Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (95420)	1/15/2005 10:05:23 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Also in general I think people should try to avoid retiring until they have well above what they think they will need for retirement. You could easily live longer or spend more then you expect. Most of us here probably agree with that. BUT..how would that be enforceable? The politicians won't enforce the illegal immigrants laws now...and that is another of the problems, as well as causes...

To: TimF who wrote (95420)	1/16/2005 7:21:27 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 793955

Well, here is ONE idea Clinton had that I agreed with and which IMHO would have materially strengthened Medicare at absolute NO COST to the govt. Years ago, I believe during his first term, Clinton wanted to REDUCE the age for potential Medicare eligibility to 55. There was only one catch and it was a good one for Medicare, anyone UNDER 65 could join the Medicare Pool but would NOT be entitled to govt. support rather to pay the ENTIRE premium which at that time was estimated to be $400 a month as compared to I believe it was $41 a month for 65+ persons. Here was the rationale: Regardless of situation, as a rule people 55-65 are HEALTHIER then people 65+. Those HEALTHIER people would be paying the entire premium bases upon the WHOLE POOL, so in effect they would be paying in MORE then their fair share. So it was a WIN for the Government. HOWEVER, those younger participants would be getting into the largest medical pool in the nation, which means that as the risks are shared the premium goes DOWN. So, even though it would have cost me $400 a month that was as opposed to about $1,000 a month they wanted from me to insure individually. So in was a WIN for the people. In effect, it was a WIN WIN situation for both parties, rare in Govt. haha. Sadly, those SAME insurance companies who want to CHERRY PICK who they wish to insure on the other hand DONT want to lose the opportunity to stick it too that class of people and they convinced Congress to vote it down. So it was a LOSE LOSE for the govt and the people. I am still steamed over this. jdn