I agree VIN059 would be doing himself a favor by trying to get coverage through the ACA.( obamacare). The only trouble with that is the Republican controlled congress has voted 45 times to defund or eliminate all together the ACA. Only a presidential veto has prevented the ACA from disappearing altogether. If we get a hard line Republican president the ACA will be the first thing to go in 2017. The funny part about the ACA was that the most vocal crtics of the ACA were the first people to sign up for coverage including Ted Cruz.
retired benefits major hike
- Thread starter fedupforsure
- Start date
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
The ACA may be modified but it will never be repealed.
In the eyes of some hard line Republican conservatives modification means repeal. What's funny is that Kentucky the home state of MItch McConnell the senate majority leader the guy who has tried every known means to kill the ACA has the highest ACA participation rate in the nation. I hope you are right Upstate. For 2016 the penalty for not having health insurance goes to 2.5% of gross income. I just hope POTUS 45 has the political savy to know that if he repeals the ACA he will be a one term president .
Cactus
Just telling it like it is
They're more affordable if your income is very low. If you aren't subsidized by the gov't they're just as expensive as private plans. And Ted Cruz isn't insured on the exchanges either.
It will be fine
Well-Known Member
They can't get any subsidies, their employer offers a plan. They can take that plan or get their own as an individual.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Why? Under the ACA anyone that actually makes a decent living is having their healthcare costs go through the roof. My wife's company has had the exact same insurance since it started in the late 80's this year the cost at least doubled for everything.
I could repeat this story for every single person I know who pays for their own insurance also.
Hey amigo if you were on this forum as long as I've been you'd know I'm with a Express. And the only way FedEx can dump their pension responsibilities is through bankruptcy, which won't happen as they're profitable. FedEx can choose to end their current pension plan and just go with a 401k, or nothing at all. But they'll still be on the hook for accrued benefits as long as they aren't in bankruptcy.
Thanks I am aware of the bankruptcy provision but given how stubborn friend.S. is he would find a way to put X in bankruptcy if he thought he was getting back as somebody. Remember Xis a holding company and there has been some talk among stock analysts about a spin off of either xpress or Ground. I'm not paranoid but never rule out the possibility of a spin off if it would put x in a position to divest itself of it's legacy obligations. Yes there was a well publicized story about Ted Cruz's application he which had to admit exists.
I looked into it, Cruz's wife's employer dropped their coverage so he had to get coverage through the exchange set up for congressmen under the ACA. A far cry from him being a hypocrite who jumped at the chance to sign up. And where's the talk about spinning off any part of Federal Express? Ground's profit's are carrying the company, why seperate Express and risk it going under? The fact is they terminated the traditional pension in 2008 and are free to end the portable pension any time they like. Fact is that they set aside money every year to cover their pension obligations as required by the Federal Gov't. This is the kind of talk those without pensions love to bandy about because they're envious of those who have pensions. And so we're clear, when I retire FedEx will buy an annuity to pay my pension. It will then be paid to me by the insurance company, not FedEx. FedEx would only get out of paying pensions that haven't started yet, which would be taken over by the gov't. And only those who are expecting very large pensions would be screwed, not us low paid schmoes.
slowdriver
Well-Known Member
Not to dig this old thread up without reason.. I was just gonna add that if you want a different perspective, you should check out the book by joseph stiglitz called the price of inequality.. it does a good job explaining the reason governments choose debt, over cuts..
I was a big ron paul supporter back when he ran for president, but I didnt voted for him because he never had an answer to why the austerity measures never worked after the great depression, and how it wasn't until the new deal, and ww2 spending did things recover..
Just throwing it out there, I respect your point of view as well.
Both excellant points for VT and SD. Keep iin mind something also. Many economists believe that the repeal of Glass-Stegal was a major contributing factor. AS you know Glass-Stegal kept mechant banks and investemnt banks seperate. Once repealed and two operated as one the speculators and traders had fee rein. When the mortgage market tanked the public was expected to eat the losses while the profits remained private. They all hate Dodd- Frank the successor but they brought it on themselves. Yet nobody was ever jailed.
Once again my comments do not in any way shape your from support your claim that I made the comment that conservatives are not entitled to benefits. Again it points to the individuals right not to apply for benefits if they conflict with the individuals personal convictions.
Based on your comments earlier you're going to apply for SS at 62. If so that tells me that you need the money. No shame to that but that permanent 25% cut hurts. At the same time in your case it might be the better course of action. Why? Earlier this year the Hard Right publicly stated their plan to revise SS whereby the age 62 early enrollment would be eliminated and full retirement age would be raised to 69 . Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Or did OAN or Newsmax or wherever you get your information not bother to tell that.
You've made it very clear in many posts that conservatives are hypocritical for taking Social Security and Medicare while wanting government to reduce spending. I'm just curious as to how high you think the government debt can go without collapsing the economy and defaulting? You do know with the higher interest rates we are paying huge amounts of interest to service the debt? At what point do you say maybe we should reconsider this or that?
And P.S. No one is talking about eliminating early SS retirement at this time. Any adjustments to the upper age would be phased in over years. And that's just one of numerous proposals.
Damn, I'm stuck in there with them? Oh nooooooooooooo............
Settle yourself down
Sheesh
rod
Retired 22 years
That is nothing new. When I retired it was $50. By the time I went on Medicare it $150. Medicare goes up every year also. Name something that doesn't.
Wrong. A key point of the deficit reduction plan McCarthy presented to Biden earlier this year called for the elimination of the 62 early retirement option and a raising of the full retirement age to 69. In fact Trump reportedly contacted McCarthy and ordered him not to touch SS or Medicare.
Given that you're always hollering about cutting public spending. why not a 50% cut in your monthly benefit rather than 25% and a corresponding 250% increase in Medicare premiums and an increase in coinsurance and out of pocket costs when you hit 65?
