Printable View
I am happy with it, I paid into it for the MAX every year from 1953 to 1991 and they told me I would get it and they have kept their word. I paid $75 a year [I think it was] Medicare for 3 years after I came here, but quit as I will never go back.
Blackgang retired, was once GS-12..MACV ARVN
What health insurance do you have now?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackgang
I have never had ins. except the medical full coverage from the union I happened to be working thru or the Medicare thru SSA, I now have med ins. thru my wifes job as a govt. school teacher here.
I never use it tho except for my Emphasema meds which are about 10% of the prices in the USA for the identical same meds.
I will pobly use the govt services when I die and they can do the autopsy as I won't mind waiting in line then, now if I need to see a Dr. I go to a private hospital because of the no waiting and it never costs much.
Private ins. here is impossible to get if you are over 65.
I don't plan on ever going back either, but my health insurance (as a retired Federal employee) will require me to sign up for Part B Medicare when I'm 65. If I don't, I lose the health insurance.
Won't do you any good if you live out your years in Thailand. And, who wants to try and get on a plane and travel >18 hours to get back to the states when your sick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward
But, if I don't sign up I lose the Federal health insurance that comes with my retirement. Since that's good for life anywhere in the world, I don't want to lose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
kao jai...:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Coward
But if it like the reg. medicare then it is no good anywhere but the USA and can not be used here,
Have you checked to see if you can use it here, but I can sign up for the medicare if I go back, but it doesn't start right then but has to wait til the next quarter or something, I don't remember what they told me, but I can get it again with restrictions as the time it restarts.
But of coarse SSA is pobly different that yours.
^ Nah, it's the same SSA and same Medicare as yours blackgang. The deal is that most health insurance companies seek to decrease their liability by requiring people who are eligible for Medicare to sign up for it. Medicare then becomes the primary payor. So, instead of having to pay the whole amount the insurance company only pays the part that Medicare doesn't cover.
Of course, Medicare won't pay anything for treatment I get here, but the rule applies to all, no matter where you are living.
If you've opted out of Medicare Part B you can only sign up again during the January through March open season and then your coverage doesn't start until the following July and you're penalized by a 10% premium increase for each year you weren't signed up.
OK, but if medicare will not pay here then why would you keep it if you are gonna check out here. Do you have asnother policy that will not pay if you drop MC?
I know about the restrictions that my friend who worked at SSA office told me about but I forgot the particulars as I will not ever go back.
Still wondering how a US Federal insurance policy can apply in Thailand or, anywhere else overseas aside from Guam etc?
Say you come down with the big "C".
Your Federal Insurance policy take care of you at Bumrungrad?
DAMN BM,, big "C" ain't nuthin no more, couple shots of penicillin and it is over with, no more drippy thingy,
Yes. I have Blue Cross. By experience I know that they will cover treatment at Bumrungrad. My ex had bunion repair surgery there. Bumrungrad billed Blue Cross directly and we only had to pay the deductible directly to Bumrungrad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Furthermore, Bangkok Hospital is a "Blue Cross" hospital so all inpatient costs are covered and billed directly to Blue Cross. There's a Bangkok Hospital about 4K from my house here in Korat.
For outpatient stuff I have to pay first and file a claim with Blue Cross for reimbursement, but I have never had the slightest problem doing this.
The Blue Cross web site shows that they have a total of 80 providers (hospitals and clinics) in Thailand; most of which (56) are in Bangkok.
Yea I know that Blue Cross is here but I didn't know that the US policies would be good here for us, but I don't spend that much anyway, and if something that bad hits me then I ain't gonna live no how, so govt hospital is as good a place to kick off as any, my Fil died at home next door and they hauled his body down to town in the rain in the back of a pickup, pronounced him dead and hauled him back.
Kinda primitive shit huh.
Here's a post written by somone. Thoughts and oopnions? What he's advocation isn't feesible, IMO. But it does lead to some thought on the matter.
Quote:
While abolishing social security is a political unpopular idea, I don't think anymore that there's much of a reason to ask, "Should we abolish social security?" but rather, we should be asking how we should abolish it.
Because many aren't familiar with the justification for abolishing social security, I'll go through it.
First off, though, let me say that I'm not a Libertarian crazy who's going to argue, "It's a ponzi scheme! Social security is theft!!" because that's pretty much insane. I'd also add that Bush's proposal for partial privatization of social security would've led to massively increased poverty among the elderly and government deficit. And despite the fact that there is a social responsibility for a person to save for retirement, that doesn't take away from the government's responsibility to help the poor, including the elderly poor.
But nevertheless, social security just doesn't serve any purpose, is harmful to the economy, and the same function of providing for the elderly could be carried out through other means.
To begin, let me point out one of the most relevant facts: Social security was set up in a far different time than today, when it was the Great Depression and many old people were dying of malnutrition. Today, however, most people who are poor are in their 20's and 30's. Why, then, should we have a system which effectively takes money from young people and gives it to the elderly?
Most jobs today offer 401k savings programs. In the absence of social security, such programs would be expanded because of the increased demand for savings. This would lead to America have a positive savings rate and thus greater overall investment, and a lower trade deficit with China.
Aside from the problem of government program funds being drained from the social security fund (which is itself obviously idiotic), one of the worst problems with social security is that people do not receive amounts equal to what they pay in. Because benefits have been increased in recent years, many people today are receiving more than what they paid in. And though I don't think social security will collapse in the future, because of the problems it faces I do believe that I will receive less in the future than what I will pay in.
Also, I think that it would be good to allow people the option of choosing whether to save and how to save. In fact, I don't follow why we are even forced to save. I believe that the average person is rational enough to save for retirement, but tends to care less nowadays because of social security.
Furthermore, why should we focus on alleviating elderly poverty more so than poverty for anybody else? What makes the elderly more deserving of welfare aid than anyone else?
Most importantly of all, if the goal is to alleviate elderly poverty, that doesn't necessarily need to be done through forced saving. Why not merely provide welfare to poor elderly people who are incapable of working and have no savings, instead of requiring citizens to fund a national retirement program?
And so, in conclusion, my proposal:
- Immediately end all social security payments.
- Immediately refund every dollar that has been paid into social security, for all but the highest tax bracket (which if I remember correctly is over $250K)
- Provide income equal to 1.5 times the poverty rate (about $15,000 per person) for all disabled workers and citizens over the age of 60 with no retirement savings.
^
To abolish SS would put a lot of chislers out on the street as well as those disabled who's only income derives from that program. I think it'll be an evolutionary thing where Congress will phase in private accounts in future. Won't happen overnight.
Like the company pension which is becoming less of a norm these days. Employers (some) are typically matching up to 8% dollar for dollar in lieu of a pension.
Well, what should be done, if anything?
Link: Bush Admin. urges Social Security fix - Yahoo! NewsQuote:
Bush Admin. urges Social Security fix
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said in a new report Monday that Social Security is facing a $13.6 trillion shortfall in coming years and that delaying reforms is not fair to younger workers.
A report issued by the Treasury Department said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases will need to be considered to permanently fix the funding shortfall.
According to the 2007 Social Security Trustee's Annual Report:
That means that if the Social Security tax were raised 2% (1% for employees and 1% for employers) the long range deficit would disappear.Quote:
The projected actuarial deficit over the 75-year long-range period is 1.95 percent of taxable payroll -- .06 percentage point smaller than in last year’s repor
If the 75 year deficit is $4.7 trillion, where does the $13.6 trillion stated in the article come from? The article doesn't specify the period and just says:Quote:
Over the 75-year period, the Trust Funds would require additional revenue equivalent to $4.7 trillion in today’s dollars to pay all scheduled benefits.
What coming years?Quote:
Social Security is facing a $13.6 trillion shortfall in coming years.
^ Here's a little more information, in general.
Link: Samuelson: Paying for Aging Baby Boomers - Global Investor - Newsweek International Editions - MSNBC.comQuote:
The aging of America is not just a population change or, as a budget problem, an accounting exercise. It involves a profound transformation of the nature of government: commitments to the older population are slowly overwhelming other public goals; the national government is becoming mainly an income-transfer mechanism from younger workers to older retirees.
Consider the outlook. From 2005 to 2030, the 65-and-over population will nearly double to 71 million; its share of the population will rise to 20 percent from 12 percent. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—programs that serve older people—already exceed 40 percent of the $2.7 trillion federal budget. By 2030, their share could hit 75 percent of the present budget, projects the Congressional Budget Office. The result: a political impasse.
The 2030 projections are daunting.
To keep federal spending stable as a share of the economy would mean eliminating all defense spending and most other domestic programs (for research, homeland security, the environment, etc.). To balance the budget with existing programs at their present economic shares would require, depending on assumptions, tax increases of 30 percent to 50 percent—or budget deficits could quadruple. A final possibility: cut retirement benefits by increasing eligibility ages, being less generous to wealthier retirees or trimming all payments
This is basic common knowledge Buadhai.
Many think tanks and advocacy group and non-partisan groups have done the studies. It's very straightforward: population demographics, number paying into, and number receiving.
Which gives them a massive lump sum when they're 65 -- or whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Those with no fiscal discipline (imagine, Americans with no fiscal discipline) will spend/lend/blow/lose that money and then put their hand out again to the govt. Back to square one.
The GOP will say "feck'em." The DEMS will say "tax the rich and take care of the poor bastards."
IMO, SSAN is an imperfect, but necessary, system to bail out those incapable of securing their own future. It's frosting for those who have.
I think at some point the gov will be forced to play catch-up by severely reducing benefits -- hopefully to the rich first and not across the board.
That will likely happen when I'm due to receive my first check in 22 years. I really don't think stringing old folks out to, say 70, before getting benefits is fair. This tax was never meant as a bonanza for those who live longest. My mother, after retiring at 55, died at 60 and was royally screwed having paid her whole life and never drew a benefit.
Will I have to wait till I'm 70?
I'm not betting it'll be there for me.
There are ways around that though. They could be taxed quite highly if they took the lump sum, but if they rolled it over into a superannuation account with a reasonable living payment each month, they could be encouraged by no tax on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
But some want to buy a nice motor yacht and go off fuking around and do things that they were to busy doing while paying into their pension fund, then they hit a rock and lose a $750,000 boat with no insurance and not very much money left to live on.
At least thats what I would do..
I knew there was a reason I avoided "Issues" threads. It ought to be retitled "Idiots".....Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
I'm outta here.
I have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by buad hai
If someone posted something that you didn't like, please let us know.
Silver Tusnami:
10,000 Boomers per day will hit the rolls of the largest welfare program in the history of the world.
I bet it was, for you.Quote:
America's first 'baby boomer' files for Social Security
Posted: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:59 PM
By John Rutherford, NBC News Producer
WASHINGTON –
America's first "baby boomer" filed for Social Security benefits Monday, becoming among the first of nearly 80 million Americans born after World War II who are expected to apply for such benefits over the next two decades.
Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, 61, was born one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 1946. She becomes eligible for Social Security in two and a half months. On Monday, she completed filing electronically for the benefits before a horde of reporters and photographers at the Press Club in Washington, D.C.
"It was great, it was great," she said afterward.
Link: America's first 'baby boomer' files for Social Security - Field Notes - msnbc.comQuote:
In what's being called America's "silver tsunami," 10,000 Americans a day will become eligible for Social Security benefits over the next 20 years.
For many people, maybe most, SS be the only means of supprt they will have. Lots of retirees in Thailand living off SS and many have little or no other savings. Saving 10% or more of what you make is best long term plan.
True, Jimmy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCA
To each their own. Many Americans don't plan ahead. The 10% rule is outdated now. Some will disagree with me on this, but I believe saving 25% of net income is needed if one is living in the U.S. This 25 percent can include 401K and IRA contributions.
Sounds fair to me .... Wonder how old you are SK :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Storekeeper
I don't think he likes being addressed in "italics"!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by MilkmanI have no idea what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by buad hai
If someone posted something that you didn't like, please let us know.
<H3>Found this baby online.......
13 Retirement Myths
Myth No. 7:
Social Security won't be there.
Despite the alarming studies, Social Security isn't going away. Enough new money will continue to flow into the program from payroll taxes to fund 70 to 75 percent of scheduled benefits until 2081. And with a few reforms, Social Security could continue to pay full benefits.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0710/gallery.retirement_myths.moneymag/7.html
</H3>
I've read this exact article too, Jimmy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCA
About 9 times.
Yes, it will be there. We know that. That's not the issue.
Yes, full pay-outs may be there. That's not the issue.
What the issue is, is: how much you we going to pay to get a negative return on investments - which is called "pay full benefits?"
Do the math.
That is actually a non issue also as you must pay what they say without option. The only issue is will anything be returned at all. FYI, if joe average invests every penny of what is taken out for SS he will be worse off .. defined benefit plan trumps defined contribution plan for almost everyone in the program .... Bush's plan is a scam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milkman
I cannot begin to tell you how many "Republican" voters who vote straight ticket Republican are members of AARP. These people need to die. Please hurry. Selfish, greedy, blue-hairs. Let's line them up against the wall and do what needs to be done.
Link & Entire: AARP's Clout, And Social Security, Potent Machine Pointed Against Bush's Proposed Changes - CBS NewsQuote:
AARP's Clout, And Social Security
Potent Machine Pointed Against Bush's Proposed Changes
Some Americans, including President Bush, think the retirement program is ripe for overhaul.
But, after a six-month-long campaign, Mr. Bush has made little headway in convincing Americans that a radical change of Social Security is a good idea.
As CBS News Correspondent Dan Rather reports, the group most responsible for opposing the President's social security reform plan is the AARP.
Those letters used to stand for the “American Association of Retired Persons.” And, even though the AARP still goes by that name, its leaders say the group now represents not just retirees, but Americans 50 and older.
And that's a lot of people. The AARP has more than 35 million members, making it the largest organization in the United States after the Catholic Church. It is a three-quarters-of-a-billion-dollar-a-year business. And, it's one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.
^ I find it very interesting that they overhauled their demographic focus to those 50+, rather than true blue hairs. This opens up most of the baby boomers and yuppies - a tremdously influential and affluential bloc.
Get ready to pay folks.
Entire: US braces for baby boom retirement waveQuote:
US braces for baby boom retirement wave
Dec 24
The first of the vast US baby boom generation goes into retirement in January, setting off a demographic tidal wave with wide-ranging economic, political and social implications.
Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, born on January 1, 1946, is acknowledged as the nation's first baby boomer and the first to apply for social security benefits, for which she will be eligible in 2008.
The New Jersey grandmother is the first of an estimated 80 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964, a generation that led a social revolution in the 1960s and changed the fabric of most facets of society.
The cost for government-funded social security and medical care for the boomers leaves a funding gap of between 40 and 76 trillion dollars for next 75 years, according to various estimates.
"America is facing a demographic juggernaut," says Brent Green, a marketing consultant and author, in his "Boomers" blog.
"An unprecedented number will soon be entering the retirement stage of life. One-third of the population will be over 50 by 2010. One in five will be over 65 by 2010."
^ Good Lord. What a surprise.
Only had 50 years to prepare for this
The US government dropped the ball. I'm doing my planning on my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thetyim
The downside is, if I ever return to the US I will have to pay into it. There is no way out of it, being that it's mandatory. And the SS taxes will be raised. There is no way around it.
My Thai wife has been working in the US and paying into SS for 8 years now. We will likely be retiring to Thailand in 4 years. She does not have US citizenship. As I understand it, she can get SS benefits @ 62 yo if she stays in the US but not if she lives abroad. Does anyone know if that is correct?
Thanks in advance
The coming reality of insolvency. The only people who defend Social Stupidity are the people on the rolls. Here is the bigger picture, below.
Link: FT.com / World - Moody’s says spending threatens US ratingQuote:
Moody’s says spending threatens US rating
By Francesco Guerrera, Jan. 10 2008
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said on Thursday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy.
The part in bold is a bit deep for me. I understand, that for many year the US government has taken funds (surpluses) from SS and masked the size of the deficit. But is this related to having an excuse to give tax cuts to the top income earners? Anybody able to explain this?
Entire: FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Time to honour America’s debt to the retiredQuote:
How does this work? Social Security was initially a pay-as-you-go system – annual payroll taxes of workers covered that year’s payments to retired people. By the early 1980s, however, it was clear that this system was not sustainable. Payments were increasing faster than revenues, and when the baby boomers started retiring and collecting pensions, there would be huge shortfalls.
President Ronald Reagan had the prudence to address this problem early enough to make Social Security sustainable. He appointed Alan Greenspan to design a massive overhaul of the system, which was implemented.
Social Security was in effect transformed into a national pension plan. Social Security payroll taxes were raised, creating a surplus in the trust fund that would fully cover the future costs of baby-boomer retirement. The payroll tax now puts 12.4 per cent of each worker’s wage income into the trust fund (half is paid by the employer, except for the self-employed, who pay the full 12.4 per cent).
....Politicians understand that, with the Social Security Trust Fund surplus declining, they will no longer be able to borrow from them under the table while announcing fictitiously smaller deficits to justify continued expenditures and tax cuts. And they will have to generate funds from other sources of revenue to redeem the bonds after 2017. Rather than admit too much was borrowed recently, and must now be repaid, they want to reduce Social Security benefits. This puts much of the burden on the middle class, who created most of the surplus that has been used to hide the real size of the deficits.
US Office of Management and Budget data show that while government’s reported deficit averaged about $300bn a year from 2002 to 2006 – roughly $4,000 per household – the real current deficit was actually more than 50 per cent bigger. The government just “borrowed” about $165bn from the Social Security Trust Fund every year – under the table.
In 2007, the real deficit was $449bn according to the OMB. However, the “official” deficit widely reported is only $257bn, because it is government policy to add the borrowed Social Security Trust Fund surplus ($192bn in 2007) to revenues before calculating the “official” deficit that has to be borrowed publicly. The recently passed economic stimulus package of $160bn is reported to raise the 2008 official deficit to about $400bn. But the real deficit in 2008 will be about $600bn.