because they pay less malpractice insurance. Despite all the tales of woe about how hard it is to be a dr. today I don't see many of them having many problems paying the bills--and they always have nice cars and houses.

In other words..."I got mine and f you if you didn't." Maybe we should bring back the poorhouses?

No it's all about choices. If my folks end up running out of money I wouldn't dare look to social programs, just like when I've been between jobs I've never looks for social assistance.

If needed I will fork in whatever amounts of funds are required to keep my parents in the state of affars they wish.

People make choices, every day, purchase TV's they dont need, purchase new cars and so forth. All of these add up in a lifetime. If you've made bad choices, and not saved for your retirement, why should society be punished for that?

It is not my fault, your fault or anyone elses fault that someone X doesnt have enough money to retire and pay for their living and medical expenses.

LOL...what a simple world you live in. You really think that everything will be solved if drs can't be sued? I'm sure they will lower their rates to something a $6/hr worker can afford. LOLZQ!

Did you take your prozac this morning? I fully support the right to sue your doctor and I implied that in my response. Medical law suits are an essential part of a healthy and efficient healthcare system. IMO, our quality of healthcare would suffer tremendously without the right to sue your doctor. But, as usual you miss the point. My point is that the system is vulnerable to frivolous and bogus law suits that can be easily exploited. I'm advocating that checks be put in place to make it harder for con artists to exploit the system. To date, there are no checks in the current system. You can sue your doctor for giving you a dirty look. This entitles you to present your case in court and pursue a lawsuit that would most likely be settled our of court for an amount that is lower than the cost to defend the case in court. That's a broken legal system and you the patient is paying for it.

:(

No it's all about choices. If my folks end up running out of money I wouldn't dare look to social programs, just like when I've been between jobs I've never looks for social assistance.

Why? You pay into it your whole working life? Why not take advantage of it if you need it someday? I suppose you wouldn't bother to use your car insurance if you crash your car either. :rolleyes:

Hey they chose the profession. My point was that rates will not go down simply because they pay less malpractice insurance. Despite all the tales of woe about how hard it is to be a dr. today I don't see many of them having many problems paying the bills--and they always have nice cars and houses.

I understand that was your point, I was just making light of how certain people get irritated at the salaries docs make. Just as docs have made choices that lead them to that profession, so do $6/hr workers. You don't just 'end up' living on min. wage, you make choices, based on your situation that, leads you there. In regard to the "I don't see many of them having many problems paying the bills--and they always have nice cars and houses" While that may be true for some, a lot of them are in debt up to their eye balls. I know a doc who pulls down close to $165,000 currently, but the dude has around a million in debt liabilities. I don't feel sorry for him, its just reality. Just because you appear to have money, doesn't mean you do.

Regarding medical cost, it's not going to get any cheaper and I don't feel that government would do a better job with administrating it. Lord knows I don't want a bureaucrat telling me what procedures I can and cannot have based on some government bean counters analysis. Can you imagine dealing with the an agency like the IRS to get medical treatment? That would be a horror show.

I do think one of the keys to fixing the cost side of the equation are Health Savings Accounts. Make people save except instead of this money going into the general government accounting fund, actually make it separate account, 'a lock box' if you will for each individual.

Regardless, personally, I have no problem with taking care of my parents if something medically goes wrong, however, i do have a big problem with paying for people who have made bad choices throughout their life that have health consequence. I just don't feel like paying for someone diabetes treatment/amputation of their feet, because they couldn't put down the spoon, chemotherapy/lung transplant because they couldn't put down cigarette, or their HIV cocktail because they were hard up one night and just didn't feel like springing for that oh so expensive $.75 condom.

Did you take your prozac this morning? I fully support the right to sue your doctor and I implied that in my response. Medical law suits are an essential part of a healthy and efficient healthcare system. IMO, our quality of healthcare would suffer tremendously without the right to sue your doctor. But, as usual you miss the point. My point is that the system is vulnerable to frivolous and bogus law suits that can be easily exploited. I'm advocating that checks be put in place to make it harder for con artists to exploit the system. To date, there are no checks in the current system. You can sue your doctor for giving you a dirty look. This entitles you to present your case in court and pursue a lawsuit that would most likely be settled our of court for an amount that is lower than the cost to defend the case in court. That's a broken legal system and you the patient is paying for it.

:(

OK...I agree with some of that, but I hardly think that is the main cause of our health woes in this country--more an indication of the problems in our legal system which is also messed up.

Why? You pay into it your whole working life? Why not take advantage of it if you need it someday? I suppose you wouldn't bother to use your car insurance if you crash your car either. :rolleyes:

Actually for car insurance we carry a $2500 deductable. I only have car insurance to protect me legally, and if the car was to be written off.

Insurace as I see it, is a cost to driving, but something you never actually want to use. Since the minute you use it, your rates go up. So what I save by having a high deductable I put aside and self insure should something small happen.

There however is a huge difference, since Baby Boomers obviously didnt pay enough into the system, this was short sighted of them and government. We are not responsible for that, nor should we be taxed to support it.

Regarding medical cost, it's not going to get any cheaper and I don't feel that government would do a better job with administrating it. Lord know I don't want a bureaucrat telling me what procedures I can and cannot have based on some government bean counters analysis.

Basic insurance coverage for all and premium for those that can afford to buy extra coverage. Wouldn't be any more expensive than now--we could avoid having the indigent go to the emergency room for first-line treatment like they do now.

There however is a huge difference, since Baby Boomers obviously didnt pay enough into the system, this was short sighted of them and government. We are not responsible for that, nor should we be taxed to support it.

Who is responsible then? The doctors for charging so much?

So why not pay it out of your own pocket then?

I have no problem with helping my direct family with healthcare costs, if that´s what it comes down too.

My family has been more frugal with their monies, not purchasing lavish items or over extending themselves then my parents friends. Now my folks are retired with enough savings to not 'lean' on society.

My parents have been very frugal as well. The problem is the cost of health care is the same no matter if how much money you make or have made in the past. So people who have had basic jobs in manufacturing or agriculture may indeed have been frugal but still haven´t got the resources to cover themselves adequately when they are old. What do we as a society say to this people who have worked in cotton mills and chicken factories? "Too bad, you should have made more money"?

Why is it now our (non-babyboomers) problem that baby boomers were short sighted?

Because we are human beings who honor the elderly who have worked hard all their lives. Saying that they were "short sighted" is disrespectful and a gross generalization.

By the way, my parents will be ok and have managed well for their retirement. So don´t worry. I just think that there are many people out there who may not be so fortunate.

The solution can be found in the movie "Soylent Green".
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the "underclass" or "old people" have a right to live. People who are a "drag" on society should be disposed of. People who claim that our "Constitution" says otherwise, should be dealt with harshly.

I have no problem with helping my direct family with healthcare costs, if that´s what it comes down too.



My parents have been very frugal as well. The problem is the cost of health care is the same no matter if how much money you make or have made in the past. So people who have had basic jobs in manufacturing or agriculture may indeed have been frugal but still haven´t got the resources to cover themselves adequately when they are old. What do we as a society say to this people who have worked in cotton mills and chicken factories? "Too bad, you should have made more money"?



Because we are human beings who honor the elderly who have worked hard all their lives. Saying that they were "short sighted" is disrespectful and a gross generalization.

By the way, my parents will be ok and have managed well for their retirement. So don´t worry. I just think that there are many people out there who may not be so fortunate.

My grandmother raised 2 childern, on her own and then remarried later in life. She never made alot of money but owned her own home. She is an example of how frugal behavor will protect you later in life.

The problem is people aren't frugal enough. It's not that people dont make enough money, it's that they chose not to save more. If it was truly the case that some people needed medicare because they truly didnt earn enough to save, this wouldn't be a big problem. But the reality is very different, people earned and spent reling on future social programs to catch them.

I have no problems helping people who are truly poor and need medical attention. However those that are abusing the system should not be helped. People who made enough money, spent more then they should and didn't save do not have the right to burned their childern and their childern with their poor judgement.

Who is responsible then? The doctors for charging so much?

Everyone is responsible for their own retirement. Should people fail to plan they can only hold themselves to blame.

I do not feel that in all of this that my taxes should go up to pay for someone to live 5 years longer then the natural course of life. We also need to take into account that alot of the medical attention people require will be caused by smoking, drinking, poor eating and other bad life style choices. Society should not shoulder the mistakes of individuals.

Just like if the guy next door crashed into the lightpost out front of my house, I should not be required to pay for it to be fixed. He should be required. He made the mistake. Now if I see his situation and feel called to help him, that is my choice. But it should not be forced on me.

Basic insurance coverage for all and premium for those that can afford to buy extra coverage. Wouldn't be any more expensive than now--we could avoid having the indigent go to the emergency room for first-line treatment like they do now.

I doubt it. Do you honestly believe a vast majority of those who ends up indigent are going to make an effort to address preventive health concerns?

The solution can be found in the movie "Soylent Green".
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the "underclass" or "old people" have a right to live. People who are a "drag" on society should be disposed of. People who claim that our "Constitution" says otherwise, should be dealt with harshly.

Nah, Logans Run baby,,

I doubt it. Do you honestly believe a vast majority of those who ends up indigent are going to make an effort to address preventive health concerns?

Maybe not, but when they did get sick they could go to a regular dr. where an aspirin costs $5 instead of $50.

My grandmother raised 2 childern, on her own and then remarried later in life. She never made alot of money but owned her own home. She is an example of how frugal behavor will protect you later in life.

So she will sell her house to pay her medical bills? What happens when that money runs out?

So she will sell her house to pay her medical bills? What happens when that money runs out?

Walmart Greeter of course...it's the new retirement plan for Baby Boomers who didn't save enough $$.

So she will sell her house to pay her medical bills? What happens when that money runs out?

Ever heard of Medicaid or Medicare? Kids kicking in money? Kids taking her into their house?

Ok, the 'server being busy' is driving me nuts. Off to lunch, I'll Iet you guys continue the debate on without me.

Ever heard of Medicaid or Medicare? Kids kicking in money? Kids taking her into their house?

Ok, the 'server being busy' is driving me nuts. Off to lunch, I'll Iet you guys continue the debate on without me.

That´s right. Thank God for these government programs funded by tax payers.

So she will sell her house to pay her medical bills? What happens when that money runs out?

She did end up selling her house, and moving into an appartment. That was however because she could no longer climb the stairs and maintain the house.

Through the tough times she was able to keep saving and has saved enough money. Shoudl it run out the family will be there to support her.

IMO, the high cost of health care is mainly caused by the malpractice insurance that MDs must pay to stay in business. This is the result of the legal system allowing anyone to sue their doctors for whatever reason. You can sue your doctor for any reason. The insurance company will settle when the cost of defending the case in court is more than the settlement that the plaintiff is asking for (usually around $10,000). Doctors really are not affected since they just pass on the cost to the patient. The overwhelming majoritiy of MDs are now charging the patient directly for the cost of the visit. This means that the patient must file the claim to the insurance company and eat the difference.

The answer to controlling healtcare costs is tort reform. Laws should be created to allow only those who have credible evidence to initiate a law suit (e.g., disfigured in surgery or given a medication that caused a serious allergic reaction in the patient). Caps on law suits should also be adopted. Without these changes, healthcare costs will continue to soar our of control.

:idea:

Malpractice costs are less than two percent of total health care costs. Here are some findings from the Congressional Budget Office:

The past few years have seen a sharp increase in premiums for medical malpractice liability insurance, which health care professionals buy to protect themselves from the costs of being sued (see Figure 1). On average, premiums for all physicians nationwide rose by 15 percent between 2000 and 2002--nearly twice as fast as total health care spending per person.

The available evidence suggests that premiums have risen both because insurance companies have faced increased costs to pay claims (from growth in malpractice awards) and because of reduced income from their investments and short-term factors in the insurance market.

But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.

Several studies have found that various types of restrictions on malpractice liability can indeed reduce total awards and thereby lead to lower premiums for malpractice insurance. By themselves, however, such changes do not affect economic efficiency: they modify the distribution of gains and losses to individuals and groups but do not create benefits or costs for society as a whole. The evidence for indirect effects on efficiency--through changes in defensive medicine, the availability of medical care, or the extent of malpractice--is at best ambiguous.

Malpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4968&sequence=0

Would a 1/2 percent reduction in costs be good compared to altenatives? There are other things I can name that would result in better savings. One in particular is decreasing the administrative overhead in health care. Last I heard, nearly 30 cents of every health care dollar in the U.S. is spent on administration.

As a baby boomer, I have an interest in this discussion.

I support both raising taxes and cutting the health benefits.

The current medical system is set up to take all the money that it can. There are very expensive treatements that have little benefit. Most prescription drugs have little, if any, benefit but are handed out like candy.

Most of the cancer treatments for the elderly just extend life a few painful months but cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Quit paying for exploratory surgeries.

As a baby boomer, I have an interest in this discussion.

I support both raising taxes and cutting the health benefits.

The current medical system is set up to take all the money that it can. There are very expensive treatements that have little benefit. Most prescription drugs have little, if any, benefit but are handed out like candy.

Most of the cancer treatments for the elderly just extend life a few painful months but cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Quit paying for exploratory surgeries.

Mike...you can always volunteer to be turned into Soylent Green. :D

Soylent Green, the ultimate recycling. Saves on burial costs also.

I've been debating a series of different options and I think starting a series of charity organizations specifically designed to help low income retires might be the best options. Promoting this might be the best viable option. Americans who are generous will help and tax insentives will keep them coming.

If taxes go up they wont quickly come down and there wont be a need to optimize the healthcare system.

I've been debating a series of different options and I think starting a series of charity organizations specifically designed to help low income retires might be the best options.

Part of, but not the entire solution. Private charities just don't have the resources to deal with the scope of this problem.

Cap military spending at 2-3 times our nearest potential enemy.

Cap military spending at 2-3 times our nearest potential enemy.

Apparently that wont be enough of a cut back to correct the problem.

I like this thought-provoking topic. It is certainly more relavant than whether or not Landis' peed in a cup or not.

I understand the argument about medical costs being exhorbitant because of medical malpractice suits. But I think the underlying theme is much deeper. We can argue about taxes, no taxes. We can argue about medical school, lawyers, savings rates, boomers, living longer, etc, etc etc. But we are dodging the fundamental point to it all:

What we live in, this great nation, is, and always has been, a great experiment. We are encountering things as this "democracy" ages that are never-before seen. Something small, insignificant, could mark the end of this nation's strength. For all we know, the IPOD is the beginning of the end for this mighty empire. not likely, but I digress...

What IS likely going to undermine our sovereignty is mis-management by our leaders. The past 6 years has been so tumultuous, maybe moreso than any time since the Civil War, or The Great Depression, domestically-speaking. We managed to fight and perservere as a country through those times, but it took strong men making difficult decisions to see it through. I don't doubt that strong men/women can make the difference again, but blabbering idiots hell-bent on spending the government into oblivion on personal vendettas against foreign leaders who tried to kill their "daddies". I'm speaking of the Iraq War, of course. This conflict will go down in US and global history as an abomination, and we will pay for it 50 years from now. Think of that money which could have been used to do so much more.......

Apparently that wont be enough of a cut back to correct the problem.

You're trying to tell me that $300 billion a year cut from military spending wouldn't be enough to help stem the bleeding?

Got any numbers you've crunched?

It has already started. India has started offering packages including airfare for opperations at a fraction of the cost of the US offering. They aim the package price to be slighly less then the cash portion of a plan and are taking the business out of the US healthcare system.

Here is where you're going to see compeition for that healthcare business improve the offering here at home. If India can do it cheaper, people now have a choice of where they go.



I dont know if you're a baby boomer, however I am not. Do you think it reasonable that I should see my taxes go up 10-15% in order to cover the costs of an aging population?

Do you also think it fair that the younger generation is taxed more heavily then any pervious generation to pay for the flanderings of the baby boomers?

Seems to me if the current system baby boomers have paid can't meet their needs they should be responsible for its short comings.

I would move to taxing the users of the system and leaving the short comings to be passed to the childern of the baby boomers who enjoyed the low tax rates and didn't save adiquently. The families are responsible, not the entire population.



You're right, reform is needed. It will likely come down with a multitude of restrictions. However who will support such a reform that effects the largest single demographic, the greatest wealth in America and a huge voting block?

When we talk about morals and ethics this issue of passing down the problem to younger generations really bothers me. Both government and the people are immoral on this issue.

I'm a baby boomer and I don't even know what the hell flandering is.

You're trying to tell me that $300 billion a year cut from military spending wouldn't be enough to help stem the bleeding?

Got any numbers you've crunched?

David Walker
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_2528226

We're 8 trillion dollars in the hole and we'd need it today and to invest it in bonds to deliver on what we've promised.

"On cost we're number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth," David Walker.

That´s right. Thank God for these government programs funded by tax payers.

I was being a bit sarcastic.

My point is, those programs are for those who can't take care of themselves anymore, not for seniors who have the money but just want something for free.

I'm speaking of the Iraq War, of course. This conflict will go down in US and global history as an abomination, and we will pay for it 50 years from now. Think of that money which could have been used to do so much more.......

Irregardless *****ing about Iraq or Bush for that matter won't correct the problems with the healthcare. (hell the argument could have been made that we shouldn't have fought the first Gulf war, heck lets bring up Vietnam) but that wouldn't have any real bearing on the discussion of controlling US health care cost or bettering the system.

Cap military spending at 2-3 times our nearest potential enemy.

Well besides the fact that our enemies won't accurately report their military spending. Military spending and research does extend into civilian realm, heck the internet was largely a result of a military project, so was GPS, trauma care techniques, etc.

Irregardless *****ing about Iraq or Bush for that matter won't correct the problems with the healthcare. (hell the argument could have been made that we shouldn't have fought the first Gulf war, heck lets bring up Vietnam) but that wouldn't have any real bearing on the discussion of the US health care system.

Correct, the cost of war is just a drop in the bucket.

Eveyone is ignoring the 500 lb gorilla sitting in the corner.

Retirement age.

The existing entitlement programs, medicare included, were enacted as "safety nets" to take care of the neediest of the needy. When they were established, and the retirement age was set at 65, life expectancy for a mlae was 62, female, 64. Think about that.

Since then, as the average life span has increased, and the quality of that longer life has improved, very little (until just recently) was done to acknowledge this.

My Grandfather worked 44 years, retired at 65 and lived until he was 70. My father worked 44 years and died at 75. There is a better than even chance that if I retire (and I'm 52) at 65 I'll have worked 44 years and probably have 20+ years until my death. My kids, will probably have 40 years. This is absurd.

So the real question you should be asking first, is, what should the retirement age be before you can collect SS or medicare?

I don't believe that any economy can have people working 40 years to support 30 years of retirement. I believe it should be more like 3 to 1. That would make my retirement age 70 to 72 and my kids 75 or so. Society can't support a situation where people are being supported for as long as they worked....it's absurd at it's face.

But that won't happen because we all have this attitude that I deserve to retire at 65....a thought imbedded by that most selfish generation that preceeded us (as represented by AARP).

It's time (before we bancrupt the country for our children) that we rethink what we are entitled to.

Len

Eveyone is ignoring the 500 lb gorilla sitting in the corner.

Retirement age.

The existing entitlement programs, medicare included, were enacted as "safety nets" to take care of the neediest of the needy. When they were established, and the retirement age was set at 65, life expectancy for a mlae was 62, female, 64. Think about that.

Since then, as the average life span has increased, and the quality of that longer life has improved, very little (until just recently was done

No kidding.

But that won't happen because we all have this attitude that I deserve to retire at 65....a thought imbedded by that most selfish generation that preceeded us (as represented by AARP).

It's time (before we bancrupt the country for our children) that we rethink what we are entitled to.

Len

I'm not expecting jack squat when I retire. Not saying I shouldn't be entitled to it though--that's what I've been paying taxes my whole working life for and what was promised me. The fact that it isn't sustainable or realistic doesn't mean I'm not entitled though.

I'm not expecting jack squat when I retire. Not saying I shouldn't be entitled to it though--that's what I've been paying taxes my whole working life for and what was promised me. The fact that it isn't sustainable or realistic doesn't mean I'm not entitled though.

I never expected to have the government take care of me for a time equivilant to 1/2 the time I worked (or more).

If we were all realistic about retirement age, & working lengths vs retirement lengths, there would be plenty to keep both programs viable for the next 100+ years....in which case you would get money.

Len

Len I think you make a good point, the age should likely be increased to 70 or 75. Program should be optimized and costs reduced.

Len I think you make a good point, the age should likely be increased to 70 or 75. Program should be optimized and costs reduced.

good luck getting that past the AARP and people that are turning 65 soon.

Len I think you make a good point, the age should likely be increased to 70 or 75. Program should be optimized and costs reduced.

And you are currently what age?

And you are currently what age?

Hey Snake...you can work a few more years...:D

Hey Snake...you can work a few more years...:D

I plan to but I don't want to have to. You reach a point when arthritis and all the diseases that are blamed on excessivly indulgent lives start to manifest themselves. You talk about your slippery slopes, it's sharply downhill at that point and time goes by like you wouldn't believe. Full retirement is now 66 for me and I may go that long but my health will pretty much dictate that. It's month to month. I see a lot of things being said here that remind me of me at 30 :)

Hey Snake...you can work a few more years...:D

but the reality is either we:

1.) raise taxes aggressivly now
2.) Cut benefits dramatically now
or
3.) raise the retirement age to be proportinate to real lifespans quickly.....

or obviously some combination of the above.

Or the alternatoive is that there is no SS or medicaire for the next generations........Me, I'm willing to give up something (a few more years of working) if it means my children have a safety net......how about you?

Len

PS...I agree w snake about AARP...there is that most selfish generation again.

I plan to but I don't want to have to. You reach a point when arthritis and all the diseases that are blamed on excessivly indulgent lives start to manifest themselves. You talk about your slippery slopes, it's sharply downhill at that point and time goes by like you wouldn't believe. Full retirement is now 66 for me and I may go that long but my health will pretty much dictate that. It's month to month. I see a lot of things being said here that remind me of me at 30 :)

just like my dad didn't want to work until 65.

but what choices do we have if we want to leave a fix for the next generation?

Len

just like my dad didn't want to work until 65.

but what choices do we have if we want to leave a fix for the next generation?

Len

My generation paid the bill for the last one. That's the way it works, it's a government sanctioned pyramid scheme. :)

but the reality is either we:

1.) raise taxes aggressivly now
2.) Cut benefits dramatically now
or
3.) raise the retirement age to be proportinate to real lifespans quickly.....

or obviously some combination of the above.

Or the alternatoive is that there is no SS or medicaire for the next generations........Me, I'm willing to give up something (a few more years of working) if it means my children have a safety net......how about you?

Len

PS...I agree w snake about AARP...there is that most selfish generation again.
Well I'm only 41 so I have a ways to go regardless--I have some decent retirement savings already and should be prepared when the time comes. I'm not expecting to have SS when I retire. It'd be nice, but I'm realistic. I'd be willing to give up some promised benefits if I was confident it would make a difference.

FWIW...my dad is in his mid-70s and still working full-time.

My generation paid the bill for the last one. That's the way it works, it's a government sanctioned pyramid scheme. :)

we need to share the pain a little if the program is going to survice......

or we could take the current AARP generation approach of...."we want ours and the hell with the rest of you!!." :eek: :ciappa:

Len

Well I'm only 41 so I have a ways to go regardless--I have some decent retirement savings already and should be prepared when the time comes. I'm not expecting to have SS when I retire. It'd be nice, but I'm realistic. I'd be willing to give up some promised benefits if I was confident it would make a difference.

FWIW...my dad is in his mid-70s and still working full-time.

this could have been fixed 15 years ago if AARP & other "Greatest generation mouthpieces" didn't impede dealing with the reality. It would have been much less painful than it will be now.

I'm not suggesting that SS should be th only source, and I am saying that mediacre (if properly administered) is a wonderful program. I'm saying that "we are where we are".......and if our children & their children are going to have this safety net sacrifices by everyone are going to have to be made..........

-retire later
-slightly higher withholding
-rollback of benefits for retirees with large asset bases
-etc etc.

We just can't keep pretending that as long as we take care of this generation, we'll be OK.

Most people believe the same thing you do......"I'm not expecting to have SS when I retire"....so capitalize on that to ensure that those that really need it have it.

I'll stop preaching now.

len

this could have been fixed 15 years ago if AARP & other "Greatest generation mouthpieces" didn't impede dealing with the reality. It would have been much less painful than it will be now.

I'm not suggesting that SS should be th only source, and I am saying that mediacre (if properly administered) is a wonderful program. I'm saying that "we are where we are".......and if our children & their children are going to have this safety net sacrifices by everyone are going to have to be made..........

-retire later
-slightly higher withholding
-rollback of benefits for retirees with large asset bases
-etc etc.

We just can't keep pretending that as long as we take care of this generation, we'll be OK.

Most people believe the same thing you do......"I'm not expecting to have SS when I retire"....so capitalize on that to ensure that those that really need it have it.

I'll stop preaching now.

len

One of the problems with the SS as it works now is that it has been raped repeatedly, all the safeguards that were guaranteed to make it acceptable have been dropped or bypassed. Means testing sounds like a good idea but there will be some that it will hurt, those that are on the lower end of the higher limits. The fear that it won't be there is unfounded, it is a political ploy that is used to push the kinds of restrictions I see advocated here. Thing is, it was a contract made with those older people being discussed when they were much younger. A contract whose terms were met by those now preparing to retire. It's a contract that should be honored. If the next generation has to pay a higher rate, it will be no more than the escalating rate those of my generation faced. If the full retirement is extended, again, it will be no more than what we faced. It will be there and it will deliver for you because it is political suicide for any politician to try to welch on the deal, just like it is today. It can be fixed with less pain than is being advertised, the pain should be on the politicians who always seem to find the money for their pet pork projects. From what I see, the selfish attitude isn't all from the AARP. :)

I think people should be more responsible and provide for their own healthcare.

people should "be more responsible" and provide their own K-12 education also?

where do you draw the line between social/moral responsibilities by this country and social program "hand outs"?

almost every other industrialized country in this world has some sort of national health care system...some of which work VERY well...others no worse than our own (and ours isn't very good) the models would not be hard to copy.
there's an incredible amount of waste in our current medical care system along...led by the advancement of "defense medicine" by physicians, encourgaged by lawyers, to take many unnecesssary steps towards medical treatment, if not avoid it all together...it all adds up.

So why not pay it out of your own pocket then?

My family has been more frugal with their monies, not purchasing lavish items or over extending themselves then my parents friends. Now my folks are retired with enough savings to not 'lean' on society.

Why is it now our (non-babyboomers) problem that baby boomers were short sighted?

The future is in our childern, not in our parents and grandparents. I dont want to see myself or my childern paying for mistakes of the past.

Babyboomers represent the largest single demogrpahic and control over a trillion dollars in assets. Why should their childern be forced to pay for their healthcare in a nationwide tax increase?

if your father keels over with a massive MI tomorrow...you want him to pay $100,000 out of pocket? 150,000$ he wouldn't be "well off" much past his hospital stay, dude....medical debt is a vicious cycle for even high/middle class families....we are ALL one major illness away from bankruptcy, even with employer or privately based insurance. one period of acute illness can destroy everything a family has worked for their whole life time.

your family has been lucky...so far. your statements are vastly ignorant of the real problem.....good on you, your family has saved money..but I think you're getting off point a bit. we pay into the system when we're young so we can have it later down the road...it applies for everyone. there are abuses in the system, yes, and I think focus needs to be placed there...

if your father keels over with a massive MI tomorrow...you want him to pay $100,000 out of pocket? he wouldn't be "well off" much past his hospital stay, dude....medical debt is a vicious cycle for even high/middle class families....we are ALL one major illness away from bankruptcy, even with employer or privately based insurance.

your family has been lucky...so far. your statements are vastly ignorant of the real problem..

You're not going to believe this but....................................I think you're right. :)

You're not going to believe this but....................................I think you're right. :)


that's the sweetest thing anyone has said to me all day!!

the problem is so much bigger than frugality or abstention to life's little pleasures...with that said, I think Mt.Biker should sell off all his bikes...he doesn't need them really...he should be saving to avoid using all those nasty social programs that he's helped pay for all his life.
This problem is so complex it even baffles healthcare "experts". Hospital inability to absorb costs of the uninsured, pharmaceutical conglomerates that set pricing, fewer and fewer physicians willing to accept Medicare/Medicaid due to stringent billing rules, fewer doctors in general practice, a general shortage of physicians, total lack of preventive medicine, the list goes on...

not buying that new 600$ T.V. will hardly help guard against a two week hospital bill after a stroke or MI.....

people should "be more responsible" and provide their own K-12 education also?

Yes, I think people should take responsibility for theirs and their childrens education. Do you want to leave that up to the government. Look how great that is working out. Some good schools, some o.k. and a lot of awful. Is it fair to poor kids that they don't have a choice but to have to go to the crappy school down the street. No, but the parents need to take the responsibility to make up the difference. It's too bad they don't get a choice in the matter.

You can have it, I will send my kids to private school, so they can tell your kids what to do all day.


almost every other industrialized country in this world has some sort of national health care system...some of which work VERY well...others no worse than our own (and ours isn't very good) the models would not be hard to copy.
there's an incredible amount of waste in our current medical care system along...led by the advancement of "defense medicine" by physicians, encourgaged by lawyers, to take many unnecesssary steps towards medical treatment, if not avoid it all together...it all adds up.

How come all of these countries with such great healthcare still have thousands of people flying in to the U.S.A for medical treatment? Is it fair that only the rich people from these countries have the right to choose?

And you are currently what age?

Not yet 30, but soon enough :cryin: I heard your body stops responding at 30.

if your father keels over with a massive MI tomorrow...you want him to pay $100,000 out of pocket? 150,000$ he wouldn't be "well off" much past his hospital stay, dude....medical debt is a vicious cycle for even high/middle class families....we are ALL one major illness away from bankruptcy, even with employer or privately based insurance. one period of acute illness can destroy everything a family has worked for their whole life time.

your family has been lucky...so far. your statements are vastly ignorant of the real problem.....good on you, your family has saved money..but I think you're getting off point a bit. we pay into the system when we're young so we can have it later down the road...it applies for everyone. there are abuses in the system, yes, and I think focus needs to be placed there...

Actually, my folks, my wife and I all have living wills. Depending on his situation a series of different choices would be made. My family is Christian and does not fear death. Should a family member be put in hospital and it require 100-150k investment to keep them alive there would have to be very real evidence to suggest that they would live for 5-10 years after this. Everyone has agreed that they wouldnt want to be fixed only to spend 2 years 'recovering' only to die. Nor do they want their wife/husband going bankrupt trying to keep them alive. When your time is up, it's up.

As for if we had to pay it, thats part of planning. Though that amount gets close to our one sum out of pocket payment, we carry the proper insurance to cover us for the large hits and carry less coverage for the small ones.

that's the sweetest thing anyone has said to me all day!!

the problem is so much bigger than frugality or abstention to life's little pleasures...with that said, I think Mt.Biker should sell off all his bikes...he doesn't need them really...he should be saving to avoid using all those nasty social programs that he's helped pay for all his life.
This problem is so complex it even baffles healthcare "experts". Hospital inability to absorb costs of the uninsured, pharmaceutical conglomerates that set pricing, fewer and fewer physicians willing to accept Medicare/Medicaid due to stringent billing rules, fewer doctors in general practice, a general shortage of physicians, total lack of preventive medicine, the list goes on...

not buying that new 600$ T.V. will hardly help guard against a two week hospital bill after a stroke or MI.....

If the TV was the only thing in your life you purchased you couldnt afford, it wouldn't be a problem. It's never that ONE purchase that sets you back, its a lifestyle of entitlement that puts you at 65 without enough savings. People need to live within their means. I do own 3 nice bikes and my wife has a nice bike, however I can afford this because I make cut backs elsewhere.

Example Cable @$100/month over your lifetime pays for alot of things if invested. We spend $30/month on netflicks and watch DVD's till our hearts content. Small choices like this allow us to be financially good stewards with our money.

Thats $1200/year and in ten years $12,000 or $18,000 before tax you could have invested. If you invested $18,000 over 30 years it would be worth approx $150k. Now very few people think like this.

Some tips to save money that we follow
- buy 1-2 yearold low milage used cars and save on the taxes & depeciation
- watch the small monthly charges that build up
- never roll a car, tv or medium sized purchase into your mortage
- buy a home that you can pay off in 15 years, get a 25 year mortage @ a fixed rate and pay it off early
- dine out less - huge waste of money if you cannot afford it
- donate money - I normally get all the money I donate back off my taxes and I've helped a few charities
- Buy what you need, and save/delay the purchases you dont need. That new digi cam will half in price in 6 months
- Never pay MSRP for anything. This is something I live by, and if I cant find it cheaper then MSRP I think carefully if I EVER want to buy it
- Careful not to be over insured - the average American is now over insured
- Don't buy extended warranties (excluding large/important items such as cars or work critical items) - take the money you would have spent on the warranty and throw it into savings. If the item breaks 2 years later you can likely just replace it.
- Never run a balance on your CC - plain and simple - greatest waste of money on a consumer good
- Invest in realestate
- Have a proffesional manage your retirement money, review their performance quarterly and stay deversified.
- Never reverse mortage your home - if a company can make money off you by giving you, your better off selling your home, downsizing and investing the difference.
-Realize money has great value when given 25-30 years invested. $200k today is millions in 40 years.

Over 50% of people in America will never be able to retire because they didnt save enough. So its obviously not easy for people to watch their spending, yet the basic principles are simple. IF they cannot manage their funds why should I be paying for their healthcare and hopping they've done a better job managing their health then they've done managing their money?

If we build the safety net any larger, we'll just catch everyone and society will pay for the mismanagment of funds for the previous generations. The difference here is the payments aren't equal. Babyboomers are a HUGE group and will require lots of care, the generations behind them will pay alot more then what they will be able to receive.

The system needs to be adjusted, and hopefully we can do it without raising my taxes much. As it is we pay alot and I rarely use the services I pay for.

Not yet 30, but soon enough :cryin: I heard your body stops responding at 30.



Actually, my folks, my wife and I all have living wills. Depending on his situation a series of different choices would be made. My family is Christian and does not fear death. Should a family member be put in hospital and it require 100-150k investment to keep them alive there would have to be very real evidence to suggest that they would live for 5-10 years after this. Everyone has agreed that they wouldnt want to be fixed only to spend 2 years 'recovering' only to die. Nor do they want their wife/husband going bankrupt trying to keep them alive. When your time is up, it's up.

As for if we had to pay it, thats part of planning. Though that amount gets close to our one sum out of pocket payment, we carry the proper insurance to cover us for the large hits and carry less coverage for the small ones.



If the TV was the only thing in your life you purchased you couldnt afford, it wouldn't be a problem. It's never that ONE purchase that sets you back, its a lifestyle of entitlement that puts you at 65 without enough savings. People need to live within their means. I do own 3 nice bikes and my wife has a nice bike, however I can afford this because I make cut backs elsewhere.

Example Cable @$100/month over your lifetime pays for alot of things if invested. We spend $30/month on netflicks and watch DVD's till our hearts content. Small choices like this allow us to be financially good stewards with our money.

Thats $1200/year and in ten years $12,000 or $18,000 before tax you could have invested. If you invested $18,000 over 30 years it would be worth approx $150k. Now very few people think like this.

Some tips to save money that we follow
- buy 1-2 yearold low milage used cars and save on the taxes & depeciation
- watch the small monthly charges that build up
- never roll a car, tv or medium sized purchase into your mortage
- buy a home that you can pay off in 15 years, get a 25 year mortage @ a fixed rate and pay it off early
- dine out less - huge waste of money if you cannot afford it
- donate money - I normally get all the money I donate back off my taxes and I've helped a few charities
- Buy what you need, and save/delay the purchases you dont need. That new digi cam will half in price in 6 months
- Never pay MSRP for anything. This is something I live by, and if I cant find it cheaper then MSRP I think carefully if I EVER want to buy it
- Careful not to be over insured - the average American is now over insured
- Don't buy extended warranties (excluding large/important items such as cars or work critical items) - take the money you would have spent on the warranty and throw it into savings. If the item breaks 2 years later you can likely just replace it.
- Never run a balance on your CC - plain and simple - greatest waste of money on a consumer good
- Invest in realestate
- Have a proffesional manage your retirement money, review their performance quarterly and stay deversified.
- Never reverse mortage your home - if a company can make money off you by giving you, your better off selling your home, downsizing and investing the difference.
-Realize money has great value when given 25-30 years invested. $200k today is millions in 40 years.

Over 50% of people in America will never be able to retire because they didnt save enough. So its obviously not easy for people to watch their spending, yet the basic principles are simple. IF they cannot manage their funds why should I be paying for their healthcare and hopping they've done a better job managing their health then they've done managing their money?

If we build the safety net any larger, we'll just catch everyone and society will pay for the mismanagment of funds for the previous generations. The difference here is the payments aren't equal. Babyboomers are a HUGE group and will require lots of care, the generations behind them will pay alot more then what they will be able to receive.

The system needs to be adjusted, and hopefully we can do it without raising my taxes much. As it is we pay alot and I rarely use the services I pay for.

I think you grew up in an insulated world. there are a lot of people whose income will never rise above 60k per year, myself included. that means tha their income in their prime years may be somewhat below that. Life takes money and many of the things you consider luxuries are just things that make life pleasurable. Social Security itself is not enough to retire on and live with any degree of comfort but it is a social contract that the socialist side of this government made with it's citizens and it should be honored. It sounds as if your SS taxes are more an inconvenience for you than a burden and they are part of the obligation you pay for living in this country and having the life you have lived and the one your children will live. if you are as self sufficient as you believe yourself to be, the problems outlined by the SS system are not going to bother you much anyway.

As for your living will thing, how about your children? If one of your children is injured in a car accident and in a coma, how much would you be willing to risk for the chance of recovery? Did they sign a paper that they don't want to be a burden to you and your wife as well? It isn't only older people who have medical emergencies, children get injuries and cancer and other medical problems throughhout their lives and your careful planning doesn't make them immune to that. When your father or mother is faced with a decision and you can see the possibility of another 2 to 5 years with them oppposed to losing them immediately, get back to us then and tell us what you chose. Both of my parents died a long time ago and I would still give a lot for another slice of my mothers apple pie or a conversation with my dad. You are talking about things you have no real knowledge of at this point in your life.

People, you have all missed one very important part of the equation, spineless politicians. Currently the government is paying out big money for social security and medicaid / medicare. The reason for this is that in the past we had enough workers to fund the system and seniors vote and politicians know it. The politicians bend over for the votes to stay in office. So here come the boomers, the biggest voting block yet and they, as all seniors in the past, will get out and vote. The politicians are left with one choice keep up the payment to appease this huge block. Taxes will be raised to cover the boomers but the payout will not be cut because politicos are candy asses who want to keep their jobs.

But, and here comes the catch, a certain segment of the population, myself included, will get royally boned. The elephant in the room is the echo generation, the kids of the boomers, a bigger voting block than their parents. This even more self absorbed group will not want to pay for the health care of the seniors ahead of them, they will rebel against the high taxes that were put in place to keep their parents on the dole. The people that will retire in this bracket between the two groups will be shafted big time. They will have had the pleasure of paying through the nose for the boomers but when it comes time to cash in themselves that will be thrown aside as the politicians genuflect to the boomers children.

I think you grew up in an insulated world. .

Very much the opposite. But I will not lay out my entire life on the internet.

there are a lot of people whose income will never rise above 60k per year, myself included. that means tha their income in their prime years may be somewhat below that. Life takes money and many of the things you consider luxuries are just things that make life pleasurable.

The key word here is that things are luxuries, and people over consume luxuries and no one said all your life was goint to be pleasurable; or even that one deserves all those pleasurable things. The media and big business have told society this and people have bought it. Well I am not paying for the foolishness.

At 35k (average salary) and at 45 years working 20-65 = 15 million before taxes. You cannot tell me that you cant save 2-3 million of this over your lifetime to retire, nevermind the fact you can grow the princple through investing. It's not about cannot its about not wanting to. Life is full of little choices. They add up.


As for your living will thing, how about your children? If one of your children is injured in a car accident and in a coma, how much would you be willing to risk for the chance of recovery? Did they sign a paper that they don't want to be a burden to you and your wife as well? It isn't only older people who have medical emergencies, children get injuries and cancer and other medical problems throughhout their lives and your careful planning doesn't make them immune to that. When your father or mother is faced with a decision and you can see the possibility of another 2 to 5 years with them oppposed to losing them immediately, get back to us then and tell us what you chose. Both of my parents died a long time ago and I would still give a lot for another slice of my mothers apple pie or a conversation with my dad. You are talking about things you have no real knowledge of at this point in your life.

Childern are a different story all together. But thats because they have their whole lives ahead of them. At 70 years old I wouldnt want to be a burden on my childern. I will have led a life and be coming to the end. I need not extend it 5-10 years unless I can afford it.

For children, you do anything. Its rediculous to sugguest a child could sign anything of legal meaning. As a parent you are their legal gaurden and responsible for them and yes I would bankrupt myself if a child of mine needed anything. But thats what parents do. Give. And when they need help their childern give back when able. Not the entire society.

However we're not talking about childern, we're talking about the complete opposite. We're talking about people who have lived a good portion of their lives and not saved enough. Our entire government system is based on a growing population, this means our medicare/medicaid system was expecting a larger population to follow the babyboomers; thats not the case and things need to be readjusted.

At the end of the day, if you've relied on government for social programs you've been had. Plain and simple. There isn't enough money to pay for what we've commited to. If you've read my posts above its $8 trillion required today. There isn't the money anywhere to pay for that.

Would you rob from your childern?
Would you bankrupt your childern to retire in a state of luxury and pleasure?
Would you pass your personal debts onto your childern?

Very much the opposite. But I will not lay out my entire life on the internet.


The key word here is that things are luxuries, and people over consume luxuries and no one said all your life was goint to be pleasurable; or even that one deserves all those pleasurable things. The media and big business have told society this and people have bought it. Well I am not paying for the foolishness.

At 35k (average salary) and at 45 years working 20-65 = 15 million before taxes. You cannot tell me that you cant save 2-3 million of this over your lifetime to retire, nevermind the fact you can grow the princple through investing. It's not about cannot its about not wanting to. Life is full of little choices. They add up.



Childern are a different story all together. But thats because they have their whole lives ahead of them. At 70 years old I wouldnt want to be a burden on my childern. I will have led a life and be coming to the end. I need not extend it 5-10 years unless I can afford it.

For children, you do anything. Its rediculous to sugguest a child could sign anything of legal meaning. As a parent you are their legal gaurden and responsible for them and yes I would bankrupt myself if a child of mine needed anything. But thats what parents do. Give. And when they need help their childern give back when able. Not the entire society.

However we're not talking about childern, we're talking about the complete opposite. We're talking about people who have lived a good portion of their lives and not saved enough. Our entire government system is based on a growing population, this means our medicare/medicaid system was expecting a larger population to follow the babyboomers; thats not the case and things need to be readjusted.

At the end of the day, if you've relied on government for social programs you've been had. Plain and simple. There isn't enough money to pay for what we've commited to. If you've read my posts above its $8 trillion required today. There isn't the money anywhere to pay for that.

Would you rob from your childern?
Would you bankrupt your childern to retire in a state of luxury and pleasure?
Would you pass your personal debts onto your childern?

If your parents are retirement age, have they refused to take part in the systems you think are such a burden to you? If they are not, do they plan to refuse them when they do retire? How about yourself, if you were to be killed, would your family step in and take care of your children and refuse the years of SS benefits that they are currently entitled to? I still believe that the answers you have so ready for every question are something you should write down and save to review when you are approaching retirement age. You might not have to wait that long if disaster should befall you and your family and I hope that doesn't happen. I can tell you, I intend to draw my SS when I retire and I may just become a terrorist if they try to deny me what has been promised. I don't care if your children have to sort it out. Maybe, by that time, there won't be any need for our huge military and your children and my grandchildren will be on equal footing with those in Europe that we have provided the umbrella for during my lifetime.

flexing his NIMBY liberal agenda. my guess is if a toxic dump went next door you'd join Greenpeace. Amazing how left you turn when it directly affects you.
The US has the most expensive Health Care on the planet
The most uninsured for a 1st World NAtion
Not the longest lifespan
high infant mortality given our status

anyhow if you look at how much $$ is wasted in marketing, advertising and such (68 Billion I think) andhow much in in cross paperwork. Then how much we overpay for meds and medical items (compared to other nations) and you realize a single payer nationalized (gasp!) system would remove all of this and make the system so much more efficient.
What is sad is in about 10 years a bunch of you retirement closing righties will have to chole these words down "Maybe the Clintons were right"

Len I agree on raising the retirement age but the medical system is broken and needs drastic change.

oh I know all you righties think 'Privatization' cures everything. Gee it sure seems to have helped Walter Reed.

provide them with low cost health ins. because they clog E-R's which is expensive and hard on the system.
but they do pay into SS and Medicare, Medicaid and never collect.

At 35k (average salary) and at 45 years working 20-65 = 15 million before taxes. You cannot tell me that you cant save 2-3 million of this over your lifetime to retire, nevermind the fact you can grow the princple through investing. It's not about cannot its about not wanting to. Life is full of little choices. They add up.


Holy Wackamole´! I´m making more than 35k now and I´ve never dreamed of saving 2-3 million
by the time I retire. I thought I was doing well to safe 15k a year. Let´s see...that brings me to 675k in 45 years. I guess I have to depend on the "miracle of compound interest" to get me the rest of the way. I think I may have to deny myself some indulgences like f..ing eating and paying rent! Oh yeah, in 45 years, I´ll be 85! That´s ok. I´ll do might part not to be a burden.:thumbsup:

Yes, I think people should take responsibility for theirs and their childrens education. Do you want to leave that up to the government. Look how great that is working out. Some good schools, some o.k. and a lot of awful. Is it fair to poor kids that they don't have a choice but to have to go to the crappy school down the street. No, but the parents need to take the responsibility to make up the difference. It's too bad they don't get a choice in the matter.

You can have it, I will send my kids to private school, so they can tell your kids what to do all day.



How come all of these countries with such great healthcare still have thousands of people flying in to the U.S.A for medical treatment? Is it fair that only the rich people from these countries have the right to choose?

some isolated place or incidents into a larger reality...true, not every school is great, but in all honestly there are a lot of good public schools in this country...the news doesn't report on them as they're not newsworthy...so the general public doens't get to know about it. I went through a pretty good public school system...so yes, I did leave it up to the government. that education got me into college and college got me into graduate school.
most of friends with kids have found public schools quite adequate and functioning...so there you go.
enjoy paying 20,000$+ per year per kid...I'd rather retire comfortably...your kids won't come out any less scarred than they will in public school. I think private schools portrayed as this bastion of safe and high quality secondary learning is a common misnomer, unless you're growing up inner city large metropolis.

out of the billions of people on planet, a few thousand people coming here for health care can hardly be seen as an overwhelming trend of health care immigrants...there are as many U.S. citizens leaving to go to Canada or Thailand for less costly procedures of the same quality...its more of an open door than you care to recognize here.

If your parents are retirement age, have they refused to take part in the systems you think are such a burden to you? If they are not, do they plan to refuse them when they do retire? How about yourself, if you were to be killed, would your family step in and take care of your children and refuse the years of SS benefits that they are currently entitled to? I still believe that the answers you have so ready for every question are something you should write down and save to review when you are approaching retirement age. You might not have to wait that long if disaster should befall you and your family and I hope that doesn't happen. I can tell you, I intend to draw my SS when I retire and I may just become a terrorist if they try to deny me what has been promised. I don't care if your children have to sort it out. Maybe, by that time, there won't be any need for our huge military and your children and my grandchildren will be on equal footing with those in Europe that we have provided the umbrella for during my lifetime.

Long story short, my folks do not qualify for SS.

You've overlooked the fact that even if we didnt spend a dime on the military we'd still be trillions of dollars in the whole. 300 billion/year doesn't slove the 8 trillion needed TODAY to ofset the current commitement. Every year that goes by we need 5-8% more money then 8 trillion, thats a lot. Healthcare will go from 3% of our federal budget to 14% by 2040. Where will that money come from?


Seems to me like you're only concerned with getting yours, would rob your childern blind and dont care if future generations suffer so you can live with your 'pleasures.'

Europes social system is on the brink of colapse with a negative population growth.

Holy Wackamole´! I´m making more than 35k now and I´ve never dreamed of saving 2-3 million
by the time I retire. I thought I was doing well to safe 15k a year. Let´s see...that brings me to 675k in 45 years. I guess I have to depend on the "miracle of compound interest" to get me the rest of the way. I think I may have to deny myself some indulgences like f..ing eating and paying rent! Oh yeah, in 45 years, I´ll be 85! That´s ok. I´ll do might part not to be a burden.:thumbsup:

If you save 15k/year for 45 years and earn 7-8% interest, your money will double every 6-7years. That means if 45 years you will have in the area of 1.5 million.

FYI if you're savings aren't large enough to allow you to live off the interest of the money for the first 4 years you will never be able to retire. Currently you need in the area of 1.5-2 million to retire. Towards the end of your life, you will start touching the prinicples.

Just because a large number of you dont understand the value of money and savings, doesn't mean anything I've mentioned isnt true. I may be off by a few percetage points but thats not whats going to stop you from retiring. Putting 15k/year aside is great. You'll be able to retire, but not in a mansion. YOu should also own your house outright.

So you think everyone in this country could manage to save 1.5 to 2 million dollars by the time they retire if only they had discipline?

I don´t think you are being realistic.

So you think everyone in this country could manage to save 1.5 to 2 million dollars by the time they retire if only they had discipline?

I don´t think you are being realistic.

I dont think everyone in america could save that type of money. However if you're making 35k/year + you can do it.

So yes, lower middle class all the way up can save with some discipline.

Now we do need programs to protect the poor, but not to protect middle class families who fail to save. IRS should determine if you qualify for SS or Medicare and such.

Long story short, my folks do not qualify for SS.

You've overlooked the fact that even if we didnt spend a dime on the military we'd still be trillions of dollars in the whole. 300 billion/year doesn't slove the 8 trillion needed TODAY to ofset the current commitement. Every year that goes by we need 5-8% more money then 8 trillion, thats a lot. Healthcare will go from 3% of our federal budget to 14% by 2040. Where will that money come from?


Seems to me like you're only concerned with getting yours, would rob your childern blind and dont care if future generations suffer so you can live with your 'pleasures.'

Europes social system is on the brink of colapse with a negative population growth.



If you save 15k/year for 45 years and earn 7-8% interest, your money will double every 6-7years. That means if 45 years you will have in the area of 1.5 million.

FYI if you're savings aren't large enough to allow you to live off the interest of the money for the first 4 years you will never be able to retire. Currently you need in the area of 1.5-2 million to retire. Towards the end of your life, you will start touching the prinicples.

Just because a large number of you dont understand the value of money and savings, doesn't mean anything I've mentioned isnt true. I may be off by a few percetage points but thats not whats going to stop you from retiring. Putting 15k/year aside is great. You'll be able to retire, but not in a mansion. YOu should also own your house outright.

is a HUGE generalization about a population with many shades of grey.
yes, it is important to save for your retirement...kudos to you for being so financially savy..I'm much the same way...however I don't think your situation can be applied to every human in this country...many folks will never make 35K a year...and your calculations don't take into consideration the 15-25% tax rate (state, fed, sales) that most humans have to endure. it also doesn't take into account lost wages due to unemployment, school, etc.
yes, most people live beyond their means (which is what I'm guessing you're actually trying to say here...but haven't really succeeded)...but penalizing members of our society in terms of health care would be morally incomprehensible (which is fairly ironic coming from you, a self proclaimed 'Christian'). Enough people are already suffering with health concerns AND working 40+ hours a week (e.g. WalMart employees).

applying your spoon fed, trustafarian mentality to this situation does nothing to solve it..

is a HUGE generalization about a population with many shades of grey.
yes, it is important to save for your retirement...kudos to you for being so financially savy..I'm much the same way...however I don't think your situation can be applied to every human in this country...many folks will never make 35K a year...and your calculations don't take into consideration the 15-25% tax rate (state, fed, sales) that most humans have to endure. it also doesn't take into account lost wages due to unemployment, school, etc.
yes, most people live beyond their means (which is what I'm guessing you're actually trying to say here...but haven't really succeeded)...but penalizing members of our society in terms of health care would be morally incomprehensible (which is fairly ironic coming from you, a self proclaimed 'Christian'). Enough people are already suffering with health concerns AND working 40+ hours a week (e.g. WalMart employees).

applying your spoon fed, trustafarian mentality to this situation does nothing to solve it..


You're right, not everyone can do it. However those are the poor people, not the people who were foolish.

There are tax shelters for peoples investments, so they dont have to pay income tax on all of their investments.

As a Christian I dont feel the need to be a doormatt to people who make bad choices. It's their life and they are responsible for their lives. I dont have to penilize them, they've done it themselves. However saying to me that because I've been responsible I have to pay for their mistakes, is not right.

As a Christian, I can choose to donate money to charities that will help the poor, encouraging government to raise taxes will be like the introduction of income tax to pay for WW2. It never got taken away, only spent eslewhere. The same will happen if taxes are raised to pay for babyboomer healthcare.

I will fight tooth and nail not to have my families future robbed by a generation to lived lavishly and failed to save. A majority of babyboomers will never fully retire, yet they are the wealthies generation.Yet they will rely heavily on medicare so provide them with free healthcare because they haven't saved enough. The system however was not designed like this. It was designed that the generation coming up would pay for the older generation; but its not there unless we hike taxes 15-20% There is a serious disconnect.

Should babyboomers choose to be selfish and push for tax increases. I'll pull my money, and investements out of this country. Currently if you become a citizen of the world, invest your money in panama you can avoid all taxes on capital gains and a majority of your income tax. This is actualyl very easy, and I'm sure a large group of the remaining middle/upper class will start to do this. I'll speak with my votes and then follow up by speaking with my dollars. The babyboomers should pay their own way, and if they need more funds tax them.

So you think everyone in this country could manage to save 1.5 to 2 million dollars by the time they retire if only they had discipline?

I don´t think you are being realistic.
Oh really?!?! LOL...

He's off by a zero in one of his earlier calculations...saying that snake will earn 15 million in his lifetime making 35k/yr for 45 years. More like 1.5 million.

And let me guess, if someone is making 50-60 grand today, a couple years before retirement, something tells me he was making a bit less 30 or 40 years ago. A little thing called inflation may be involved...?

Mt.biker, I'm glad you have a professional managing your finances. That nice nest egg that you're planning to have up to 1.5 million in 40 years...guess what, that will be worth a lot less by then. If you guess a 3% inflation rate, then that 1.5 million will be worth 440,000 in today's dollars...

You really need to bone up on this kind of stuff before you hand out financial advice to everyone.

Oh really?!?! LOL...

He's off by a zero in one of his earlier calculations...saying that snake will earn 15 million in his lifetime making 35k/yr for 45 years. More like 1.5 million.

And let me guess, if someone is making 50-60 grand today, a couple years before retirement, something tells me he was making a bit less 30 or 40 years ago. A little thing called inflation may be involved...?

Mt.biker, I'm glad you have a professional managing your finances. That nice nest egg that you're planning to have up to 1.5 million in 40 years...guess what, that will be worth a lot less by then. If you guess a 3% inflation rate, then that 1.5 million will be worth 440,000 in today's dollars...

You really need to bone up on this kind of stuff before you hand out financial advice to everyone.

When I was in my mid 20s I thought that 20k a year was enough--now 100k doesn't seem like that much. Times change. Nothing gets cheaper. Add in a couple of kids and watch the money fly out the window.

You're right, not everyone can do it. However those are the poor people, not the people who were foolish.

There are tax shelters for peoples investments, so they dont have to pay income tax on all of their investments.

As a Christian I dont feel the need to be a doormatt to people who make bad choices. It's their life and they are responsible for their lives. I dont have to penilize them, they've done it themselves. However saying to me that because I've been responsible I have to pay for their mistakes, is not right.

As a Christian, I can choose to donate money to charities that will help the poor, encouraging government to raise taxes will be like the introduction of income tax to pay for WW2. It never got taken away, only spent eslewhere. The same will happen if taxes are raised to pay for babyboomer healthcare.

I will fight tooth and nail not to have my families future robbed by a generation to lived lavishly and failed to save. A majority of babyboomers will never fully retire, yet they are the wealthies generation.Yet they will rely heavily on medicare so provide them with free healthcare because they haven't saved enough. The system however was not designed like this. It was designed that the generation coming up would pay for the older generation; but its not there unless we hike taxes 15-20% There is a serious disconnect.

Should babyboomers choose to be selfish and push for tax increases. I'll pull my money, and investements out of this country. Currently if you become a citizen of the world, invest your money in panama you can avoid all taxes on capital gains and a majority of your income tax. This is actualyl very easy, and I'm sure a large group of the remaining middle/upper class will start to do this. I'll speak with my votes and then follow up by speaking with my dollars. The babyboomers should pay their own way, and if they need more funds tax them.

"As a christian"....you're still missing the point...

Oh really?!?! LOL...

He's off by a zero in one of his earlier calculations...saying that snake will earn 15 million in his lifetime making 35k/yr for 45 years. More like 1.5 million.

And let me guess, if someone is making 50-60 grand today, a couple years before retirement, something tells me he was making a bit less 30 or 40 years ago. A little thing called inflation may be involved...?

Mt.biker, I'm glad you have a professional managing your finances. That nice nest egg that you're planning to have up to 1.5 million in 40 years...guess what, that will be worth a lot less by then. If you guess a 3% inflation rate, then that 1.5 million will be worth 440,000 in today's dollars...

You really need to bone up on this kind of stuff before you hand out financial advice to everyone.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I had hit all your points, but server busy killed my post.

I hope the people who's interest I spike, they research it and enjoy financial freedom.

"As a christian"....you're still missing the point...
Then explain it to me.

I mentioned Christian because I was acused about not being a 'Christian' based on my views on healthcare.

When I was in my mid 20s I thought that 20k a year was enough--now 100k doesn't seem like that much. Times change. Nothing gets cheaper. Add in a couple of kids and watch the money fly out the window.
But BJ...BOOTSTRAPS!!!

But BJ...BOOTSTRAPS!!!

I forgot...I feel so bad now.

The naivete and immortality of youth. It has always been such and will always be. You are fortunate. There are many who are and will not be so fortunate, through no fault of their own. You are condeming a whole class of people to despair and misery. You vastly underestimate the problem. Changes must be made and you must do your part for the great society you are fortunate to be a part of. What you want is a return to pre-WWII times and we all know how good the good old days were. Buck up, pay your share, just like us boomers did and are doing (aren't your parents boomers too?). We're willing to make sacrifices, are you?

flexing his NIMBY liberal agenda. my guess is if a toxic dump went next door you'd join Greenpeace. Amazing how left you turn when it directly affects you.
The US has the most expensive Health Care on the planet
The most uninsured for a 1st World NAtion
Not the longest lifespan
high infant mortality given our status

anyhow if you look at how much $$ is wasted in marketing, advertising and such (68 Billion I think) andhow much in in cross paperwork. Then how much we overpay for meds and medical items (compared to other nations) and you realize a single payer nationalized (gasp!) system would remove all of this and make the system so much more efficient.
What is sad is in about 10 years a bunch of you retirement closing righties will have to chole these words down "Maybe the Clintons were right"

Len I agree on raising the retirement age but the medical system is broken and needs drastic change.

oh I know all you righties think 'Privatization' cures everything. Gee it sure seems to have helped Walter Reed.

I don't know where all this is coming from, I want my SS check when I decide to start drawing it. I am, leagal age to begin right now but am still working and may do so for a couple of years. If I retire at 65 I still won't get full SS. If you want to extend your retirement age, be my guest, you are personally free to wait till you are 80 or even to refuse to take any, I really have no problem with however you want to do it. Any extension of the age limit will grandfather me anyway so I guess you can do whatever you libs feel works for you and your children. I have medical insurance until I am 65 and then it will be a suplemental policy, that's how most corporate health plans work these days. I have had a devistating medical problem with a family member, a child, and I know what it can do to a person financially. To claim as mtbiker does, that we should all be independant sounds good but the terrible financial drain that these things cause is why we started these programs in the first place. Blaming the AARP crowd for the crunch is misplacing the blame and betraying the promises made to them at the time they start to come due is criminal and inhuman. As for your opinion of me and my views, if you research this forum, you may even find the post in which I stated I believed that we would one day come to the place that we had the government providing healthcare because it will become necessary. I still feel that way.

The naivete and immortality of youth. It has always been such and will always be. You are fortunate. There are many who are and will not be so fortunate, through no fault of their own. You are condeming a whole class of people to despair and misery. You vastly underestimate the problem. Changes must be made and you must do your part for the great society you are fortunate to be a part of. What you want is a return to pre-WWII times and we all know how good the good old days were. Buck up, pay your share, just like us boomers did and are doing (aren't your parents boomers too?). We're willing to make sacrifices, are you?
I believe my generation is already paying for services that we will never receive.

We are all paying for this problem, but when the boomers die it will the debt will be passed onto the remaining population.

Canada almost went backrupt in the 70's and the world bank almost stopped lending them money because of similar recless spending.

I am not condeming people, I have not made the choices they made and I have not told them a lie. I am only asking that people live in the bed they made.

I believe my generation is already paying for services that we will never receive.

We are all paying for this problem, but when the boomers die it will the debt will be passed onto the remaining population.

Canada almost went backrupt in the 70's and the world bank almost stopped lending them money because of similar recless spending.

I am not condeming people, I have not made the choices they made and I have not told them a lie. I am only asking that people live in the bed they made.

You have about a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting benefits when you retire since you're only 30 and have only been paying in a short while. Funny though how cons have no problems finding a few trillion to bomb and rebuild Iraq, but can't seem to find similar $$ to provide basic services to their citizens.

I believe my generation is already paying for services that we will never receive.

We are all paying for this problem, but when the boomers die it will the debt will be passed onto the remaining population..

Your generation has inherited wealth you never earned with a value much greater than you will ever pay for services that you will not receive. You have inherited a country with an infrastructure and a stability that allows you to easily earn money and save a little. You have inherited technology developed by previous generations that makes you, with your meager skills and effort, able to live better than the richest people in the world lived a hundred years ago. In a histroical or global perspective you do not deserve even a small fraction of what you have. The reality is that you have inhereited almost all of your weatlth from society and you are beign asked to pay a pittance to help take care of other citizens.
If you were placed in a primative country with no resources and and worked to your maximum ability, what would your life be like? This is the true value of your work--everything else has been a gift from previous generations. You need to re-examine your thinking, as well as improve your math and financial skills.

Your generation has inherited wealth you never earned with a value much greater than you will ever pay for services that you will not receive. You have inherited a country with an infrastructure and a stability that allows you to easily earn money and save a little. You have inherited technology developed by previous generations that makes you, with your meager skills and effort, able to live better than the richest people in the world lived a hundred years ago. In a histroical or global perspective you do not deserve even a small fraction of what you have. The reality is that you have inhereited almost all of your weatlth from society and you are beign asked to pay a pittance to help take care of other citizens.
If you were placed in a primative country with no resources and and worked to your maximum ability, what would your life be like? This is the true value of your work--everything else has been a gift from previous generations. You need to re-examine your thinking, as well as improve your math and financial skills.

and at 30 he's been working for maybe 10 years max? at least at anything paying enough so he has to pay substantial taxes on it.

and at 30 he's been working for maybe 10 years max? at least at anything paying enough so he has to pay substantial taxes on it.

It doesn't sound like he is paying subsantial taxes now. he claimed to make charitable donations and nearly get all of his money back. When you pay substantial taxes AMT takes care of that scam.

The delusion of the rugged, self-sufficient individualists is absurdly funny in the U.S. in 2007. You'd think that he drained a swamp, built his own shelter, and grew his own food from native seeds.

He takes the benefits of Society but screams like a stuck hog when he needs to make a tinney financial contribution.

David Walker
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/60minutes/main2528226.shtml?source=RSSattr=Business_2528226

We're 8 trillion dollars in the hole and we'd need it today and to invest it in bonds to deliver on what we've promised.

"On cost we're number one in the world. We spend 50 percent more of our economy on health care than any nation on earth," David Walker.

So, who's responsible? Is he still in charge?

"The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," Walker argues.

Asked why, Walker says, "Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We're not being realistic. We can't afford the promises we've already made, much less to be able, piling on top of 'em."

With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years."

So, who's responsible? Is he still in charge?

"The prescription drug bill was probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s," Walker argues.

Asked why, Walker says, "Well, because we promise way more than we can afford to keep. Eight trillion dollars added to what was already a 15 to $20 trillion under-funding. We're not being realistic. We can't afford the promises we've already made, much less to be able, piling on top of 'em."

With one stroke of the pen, Walker says, the federal government increased existing Medicare obligations nearly 40 percent over the next 75 years."
GW never met a bill he didn't like. :D

I saw that segment on 60 minutes...very sobering look at the US's fiscal realities--and it's a really bleak picture he paints. The scariest thing? nobody really disagrees with him.

GW never met a bill he didn't like. :D

I saw that segment on 60 minutes...very sobering look at the US's fiscal realities--and it's a really bleak picture he paints. The scariest thing? nobody really disagrees with him.


throwing money at an inherently broken system does not make it any less broken. as are the policies of the current administration...just throw a sheit load of money at it and hope it'll get better on its own.

we need to share the pain a little if the program is going to survice......

or we could take the current AARP generation approach of...."we want ours and the hell with the rest of you!!." :eek: :ciappa:

Len

It's a little late for the current AARP generation to make alternative plans, we sorta gotta dance with the girl we brung to the party. She may have gotten ugly but so have we. :)

It's a little late for the current AARP generation to make alternative plans, we sorta gotta dance with the girl we brung to the party. She may have gotten ugly but so have we. :)

I agree...but the current phase in of the increase in retirement age needs to be more agressive. I'm 52.......I still have time to plan to work longer, plus working longer will give me more time to save and grow my retirement fund. This is true for most.

IMO, anyone 60 or younger should't be able to get SS until after 70, & it should extend the younger you are.........YMMV.

Immediatly extending the retirement age by 3 years for everyone, gives people 3 more years to save. It's drastic...& I wouldn't like it but since we didn't deal with this when we could have mitigated it, drastic measures may be needed.

At this point there is no good fix if we are to have a program for our kids & their kids.

len

I agree...but the current phase in of the increase in retirement age needs to be more agressive. I'm 52.......I still have time to plan to work longer, plus working longer will give me more time to save and grow my retirement fund. This is true for most.

IMO, anyone 60 or younger should't be able to get SS until after 70, & it should extend the younger you are.........YMMV.

Immediatly extending the retirement age by 3 years for everyone, gives people 3 more years to save. It's drastic...& I wouldn't like it but since we didn't deal with this when we could have mitigated it, drastic measures may be needed.

At this point there is no good fix if we are to have a program for our kids & their kids.

len

I disagree with your cutoff age, even though I am past it. There are many jobs that people 70 years old simply are not physically able to do. Corporations want to rid themselves of employees over 50 and they have been notorious for doing so in the past, where do these people go to make the kind of money that would be required to grow their retirement funds?

I think many changes have been made that will help future generations, there are many stock option plans and savings systems that are offered and if people start young enough, they can save themselves to a nice retirement. The current boomer situation is something that is simply going to have to be absorbed in whatever process is finally decided on.

As a Christian I dont feel the need to be a doormatt to people who make bad choices. It's their life and they are responsible for their lives. I dont have to penilize them, they've done it themselves. However saying to me that because I've been responsible I have to pay for their mistakes, is not right.

Yes, Christ is very famous for his parable where he says "Let those that screwed up their own lives rot in poverty and illness, for they do not deserve your charity". It is the heart of Christian charity to only give to the "deserving" poor and let the ones you don't like and don't approve of fend for themselves.

Then explain it to me.

I mentioned Christian because I was acused about not being a 'Christian' based on my views on healthcare.

I commented on the "christian" due to the fact your church teaches you 1) to not judge 2) to help the poor and indigent...you help the poor and indigent you feel are "worthy" of your help...which in its essence is a judgement. that's here nor there...

your views of healthcare are skewed and lumped together. Medicare and Medicaid are two VERY different things. One is a system based on employment merit...you work your whole life, you pay into the federal system, and you get descent healthcare in your retirement as a governmental "thanks".....I like that system as I know how much is costs the average human to provide him/herself cobra coverage in their late 50's. Currently my parents are paying upwards of 1800$/month for both of them until they hit the age limit for Medicare. they earned the right to have that coverage...have no plans on abusing it....as most recipients do. they have earned a good retirement for themselves and could cover most any medical deductible that came their way in terms of an acute illness requiring hospitalization..HOWEVER they could not afford the entire bill if such insurance was not there (as I'm almost sure your parents couldn't either, unless they have specific individual prepaid medical coverage).

Medicaid, on the other hand, is a government subsidy for the poor or disabled. There are rampant abuses and mismanagement of this system because it is dealing with this population. This is where reform needs to occur....as physicians will not treat these people due to poor recovery rates by the federal coffer. It is a fact that a majority of people on Medicaid are working adults with a family...their employer either doesn't give them insurance or they do not qualify for employer based insurance for preexisting conditions (high BP, obesity, whatever)....these folks typically make below the median income for a family of four, however exist above the poverty level. they are often disabled and therefore unable to work for employer based coverage. they often barely make rent payments or car payments due to reduced SS benefits and exception out of pocket expense for pharmaceuticals, pain killers, etc. Are they poor? no.