[STLRAY]

Can someone explain what it is about the word entitlement that bothers you? I have been paying into the system since I was 13 and started paying in the maximum around age 30. That entitles me to a benefit when I reach the specified age. Now, I could understand if we were calling it welfare or something like that. But its not welfare. Most of us paid into the system and are therefore entitled to a specific benefit at the appropriate age.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Can I quote you on that?

Sure, no patent pending.

[retiredguy123]

Apparently, Medicare is even important to Joe Namath. In his Medicare commercial, he claims that he called Medicare and he is eligible to receive meals delivered to his house. According to Google, he has a net worth of $25 million.

[Kilmacowen]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I agree. One way to improve the system would be to eliminate the spouse benefit. There are thousands, (or millions?) of people receiving a spouse benefit who never paid anything into the system. And, a spouse who was married for more than 10 years and then gets divorced can receive the spouse benefit without ever contributing to the system. In fact, a worker who has been married and divorced several times will create a spouse benefit for every one of his/her ex-spouses, as long as the marriage lasted 10 years.

Spouse and ex-spouses have to share the benefit if they qualify.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Kilmacowen

Spouse and ex-spouses have to share the benefit if they qualify.

Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."

[Kilmacowen]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Not true. Here is an excerpt from the SSA website about ex-spouse benefits.

"The amount of benefits you get has no effect on the benefits of your ex-spouse and his or her current spouse."

I know someone who is sharing benefits with an ex-wife. You are referring to a woman that has her own benefits.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Kilmacowen

I know someone who is sharing benefits with an ex-wife. You are referring to a woman that has her own benefits.

That is not true. They may have a private agreement to share a benefit, but any ex-spouse who was married for at least 10 years is entitled to receive a spouse benefit from SSA and they do not need to share it with anyone. The ex-spouse benefits can apply to multiple spouses as long as each one was married to the SSA worker for 10 years. There is no sharing of SS benefits. However, you can only receive one benefit at a time, based on the largest benefit you are eligible for. Is it possible that the ex-spouse was not married for 10 years? In that case, they would not be entitled to any spouse benefit from SSA, but the current spouse could share it with a private agreement.

[Bay Kid]

After paying the government SS for over 50 years they are now starting to give some back. Personally I would have rather not paid the government for my retirement (SS) and invested the money myself.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

The level of importance for Social Security and Medicare is heavily dependent on a person's overall income. Both systems are designed to transfer wealth from higher income people to lower income people. All working people contribute to the system, but the distribution of benefits is very skewed in favor of those who did not contribute as much. In the case of Medicare, most people need it, and everyone receives the same benefits. But, higher income people pay more while working, and when they retire, they may pay as much as about 4 times the monthly Part B premium as those who pay the basic premium.

and I don’t get much lol $128 a month

[jblum315]

Very important to me. They help pay for the home care assistance that I need

[jblum315]

Originally Posted by Rapscallion St Croix

If the US Govt, specifically, the military, had kept the promise of free medical care for the life of a retiree, I would not need Medicare.

Southern shutters or just shutters

[kathyspear]

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano

I obtained a printout of all of our earnings and contributions into SS - then, the payouts to us - and totalled it for each of us. I am 79 and my husband is 85. We, long ao, have collected WAY more in SS than we ever had taken out of our pay. I'm sure that (unless you just began collecting a few years ago) would find that same result were you to obtain all of the information that I did in order to calculate the benefits!

Not everyone collects more than he or she put into the system (obviously).

My father passed away the day his first SS check came in the mail. My mother had to return it because he died on May 31st and the check was for the month of June.

kathy

[kathyspear]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

That is not true. They may have a private agreement to share a benefit, but any ex-spouse who was married for at least 10 years is entitled to receive a spouse benefit from SSA and they do not need to share it with anyone. The ex-spouse benefits can apply to multiple spouses as long as each one was married to the SSA worker for 10 years. There is no sharing of SS benefits. However, you can only receive one benefit at a time, based on the largest benefit you are eligible for. Is it possible that the ex-spouse was not married for 10 years? In that case, they would not be entitled to any spouse benefit from SSA, but the current spouse could share it with a private agreement.

Perhaps they are sharing the funds in a retirement account (401k, Roth, etc.) An account in one party's name might be considered a marital asset because it was earned during the marriage and a judge might order it to be shared post-divorce.

kathy

[Malsua]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

To compare the health system of one country to another - you need to use INFANT MORTALITY as a yardstick, which is the best measure. So, last time I looked at the world list for infant mortality, the Scandinavian Countries with Universal Health Care were all in the top 10 and the US was down at 20 or 30. That is the only way to compare countries - use an objective measure, not a personal and subjective way.

The reporting standards are not the same between countries and comparing them tells you very little. If you look at the article below, you'll see that most of the "disadvantage" the US has in IMR disappears when they account for age at birth and birth weight. In fact in the first month, the US has a BETTER IMR than Finland and Austria. It seems that most of the issue with IMR is based on socioeconomic class which drives it down. Most of this happens when the child is home in a poor neighborhood after the first month.

From the National Institute of health. Why Is Infant Mortality Higher in the United States Than in Europe?

>>>> Cross-country comparisons of aggregate infant mortality rates provide very limited insight, for two reasons. First, a well-recognized problem is that countries vary in their reporting of births near the threshold of viability. Such reporting differences may generate misleading comparisons of how infant mortality varies across countries. Second, even within a comparably-reported sample, the observation that mortality rates differ one year post-birth provides little guidance on what factors are driving the US disadvantage<<<

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by kathyspear

Not everyone collects more than he or she put into the system (obviously).

My father passed away the day his first SS check came in the mail. My mother had to return it because he died on May 31st and the check was for the month of June.

kathy

When the system was set up the retirement age was 65 even though the vast majority did not live that long.

That allowed SS to build up a very large nest egg.

Not exactly fair to the people who paid in and didnt live to collect.

If someone in the private sector set up a system like that they would probably be doing 10 years in Leavenworth as they used to say.