Preliminary Read on Medical Plans

[vantexan]

The reason they are retired is because they have become disabled . In addition their case is reviewed periodically to see if they still meet the tests that are used to define disability.

My sister-in-law after 8 years with FedEx developed Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Was often in bed for 18-20 hours a day. Got disability. But she got pregnant and her disability went into remission. But not only was she re-upped for disability every 5 years but her son, my nephew, got a check equal to half her disability until he graduated from high school. It went to her until he was 16 then to him. My brother made decent money but his salary plus her disability meant they traveled a lot. Lived the life. My nephew developed a fondness for jeeps while in high school. When they divorced my brother was advised to not bring up her getting disability in spite of being very active because he had benefited from it too. I doubt very seriously theirs was an isolated case. The government needs to do a better job investigating who gets disability and if they are truly still disabled after 5 years. Waste, fraud, and abuse.

 

[vantexan]

No reason to bring Christians into this argument unless you don't like Christians.

He doesn't and never misses a chance to tell us.

 

[bacha29]

The reason they are retired is they are 65+. Not the same as disabled.

Wrong. They have retired on SS disability due to the fact that they have met all of SS 11 tests required before they can retire on disability . In addition they are sent to a SS approved and contracted doctor for an evaluation with the results send to a SS administrative judge for final approval or rejection.

Want to know more?....I retired on disability.

 

[vantexan]

Your 'insistence' isn't worth a bucket of spit, Van. There are no morality grounds in existence to force an employer to 'do the right thing'. The only resource to forcing your will upon an employer is collective bargaining, as distasteful as that may seem to you. Taking ownership of your problem is the least you can do. The wealth of the business owner is none of your business. And your argument regarding Christian morality being imposed on a business is WAY off the mark. I've lived both sides of the argument, and what I'm saying is the reality of the situation.

Not talking about the wealth of the business owner. I'm talking about whether the business is doing well enough to pay the company match on Social Security. Since Social Security has been going for some time I think it's well established that businesses can and do pay the company match. But I've seen plenty of Republican politicians over the years talk about ending Social Security for all kinds of reasons. Bottom line many, many business owners hate SS and would end it in a minute if they could. Well spit. It is a moral issue. If SS ends then an awful lot of people will end their lives in poverty. Look at the path FedEx has taken. Eliminated their pension plan. Held pay down to where it's difficult to contribute to their 401k. This company made a lot of promises to their employees but it was all to retain as many as possible because replacing employees costs money. If you don't think it's a moral issue that employers have an obligation to do right by their employees then you might want to check your moral compass. Making excuses for employers lying to and exploiting employees because nothing matters more than enriching already wealthy shareholders is a major reason we have all these "-isms" arise. Do the right thing and learn to live with a good salary instead of getting rich at others expense.

 

[oldngray]

Wrong. They have retired on SS disability due to the fact that they have met all of SS 11 tests required before they can retire on disability . In addition they are sent to a SS approved and contracted doctor for an evaluation with the results send to a SS administrative judge for final approval or rejection.

Want to know more?....I retired on disability.

As I said retired is not the same as disabled. Despite your repeated attempts to confuse the issue.

 

[vantexan]

Wrong. They have retired on SS disability due to the fact that they have met all of SS 11 tests required before they can retire on disability . In addition they are sent to a SS approved and contracted doctor for an evaluation with the results send to a SS administrative judge for final approval or rejection.

Want to know more?....I retired on disability.

I know from experience with two family members, my sister-in-law and my uncle, on SS disability that a lot of doctors rubber stamp you every 5 years and that's good enough for the SS administration. Plenty of people are legitimately disabled. But you also have the government recommending, as they did during the pandemic, that if your unemployment runs out go apply for disability. Not everyone on disability are legitimately disabled.

 

[bacha29]

My sister-in-law after 8 years with FedEx developed Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Was often in bed for 18-20 hours a day. Got disability. But she got pregnant and her disability went into remission. But not only was she re-upped for disability every 5 years but her son, my nephew, got a check equal to half her disability until he graduated from high school. It went to her until he was 16 then to him. My brother made decent money but his salary plus her disability meant they traveled a lot. Lived the life. My nephew developed a fondness for jeeps while in high school. When they divorced my brother was advised to not bring up her getting disability in spite of being very active because he had benefited from it too. I doubt very seriously theirs was an isolated case. The government needs to do a better job investigating who gets disability and if they are truly still disabled after 5 years. Waste, fraud, and abuse.

It would appear that your in law somehow continued to meet all I'm pretty sure it's 11 specific tests in order to receive SS disability . Sometimes it's a judgement call on whether or not a denial of benefits and the cost of defending that denial could withstand a court challenge almost certain to be filed by the claimant would be worthwhile. With only so much money to go around SS like any government agency has to pick it's spots

Rather than to take that 25% benefit gut shot from taking SS at 62 I can't understand why you don't take a shot at SSD. Your monthly benefit would be based on what you would receive at full retirement age . They might even decide to not only approve your application but they might even back up the disability date to to when you had your heart surgery. There is little to no chance that your case would be reviewed because you're too close to full retirement anyway What have you got to lose? I was 62 when spinal stenosis and a double hip joint replacement brought me to a grinding halt. I simply followed the off the record advice from a representative at vocational rehabilitation. I didn't game the system but rather I simply followed the directives given me by qualified professionals.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Not talking about the wealth of the business owner. I'm talking about whether the business is doing well enough to pay the company match on Social Security. Since Social Security has been going for some time I think it's well established that businesses can and do pay the company match. But I've seen plenty of Republican politicians over the years talk about ending Social Security for all kinds of reasons. Bottom line many, many business owners hate SS and would end it in a minute if they could. Well spit. It is a moral issue. If SS ends then an awful lot of people will end their lives in poverty. Look at the path FedEx has taken. Eliminated their pension plan. Held pay down to where it's difficult to contribute to their 401k. This company made a lot of promises to their employees but it was all to retain as many as possible because replacing employees costs money. If you don't think it's a moral issue that employers have an obligation to do right by their employees then you might want to check your moral compass. Making excuses for employers lying to and exploiting employees because nothing matters more than enriching already wealthy shareholders is a major reason we have all these "-isms" arise. Do the right thing and learn to live with a good salary instead of getting rich at others expense.

How dare I insist that people do the right thing! For the millionth time Social Security is the best idea Democrats ever came up with. And if people hold down your pay while working for them then the least they can do is assist with their employees retirement. If anyone thinks that working someone hard for 30-40 years where they live paycheck to paycheck while the business owner builds a huge home, a lot of money in the bank, living the good life because they kept every penny for themselves and their employees live impoverished in retirement, is acceptable as a Christian then they need to revisit what Jesus said about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into heaven.

Really? Sounds like you were talking precisely about it.

 

[bacha29]

As I said retired is not the same as disabled. Despite your repeated attempts to confuse the issue.

So what's your point? A person can retire at whatever age they choose just as a person can become disabled at any age but I'm quite certain that it was not because they chose to.

 

[vantexan]

It would appear that your in law somehow continued to meet all I'm pretty sure it's 11 specific tests in order to receive SS disability . Sometimes it's a judgement call on whether or not a denial of benefits and the cost of defending that denial could withstand a court challenge almost certain to be filed by the claimant would be worthwhile. With only so much money to go around SS like any government agency has to pick it's spots

Rather than to take that 25% benefit gut shot from taking SS at 62 I can't understand why you don't take a shot at SSD. Your monthly benefit would be based on what you would receive at full retirement age . They might even decide to not only approve your application but they might even back up the disability date to to when you had your heart surgery. There is little to no chance that your case would be reviewed because you're too close to full retirement anyway What have you got to lose? I was 62 when spinal stenosis and a double hip joint replacement brought me to a grinding halt. I simply followed the off the record advice from a representative at vocational rehabilitation. I didn't game the system but rather I simply followed the directives given me by qualified professionals.

If the government gave disability to everyone who had heart disease and diabetes it would bankrupt the system. I'll get SS in February. That's enough.

My sister-in-law had a legitimate problem. But it went away. She no longer spends her days in bed and hasn't for 25+ years. Did things like being an assistant soccer coach for my nephew's team. I've seen it directly. People get rubber stamped and moved along. I've also seen doctors rush through patients because they're always busy. I just easier to move people through for them. And my sister-in-law and brother are both Christians and staunch Democrats. Very liberal. They have no problem using whatever they can get from the system.

 

[bacha29]

I know from experience with two family members, my sister-in-law and my uncle, on SS disability that a lot of doctors rubber stamp you every 5 years and that's good enough for the SS administration. Plenty of people are legitimately disabled. But you also have the government recommending, as they did during the pandemic, that if your unemployment runs out go apply for disability. Not everyone on disability are legitimately disabled.

They still have to meet the 11 tests to meet the legal definition of disability and are determined to be unable to do what SS describes as "suitable work".

Here's a better idea. Simply go talk to a qualified professional thoroughly trained and educated regarding these matters and get the real facts.

 

[vantexan]

Really? Sounds like you were talking precisely about it.

The money eventually winds up in the owners pocket if he doesn't match SS. But it starts with the owner having to match SS taxes and not liking it because he wants that money for himself. But if a business can match the employee's contributions shouldn't they so that the employee can be assured of some assistance in retirement? That's not stealing from the business owner. The employee assists in the success of the business so he's getting something for it down the road. Money that's paid out before it ever goes into the business owner's pocket. Anyone who would argue this is income redistribution is basically saying only owner should benefit from his business, not his employees who are making it possible for him to do well.

 

[vantexan]

They still have to meet the 11 tests to meet the legal definition of disability and are determined to be unable to do what SS describes as "suitable work".

Here's a better idea. Simply go talk to a qualified professional thoroughly trained and educated regarding these matters and get the real facts.

So I can't observe my sister-in-law and uncle being very active in spite of being "disabled" without assuming they're gaming the system? That there's no waste, fraud, and abuse in the system? That the government always gets it right? Seriously?

 

[bacha29]

If the government gave disability to everyone who had heart disease and diabetes it would bankrupt the system. I'll get SS in February. That's enough.

My sister-in-law had a legitimate problem. But it went away. She no longer spends her days in bed and hasn't for 25+ years. Did things like being an assistant soccer coach for my nephew's team. I've seen it directly. People get rubber stamped and moved along. I've also seen doctors rush through patients because they're always busy. I just easier to move people through for them. And my sister-in-law and brother are both Christians and staunch Democrats. Very liberal. They have no problem using whatever they can get from the system.

They have simply exercised their rights under the system and until somebody comes up with a better system that justifies a major overhaul and the fight for it's passage on the floor of congress and the courts one has to come to terms with the one we currently have including it's imperfections.

And by the way, I have never seen a greedier more money hungry group of people that a bunch of self righteous holy roller self proclaimed "Christians".

 

[vantexan]

They have simply exercised their rights under the system and until somebody comes up with a better system that justifies a major overhaul and the fight for it's passage on the floor of congress and the courts one has to come to terms with the one we currently have including it's imperfections.

And by the way, I have never seen a greedier more money hungry group of people that a bunch of self righteous holy roller self proclaimed "Christians".

My brother is more liberal than you are. He's also a hospital chaplain. Where you go wrong is thinking all Christians are in lockstep over every issue.

Meanwhile we have a lot of waste, abuse, and fraud in the system. And if Congress ever does reform it there will be a lot of liberals squealing like stuck pigs.

 

[59 Dano]

Van’s been picking some strange hills to die on lately…….Just saying.

I hadn't noticed, but this one sticks out. It's like he's using bacha logic to explain an El Correcto opinion.

 

[59 Dano]

Still trying to CYA. People weren't dying by 62 in 1940 thus getting Social Security by 65 was just futile. Millions lived past 65 which you denied. Life expectancy is the average of all deaths, not 62 being the lifespan of humans in 1940. You call me a liar? Unless you've deleted your posts anyone can see that you argued against Social Security saying most people were dead before 65.

I haven't deleted squat, never argued against Social Security saying most people were dead before 65.

Either you're lying or you have lost what little sense you had.

And this started because I pointed out that many businessmen would eliminate Social Security and keep the match for themselves. I pointed out if pay is held down during their working lives so that business owners can do better then the least they can do is contribute to their employees retirement. You then came in to denigrate the work of the rank and file and said that when SS was established the employees would mostly not live long enough to collect it because most would be dead by 62.

Here's what I said: Let's be truthful about the reality. Life expectancy in 1940 was 62 years. You weren't eligible to collect benefits until age 65. Stop acting like there was this big problem of all these old people struggling with poverty. Most people weren't living long enough to struggle with poverty in old age.

I know you like to babble on about infant mortality skewing the numbers, so we'll just focus on adults.
42% of people who turned 21 in 1940 were dead by their 65th birthday.
22% of people who turned 21 in 1990 were dead by their 65th birthday.

In 1940, people 65 and over made up 6% of the population.
In 1990, people 65 and over made up nearly 12% of the population.

The percentage of adults who made it to age 65 was significantly lower than than it is today. The average adult didn't live as long as he does today. The average retiree didn't live as long as he does today. Is there some reason you struggle with comprehending this information?

 

[59 Dano]

How dare I insist that people do the right thing! For the millionth time Social Security is the best idea Democrats ever came up with. And if people hold down your pay while working for them then the least they can do is assist with their employees retirement. If anyone thinks that working someone hard for 30-40 years where they live paycheck to paycheck

If you're still working paycheck-to-paycheck after 30 or 40 years, that's on you.

while the business owner builds a huge home, a lot of money in the bank, living the good life because they kept every penny for themselves and their employees live impoverished in retirement, is acceptable as a Christian then they need to revisit what Jesus said about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into heaven.

I love it when someone tries to make it a religious issue.

 

[59 Dano]

The money eventually winds up in the owners pocket if he doesn't match SS. But it starts with the owner having to match SS taxes and not liking it because he wants that money for himself. But if a business can match the employee's contributions shouldn't they so that the employee can be assured of some assistance in retirement? That's not stealing from the business owner. The employee assists in the success of the business so he's getting something for it down the road. Money that's paid out before it ever goes into the business owner's pocket. Anyone who would argue this is income redistribution is basically saying only owner should benefit from his business, not his employees who are making it possible for him to do well.

If you want to look at it that way, the owner doesn't pay the match. He simply passes it along to his customers (via higher prices) and employees (via reduced wages/benefits). Some would go so far as to argue that the employee pays all of it; the match is simply part of the total cost of each employee.

 

[vantexan]

Yes, as I was saying, people didn't live as long then. Glad you figured it out.

@59 Dano