On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 17:36:39 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/5/17 5:16 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

http://tinyurl.com/ydxb8j66

from the onion

Your vacation photos?


For millions of American workers who were screwed out of their pensions
by corporate creed, Social Security is all they will have left, and for
the tens of millions of American workers who will never be able to get
into the middle class or rise from it, there's little hope for a decent
retirement, even with Social Security.

Too bad it is a huge Ponzi scam that is going to blow up in less than
a decade. Both SS and MC are upside down and there does not seem to be
any plan from either side to bail it out. The "trust fund" is a
fantasy and we can't even pay back the debt we are incurring today.
That trust fund is just another line item on the debt. The fix had to
happen in the 50s and 60s and it would have involved changing the
retirement age to something more closely related to life expectancy.
Before you say it, yes I am the best example of that mistake by our
government. If I don't get hit by a bus or some other unseen calamity,
I will be retired longer than I worked. It wasn't my idea. It was all
just part of that Clinton prosperity we keep hearing about. (AKA
creative bookkeeping)

BTW most workers of the first cohort of the boomer generation are
doing just fine with their corporate pensions. It was during the
Clinton administration when the defined pension plan started
disappearing. Even so most are vested in some defined benefits.
Ah prosperity!

Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.
Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 20:08:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

Now you are feeding into Harry's post about all of those poor people
having to eat cat food or something because all they have is SS and
you want to cut the benefits.
A also disagree that it covers 70% of current payments unless they are
assuming they still have the trust fund, interest on the investment
etc and we know it is just debt. Certainly full faith and credit of
the government but debt nonetheless.
I assume we pay the SS people before the Chinese but maybe not.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.

Medicare IS single payer. What changes?

Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

My out of pocket is maxed out at $6500 a year. Right now my
deductibles and co pays don't even eat all of my HRA. I gave them back
close to a grand last year.
I don't really plan to be sick very long anyway. I will punch out. I
have seen dying of miserable diseases more than I like to think about
and I don't plan on doing it.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.

Harry seems to take a shot at me whenever he can but I think his plan
is to die at his desk.

On 8/5/2017 9:08 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.
Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.


My goal was to have the option (or opportunity) to retire at 55. I beat
it by 2 years and have never looked back. :-)



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On 8/5/17 9:08 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.
Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.


I have a friend who worked for Sikorsky who became eligible for what I
guess was a generous early retirement package five years ago, but his
employer "made him an offer he couldn't refuse" to stay on his job, so
he stayed and just actually retired this past spring. Now, he's
"consulting" with a couple of the customers of his old employer. I guess
if you are in a technical field and have skills that are hard to
replace, you never really retire unless you really want to retire.

"I was retired for a week," he told me in June, "but having nothing real
to do except make-work and hobbies and golf and fishing seemed too boring."

Yup.

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:50:33 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/5/17 9:08 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.
Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.


I have a friend who worked for Sikorsky who became eligible for what I
guess was a generous early retirement package five years ago, but his
employer "made him an offer he couldn't refuse" to stay on his job, so
he stayed and just actually retired this past spring. Now, he's
"consulting" with a couple of the customers of his old employer. I guess
if you are in a technical field and have skills that are hard to
replace, you never really retire unless you really want to retire.

"I was retired for a week," he told me in June, "but having nothing real
to do except make-work and hobbies and golf and fishing seemed too boring."

Yup.

As opposed to a liberal arts field with easily replaceable skills, eh?

Yup.

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 08:50:33 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 8/5/17 9:08 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.
Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.


I have a friend who worked for Sikorsky who became eligible for what I
guess was a generous early retirement package five years ago, but his
employer "made him an offer he couldn't refuse" to stay on his job, so
he stayed and just actually retired this past spring. Now, he's
"consulting" with a couple of the customers of his old employer. I guess
if you are in a technical field and have skills that are hard to
replace, you never really retire unless you really want to retire.

"I was retired for a week," he told me in June, "but having nothing real
to do except make-work and hobbies and golf and fishing seemed too boring."

Yup.

I had my contract with the state before I retired from IBM. That went
on for over 7 years. It was a totally different job (State Electrical
Inspector) that actually paid me more money and was far more
interesting than what the computer business had become. I still had
the skills to stay with computers, just not the desire. The fact that
the retirement deal changed in 1Q97 drove a bunch of us out in 96. The
other guy who retired when I did, stayed on as a contractor. My boss
wanted me to go to Ft Lauderdale as a contractor and teach them the
best practices we had developed in Ft Myers but I was just done.

In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 20:08:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

Now you are feeding into Harry's post about all of those poor people
having to eat cat food or something because all they have is SS and
you want to cut the benefits.

Eggs must be broken to make an omelet. You can make the numbers work with any of numerous
combinations of cuts. I expect the cuts would be heaviest on the top, because those
people are more likely to also have pensions, as is my case. Less people squawking too.
Now I don't think that will happen, but it accounts for your worst case scenario.

A also disagree that it covers 70% of current payments unless they are
assuming they still have the trust fund, interest on the investment
etc and we know it is just debt. Certainly full faith and credit of
the government but debt nonetheless.
I assume we pay the SS people before the Chinese but maybe not.


Actually, the payout would be more like 75-77% of current payout. This has 75%.
http://wallstreetpit.com/112602-soci...oney-runs-dry/

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.

Medicare IS single payer. What changes?


I mean national single payer insurance. Medicare for old folks will cease to exist.
Everybody will have the same health care plan available to them.
Your worst nightmare, excepting maybe having your gun rights "infringed."

Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

My out of pocket is maxed out at $6500 a year. Right now my
deductibles and co pays don't even eat all of my HRA. I gave them back
close to a grand last year.
I don't really plan to be sick very long anyway. I will punch out. I
have seen dying of miserable diseases more than I like to think about
and I don't plan on doing it.


I can imagine many health issues that will max your deductible for many years without
you coming to the point of offing yourself. But it's your choice.

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 16:16:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article , says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 20:08:29 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.

Now you are feeding into Harry's post about all of those poor people
having to eat cat food or something because all they have is SS and
you want to cut the benefits.

Eggs must be broken to make an omelet. You can make the numbers work with any of numerous
combinations of cuts. I expect the cuts would be heaviest on the top, because those
people are more likely to also have pensions, as is my case. Less people squawking too.
Now I don't think that will happen, but it accounts for your worst case scenario.

Yeah, the "eggs" are the payments to the post boomer generations.

A also disagree that it covers 70% of current payments unless they are
assuming they still have the trust fund, interest on the investment
etc and we know it is just debt. Certainly full faith and credit of
the government but debt nonetheless.
I assume we pay the SS people before the Chinese but maybe not.


Actually, the payout would be more like 75-77% of current payout. This has 75%.
http://wallstreetpit.com/112602-soci...oney-runs-dry/


That assumes there is actually a trust fund and that the government
can come up with the money to buy back those bonds.
Any calculation that is not expense to revenue (from FICA) is a
fantasy.

MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.

Medicare IS single payer. What changes?


I mean national single payer insurance. Medicare for old folks will cease to exist.
Everybody will have the same health care plan available to them.
Your worst nightmare, excepting maybe having your gun rights "infringed."

certainly trying to expand a failing system to the whole country is
scary. What do you figure the taxes will have to be to pay for that?
3% of every wage dollar in the US can't pay for part A of the care for
16% of the population. What happens when that becomes part A, B, C and
D for 100% of the population?
Would you really support a 15-20% "first dollar" tax on every wage
dollar in the US? That is the kind of numbers we are talking about.

Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major health events.

My out of pocket is maxed out at $6500 a year. Right now my
deductibles and co pays don't even eat all of my HRA. I gave them back
close to a grand last year.
I don't really plan to be sick very long anyway. I will punch out. I
have seen dying of miserable diseases more than I like to think about
and I don't plan on doing it.


I can imagine many health issues that will max your deductible for many years without
you coming to the point of offing yourself. But it's your choice.


$6000 a year is not that big a deal. I would be checking out because I
don't want to be that sick.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/5/17 9:08 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 18:48:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:


Don't worry about it. When SS "blows up" they'll just put asset
and income limitations
on those who are allowed to draw it.

That will help but if SS is your only income (on paper) there will
still be more people collecting than the number of workers can
support.


They say that current SS contributions will pay for 70% of payments.
They can always reduce SS maximum payments. Or across the board cuts.
Not a problem.
MC will be taken care of by single payer.
No problem.
Medicare is already (government) single payer, that has been broke for
almost a decade and that is only paying part of the actual cost. (Part
A). We pay extra for parts, B, C and D
If you want to compare the efficiency of the government compared to
private insurers, look at the Advantage plans. For what the government
allocates for Part A and what we kick in for part B, I can get parts
A, B, C & D for no additional money.


Single payer should absorb Medicare. No more Medicare.
Advantage is a poor man's substitute for supplementals.
Look at your deductibles. It stops working when you have some major
health events.
Then you'll have much more than Bill Clinton to whine about.

The people who are ****ed at me retiring at 49 should be mad at
Clinton. It was his loosening of the pension rules that allowed it.
They made a little administrative change in how the PBGC calculates
risk that allowed companies to send people like me off the payroll and
into the pension plan without coming up with any more funding.
That is just one way they generated their phony prosperity
(read:increased profits)

Who's ****ed at you retiring at 49? Maybe ****ed at you whining
about it.
I retired at 57 and nobody has peeped about it.


I have a friend who worked for Sikorsky who became eligible for what I
guess was a generous early retirement package five years ago, but his
employer "made him an offer he couldn't refuse" to stay on his job, so
he stayed and just actually retired this past spring. Now, he's
"consulting" with a couple of the customers of his old employer. I
guess if you are in a technical field and have skills that are hard to
replace, you never really retire unless you really want to retire.

"I was retired for a week," he told me in June, "but having nothing
real to do except make-work and hobbies and golf and fishing seemed
too boring."

Yup.

More proof your boat is another BS story. If you actually owned one,
that would be a reason to retire.