The Affordable HealthCare Decision

[dusty]

They never said invest in the Stock Market they said own your own Social Security Acount. If you are under ~50 you will never seen the money you put in Social Security, if you are over 65 you will get many times what you actually put in.

The few places in the US that allow private Social Security accounts the average retiree gets monthly payments 5-20X what Social Security would have paid and the money is theirs. When they die the money goes where they want (less death taxes).


Social Security is the the biggest Ponzi Scheme every dreamed of.

Yeah and if the market goes belly up what do you have.

[pennview]

It is unmistakable that Obama care has raised insurance premiums and will continue to do so in the future. What the consumer receives as "free" or through mandatory coverage under Obama care such as adding children to their parents health care insurance until age 26, or cancer screening, or contraceptives, etc., is not "free" for the insurance provider. These costs are genuine and are passed along to the consumer in the form of higher insurance premiums. There are no free lunches!

Take contraceptive being required under Obama care. According to the FAQ on the Planned Parenthood site today, birth control pills cost about $15–$50 a month with a prescription. These are free under Obama care for the consumer but not for the insurance company that provides them. Now there is nothing in the legislation passed by Congress that Obama care was to provide birth control pills, but the law allows the Secretary of Health to establish rules regarding health care that must be provided. Only God knows what she and Obama have up their sleeves when it comes to "health care."

In addition, Obama care calls for establishing numerous panels, committees and groups that will set rules and guidelines for health care. As a result, health care rationing will be the norm. Bureaucrats, not you and your doctor, will be deciding what is the best "cost effective" way of treating your particular illness, regardless of whether that treatment works for you or not.

[pennview]

For those naysayers about Private Retirement Accounts versus Social Security, here is an article you should read about a county in Texas that opted out of Social Security when that was still permitted -- http://www.texastribune.org/texas-polit ... galveston/

Here's an excerpt from that article:
"In a hypothetical calculation, Gornto said, an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan. Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month.

Social Security benefits change depending on the yearly adjustment for inflation, the year of retirement, and the age of the worker. But at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."

"In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account. First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, Gornto said. The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees’ benefits against inflation and severe drops in market rates."

For you naysayers, I hope you noticed the that the company guarantee a minimum rate of return. Moreover, federal employees have the option in their IRA-like accounts to invest in U.S. Government Treasury Bills, which means they'll never lose their investments as long as the government can pay its bills. If you think about this, you might wonder why the government sells Treasury Bills to the Chinese, Japanese, British, etc., when you and I can't buy them.

[fredsheldon]

[quote="pennview"]For those naysayers about Private Retirement Accounts versus Social Security, here is an article you should read about a county in Texas that opted out of Social Security when that was still permitted -- http://www.texastribune.org/texas-polit ... galveston/

Here's an excerpt from that article:
"In a hypothetical calculation, Gornto said, an employee who earned $25,000 annually for 40 years could retire with a 20-year payout of $2,297 a month under the Alternate Plan. Under the same circumstances, an employee making $125,000 annually could retire with a payout of $11,490 a month.

Social Security benefits change depending on the yearly adjustment for inflation, the year of retirement, and the age of the worker. But at a maximum, a worker who retires in 2011 at age 66 could receive $2,366 a month in Social Security benefits."

"In the Alternate Plan, retirement benefits are a direct result of employee contributions. In each paycheck, employees contribute 13.9 percent of the their gross pay (6.1 percent from the employee, 7.8 percent from the county) to a private account. First Financial Benefits invests the accounts conservatively, Gornto said. The company guarantees a minimum rate of return of 3.75 percent to 4 percent on the accounts to safeguard employees&#8217]

Art, here is a real life example from a participant in the First Financial Benefits plan that you are recommending:

"Joyce Longcoy receives about $460 a month from the alternate program, but she figures she would have received $1,000 or so if she'd participated in Social Security during her 23 years as a Galveston County court clerk. Some early investments of the alternate plan went awry, Longcoy said. Participants got back what they'd contributed but received no interest for three years when they'd expected 10 percent annual returns, Longcoy said."

This is nothing more than a Insurance Company Annuity which can be lost if the company goes bankrupt, which many have in the past 5 years. If this was such a good deal, everybody would be investing in these types of plans instead of mutual funds. Google this plan and learn about it before jumping on board. One of the main issues with this plan is it has no cost of living adjustment and the Insurance Company is taking a fair sized management fee off the top. Do you really trust Insurance Companies more today than your own government:D

[holsgo]

I have a 50 page presentation that goes over all the details of this plan. I'm pouring through it trying to decide what angle it represents. There are curious statistics in it. I'm not doubting the stats, just questioning what got us to them. Very curious is that there are real correlations to about 25 years ago and a climb in the stats. Not surprising about the time the stats go upwards is the same time our govt did a number of things, immigration, nafta are not lost in my mind.
I could scan it if anyone is interested or get it electronically.
People swear we've been on the wrong path for almost 30 years. It's so interesting to see that same theory showing in stats if you look for it. Then again, people swear to see Martians.

[dusty]

Art, here is a real life example from a participant in the First Financial Benefits plan that you are recommending:

"Joyce Longcoy receives about $460 a month from the alternate program, but she figures she would have received $1,000 or so if she'd participated in Social Security during her 23 years as a Galveston County court clerk. Some early investments of the alternate plan went awry, Longcoy said. Participants got back what they'd contributed but received no interest for three years when they'd expected 10 percent annual returns, Longcoy said."

This is nothing more than a Insurance Company Annuity which can be lost if the company goes bankrupt, which many have in the past 5 years. If this was such a good deal, everybody would be investing in these types of plans instead of mutual funds. Google this plan and learn about it before jumping on board. One of the main issues with this plan is it has no cost of living adjustment and the Insurance Company is taking a fair sized management fee off the top. Do you really trust Insurance Companies more today than your own government

I am not sure who I trust with my money, if anyone.

I am afraid to go look at what my Prudential Life Insurance policy is now worth. It has probably gone down to the guaranteed minimum.

I guess that is what I should have expected. The Guaranteed Minimum.

[pennview]

Due diligence and diversification comes to mind when making long-term plans, and it is true that many aspects of that planning are unforeseeable. If one can't or won't plan accordingly, then mindlessly following the crowd may be the best option.

Today, given the unwillingness of one party in Congress to honestly assess the issue, Social Security will become insolvent in short order. I believe that already, Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in, especially with the current 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes. That means that the shortfall is covered by the General Fund, and that in turn means that today 40 cents on every dollar spent by the federal government is being borrowed from places like China, Japan, and the UK. Medicare is in equally dire straits.

That same party in Congress is unwilling to address entitlements and keeps talking about a Trust Fund that will keep Social Security solvent until the 2030s. But that so-called Fund is merely IOUs from the Treasury Department, meaning taxpayers owe the money. I guess you did hear Obama say before the last increase by Congress in the nation's debt limit that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security payments would be mailed out if the debt ceiling wasn't increased. And it will be necessary to raise the debt ceiling again in 2013, so it's likely that we'll hear the same scare tactic then if we're foolish enough to reelect him. Without a significant reduction in benefits or increase in payroll taxes, Social Security can't continue as it is today.

By the way, here's a guy who thinks stock prices will fall by 40 percent by the end of the year -- http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Sch ... ode=F619-1

[fredsheldon]

Due diligence and diversification comes to mind when making long-term plans, and it is true that many aspects of that planning are unforeseeable. If one can't or won't plan accordingly, then mindlessly following the crowd may be the best option.

Today, given the unwillingness of one party in Congress to honestly assess the issue, Social Security will become insolvent in short order. I believe that already, Social Security is paying out more than it is taking in, especially with the current 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes. That means that the shortfall is covered by the General Fund, and that in turn means that today 40 cents on every dollar spent by the federal government is being borrowed from places like China, Japan, and the UK. Medicare is in equally dire straits.

That same party in Congress is unwilling to address entitlements and keeps talking about a Trust Fund that will keep Social Security solvent until the 2030s. But that so-called Fund is merely IOUs from the Treasury Department, meaning taxpayers owe the money. I guess you did hear Obama say before the last increase by Congress in the nation's debt limit that he couldn't guarantee that Social Security payments would be mailed out if the debt ceiling wasn't increased. And it will be necessary to raise the debt ceiling again in 2013, so it's likely that we'll hear the same scare tactic then if we're foolish enough to reelect him. Without a significant reduction in benefits or increase in payroll taxes, Social Security can't continue as it is today.

By the way, here's a guy who thinks stock prices will fall by 40 percent by the end of the year -- http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Sch ... ode=F619-1

Wow, only 40%. That's much better than the 55% it fell 4 years ago:D Again, my dividends stay about the same no matter what happens to my principle since they are based on units owned rather than unit value. So, unless I'm ready to sell, I'm not affected at all. Have a happy 4th and be happy that you can afford a SS.

[pennview]

Fred, how does the price of something fall 110 percent? If the price fell 100 percent, wouldn't it then be worth zero?

[fredsheldon]

Fred, how does the price of something fall 110 percent? If the price fell 100 percent, wouldn't it then be worth zero?

Uh, that's why I failed math It should have been 55%. It went from 14,000 down to 6350 or so.