Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board - Reply to Topic
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > General Discussion> Hotrodders' Lounge> Social Security.
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Thread: Social Security. Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
04-27-2005 11:12 AM
cboy Thanks for the clarification Beenaway. I had an idea that might be what you were talking about. For the sake of clarity let's try to to make a distinction in future posts differentiating between WC and SSDI...I just hate to see one program getting tarred for the abuses of another program altogether.
04-27-2005 08:28 AM
Beenaway2long
Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodsEdge
You wish it was only 6 weeks, that may be true if you have a private policy. YOU HAVE TO BE DISABLED FOR 6 MONTHS before you can apply for US Social Security disability. If and when you are approved, you start drawing the 7th month. If you are not approved for 5 months you are paid a lump sum for the 5 months, NOTHING for the first 6 months.

Oh, and you can not collect disability for being pregnant.


W/C Disablilty is 6 weeks. I thought you were talking about disability in general. Sorry. You CAN collect W/C for pregancy from the time the Doc pulls you, up until he releases you back to work. At least in NY.

The reason W/C is mentioned, is that is the first avenue. Then settlement/determination, then it transfers to SSDI, until retirement age,which transfers to SSI(Old Age)
04-26-2005 11:02 PM
cboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beenaway2long
Woods,
Its only 6 weeks.
Woods is correct. For SSDI you must have been not working and no earned income for 6 months. Don't know about Workman's Comp - possibly that's where you saw the 6 week period. But definitely 6 months for DI. And pregnancy doesn't qualify. I'm not sure where you are getting your info Beenaway but if you have links or sources for any of the above I'd sure be interested in seeing who is putting out that mis-information.
04-26-2005 09:55 PM
willys36@aol.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by cboy
Hmmmmm, I think under all that facad you just might be a bleedin' heart liberal after all Willys. Only a Hillary Democrat would have such disrespect for law and order. (LOL...just keep in mind who started this sarcasm business.)

Well, on to the serious stuff...actually in response to your Washington Post link. I think the problem is that while SS may not be a very good option...people are VERY reluctant to make change of any sort. And they are particularly reluctant when it involves a program which has, in the past, provided the basic foundation supporting retirement for many seniors. We all know something must be done, but there is great reluctance to give up what has served many people well over the years. People are very uncomfortable with change, and I think that is what republicans are discovering when they go back home and listen to their constituents. I'm not saying that is a good thing...but it IS a powerful thing.

Repeat after me...repeat after me...repeat after me.....
Hey, zingers cross all political boundaries. You have to take advantage whenever the opportunity arises.

Unfortunately, making the tough but correct decisions is what leaders are supposed to do. We got sick and tired of being run down the socialism path by the Demos so we gave the Republicans the gauntlet. What have they done? Run up the two or three largest budget increases in history, opened our boarders to anyone who wants to come across, given Ted Kennedy responsibility for drafting the teacher's union pacification bill, cowed to any and every challenge the Domos throw up (I'm sure THEY are even disappointed how easy their challenges crush the Republicans. Anyone would want a little more spirited fight than that).

My solution for the Bush appointment loggerhead; let John Kerry nominate cabinet members and judges - everyone would vote for them and the problem would disappear. Look how easily that pure Marxist Ruth Bader Ginsburgh got approved for the Supremes. Then the Republicans would be better spoken of in the NY Times which is, after all, their goal in life.

If Hillary will say the right words about closing the boarders, I'll probably vote for her. Sure she would be lying but at lest she would say the right things! And why not have a real true to life Marxist as president instead of an imitation?

Finally at my age, I will get a WHOLE BUNCH of freebies that you young'uns will have to pay for so what could be better!! Unearned income like my 401K and like Ted Kennedy relies on will be protected 'cause that is mainly what congressmen get and they are too smart to screw themselves. Taxes on earned imcome will go up to 80% to 90% to pay for my benefits but I will be retired!!
04-26-2005 08:28 PM
WoodsEdge You wish it was only 6 weeks, that may be true if you have a private policy. YOU HAVE TO BE DISABLED FOR 6 MONTHS before you can apply for US Social Security disability. If and when you are approved, you start drawing the 7th month. If you are not approved for 5 months you are paid a lump sum for the 5 months, NOTHING for the first 6 months.

Oh, and you can not collect disability for being pregnant.
04-26-2005 03:42 PM
Beenaway2long Woods,
Its only 6 weeks.

Example: Women out on maternity leave, can collect 6 weeks from the time the Doc "pulls them, to up to 8 weeks after, depending on her medical conditions. Apeziotomy (sp?), etc. They're out for a minimum of 6 weeks. It does take quite a while for the checks to flow though. I don't think that is right, though.
04-26-2005 01:02 PM
cboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by willys36@aol.com
...when a city policeman gave a presentation to my daughter's 5th grade class and was extracting an oath from the kids; he said, "Repeat after me . . ." and she said, "after me, after me, after me, after me . . .". I was chocked up I was so proud a father!).
Hmmmmm, I think under all that facad you just might be a bleedin' heart liberal after all Willys. Only a Hillary Democrat would have such disrespect for law and order. (LOL...just keep in mind who started this sarcasm business.)

Well, on to the serious stuff...actually in response to your Washington Post link. I think the problem is that while SS may not be a very good option...people are VERY reluctant to make change of any sort. And they are particularly reluctant when it involves a program which has, in the past, provided the basic foundation supporting retirement for many seniors. We all know something must be done, but there is great reluctance to give up what has served many people well over the years. People are very uncomfortable with change, and I think that is what republicans are discovering when they go back home and listen to their constituents. I'm not saying that is a good thing...but it IS a powerful thing.

Repeat after me...repeat after me...repeat after me.....
04-26-2005 11:44 AM
WoodsEdge Haven't been on here in a few months but saw this thread today and had to reply. I am totally disabled and draw SS disability. I have good days and bad, about one good per week. I worked 45 years, paying SS each year and for app. 40 of those I worked in pain. For the first year of my disability I had to pay ALL my medical bills including medicine. No one would insure me and I did not qualify for any assistance. Damn right, I think I deserve my little disability check but would trade it with the pain to any of you for your good health. You can keep your income but don't plan on having it for long.
Jack
ps. I would also like to add that you have to be out of work (disabled) for 6 months before you can even apply for disability.
04-26-2005 11:11 AM
coldknock I dont get it, am I just catching the "spin" on the deal here.

Between the three of them they call for cutting current benefits, raising the retirement age to the death age, taxing the snot out of rich people, basing the benefit to rich people on price increases(cost of living), and basing the benefit to Joe Average on his income with a little kick for price increases. Seems to me that they only promise security for the folks that have a lesser need for it.

This stuck out like a sweaty whore in church

Quote:
Higher-paid workers would have their benefits tied to inflation, which would produce lower benefits than those generated by the current link to wages. (Wages rise more sharply than prices). Lower-paid workers--those making less than $30,000 or so--would continue to have benefits tied to wages.
Since when do wage increases exceed cost of living increases? I got a $0.25 raise this week called a cost of living raise. Every hourly employee in the company got it. That's $10 a week, I'd like to know how that, plus the $0.25 that the company doled out last year and the year before can cover the cost of living. It might cover the cost of fuel if you switch to the cheap stuff.
They must be smokin' dope up there.

Maybe it's different in other parts of the country but here the wages for average folks don't go up in proportion to prices, they fall behind ever so slightly each year. That means that I'm still screwed, if I even live long enough to qualify for SSI retirement benefits.

Did I get it right?

Larry
04-26-2005 10:27 AM
willys36@aol.com As I thought, you will get your wish - SSI will continue as-is into oblivion! See this article on the Republican 'majority'.
04-26-2005 09:51 AM
willys36@aol.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by cboy
Sarcasm aside (and I do appreciate your point), over the past 60 years the market has had a compounded annual return on investment of about 10.5% per year. So if you are getting a 12% return on your personally managed 401K over those years you are beating the market and you deserve a lot of credit. The fact is most people don't come anywhere near matching the market's return. In fact (well, if you believe the sources quoted by the Motley Fool it's a fact) 3 our of every 4 professional money manager looses money to the market average year in and year out. And they are the PROFESSIONALS. So it is little wonder that the average Joe falls far short of that 10% return. Also note that I never said a 12% average annual return could never be achieved. Mathematically it is certainly possible. What I'm saying is that in reality, on average, the American investor has been achieving far under that rate of return. As a result, I think your financial projections would be more realistic if it reflected the earning an average Joe achieves rather than the earnings he might possibly achieve. Most of the projections I've seen use a more conservative 6-8% rate of return for medium risk investment and 3-4% for low risk.
Sorry about the sarcasm. My kids and I have always used zingers from movies like the Pink Panther series, Police Squad, Ace Ventura, Napoleon Dynamite, etc., whenever the opportunity arises (like when a city policeman gave a presentation to my daughter's 5th grade class and was extracting an oath from the kids; he said, "Repeat after me . . ." and she said, "after me, after me, after me, after me . . .". I was chocked up I was so proud a father!).

Yes my result has exceeded the market in general but again that wasn't my fault, believe me. I am a total loser whenever I try to play the market myself. All the credit goes to the mutual fund managers @ Putnam, Vanguard, & Fidelity. The aggressive growth funds managed by those pros should and do beat the general market by a point or two. Go to their websites and look at their various funds (which would be the type offered in the personal savings accounts in the new SSI). The more aggressive ones are well above 10%, long term. Granted they went negative during Clinton's recession but I couldn't care less. Over the 40 year period of my career, NOTHING beats the market, long term, let alone the govenment account which after 60 years and multiple $trillion invested, is @ $0.00.

And note that in the low case I posted above (the guy who starts out in a @ $20,000/yr job) was conservative. I gave him a 7.5% return on savings before retirement, 3% salary inflation (basically, inflation rate - he was barely above entry level his whole career) and he still retires w/ $1,000,000 in his retirement account. I think I used a pretty conservative and do-able case. Even if he only achieves half that performance and retires w/ $500,000, that gives him more than he gets from the government and it is his to pass on to his progeny if he so desires.

The second example where the guy hustles a little and gets a college education, gets a pretty good job, and is smarter than you and me and achieves the attainable higher 12% rate in the market retires a multi-millionaire.

Point is, ANYTHING an individual does with that money is better than what we have now with a government that has extorted 15% of his income, stolen $trillions from the resulted 'savings account' leaving it bankrupt and the average Joe with a below-poverty stipend of $1800/mo and even that will be defaulted on in the next few years unless they raise the tax rate on our children to 80%.
04-26-2005 08:49 AM
cboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by willys36@aol.com
Oh, and cboy, I have been thinking about your contention that most people could not achieve the return on investment that I have over the years in my 401K and I think you are correct. I have done it a super secret way; I go to whatever account management company that my company signs up with (have been w/ Putnam, Vanguard and most recently Fidelity) look down the list of mutual funds they offer, split my deposits between the two or three with the biggest numbers and forget it for 5 - 20 years 'til they move to another carrier and I am forced to choose 3 more. That is WAY too complicated for the average public school grad!!
Sarcasm aside (and I do appreciate your point), over the past 60 years the market has had a compounded annual return on investment of about 10.5% per year. So if you are getting a 12% return on your personally managed 401K over those years you are beating the market and you deserve a lot of credit. The fact is most people don't come anywhere near matching the market's return. In fact (well, if you believe the sources quoted by the Motley Fool it's a fact) 3 our of every 4 professional money manager looses money to the market average year in and year out. And they are the PROFESSIONALS. So it is little wonder that the average Joe falls far short of that 10% return. Also note that I never said a 12% average annual return could never be achieved. Mathematically it is certainly possible. What I'm saying is that in reality, on average, the American investor has been achieving far under that rate of return. As a result, I think your financial projections would be more realistic if it reflected the earning an average Joe achieves rather than the earnings he might possibly achieve. Most of the projections I've seen use a more conservative 6-8% rate of return for medium risk investment and 3-4% for low risk.
04-26-2005 08:38 AM
willys36@aol.com Thanx Been, my advanced Alzheimer's made me forget the 800# gorilla of medical liability. Government involvement can ALWAYS be honestly cited as a huge reason for screwed up systems but Dr insurance is a disaster. I think the exodus from the medical field by 'overpaid' Dr.s is testimony to that out -of-control disaster. And you are incorrect, there is NOT a surplus in SSI. The balance in the SSI account is ZERO. Any excess in cash flow is instantly spent by our esteemed representatives who graciously leave IOUs in the account, to be honored at some unspecified later date by a 80%-90% tax rate on our children & grandchildren.
04-26-2005 08:21 AM
Beenaway2long
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAIRB
Of all of the professions that need to be regulated, the health care industry is it.

.....I think that doctors and medical technicians should be paid well, and very well, but who in god's green earth is worth the kind of money that they charge for medical service these days? It's ridiculous.

I think that the pharmceudical industry needs closer scrutiny, it's out of control and they are way too powerful. Why should the same drug that I get for my dog cost 10 times the amount for a human?

The insurance is better than what I can buy.

Open the door back up for Canadian drugs. Who shut it anyway?

The whole deal makes me want to puke. It's kind of like the bankruptcy laws that favor the credit card companies. They should change the usery laws so they can't snare people so easily to go with these tough new bankruptcy laws.

Same goes for the medical profession. It can't be fixed, until the corruption is removed from it. Some of the big bucks should be removed from it, then the common guy could have a little more for himself.
( Quote Editted for pertinent issues)


Here's my spin in things. I agree with Jeff / Willys with the exception of the governmental payments to the industry. The Government pays a set fee for each service, regardless what the Doc or hospital charges. The insurance industry (Policy holders) bears the brunt in additional charges to offset the medicare, medicaid, mandated pro-bono, etc.

The docs today are making less that they were 20 years ago. Exhorbitant Malpractice costs are the primary reason. Secondary, is Medicaid/Medicare payments are 120 to 150 days from application. When the office calls for money, which SHOULD be "Net 30", the M/C office will try to negotiate, in order to send the Doc's cash. The GOVERNMENT puts the screws to the Doc/hospitals in addition to regulating the billable costs. For US, the bill would be $200.00 , yet M/C will only pay $130.00. By the time they are done, they pay $110.00. The Docs office/ hospital will raise prices to the offset the deficit. The Insurance co will battle with the Docs office, and depending on the plan you have, you may end up paying 1/3 of it out of pocket!! My wife used to be aNurse manager in an OB/GYN office, and best friends with the office manager. For a group of 6 Docs, they paid in EXCESS OF 1 MILLION in Malpractice Insurance. They had ZERO claims against them in 15 years.

Malpractice is our nemisis
Medicaid is our nemesis
The drug companies are being sued every day. A guy wants a woody, takes a pill, has great sex, has a heart attack and SUES. Was he in good enough shape to handle the sex? Doesn't matter. Sue Viagra, and be a millionaire.

The Federal Drug Administration will not allow Canadien drugs, as they are not proven safe in US testing labs. Until they are tested, they aren't considered safe. I am not sure of the legal ramifications of intercountry lawsuits.

Remember, that EACH PERSON reacts to EACH drug differently. Its body chemistry. Now add the "diet" variables, such as a more acidic diet, that will affect each drug. Now add in the multitude of variables ,such as how many drugs there are available over the counter, prescribed drugs, sunlight, allergies,etc. Start mixing all this crap up, and you have the "meltdown" potential. Your dogs can not sue, so therfore, his medicine is cheaper, and the drug co is making TONS more money.

Research costs money. Thats added to the cost of drugs.

Docs get kickbacks on the drugs they prescribe. Believe it. I ALWAYS ask for generic. "This is the greatest...." Sorry,Doc. Give me penicillian. That works. The Medicaid recipients want the best stuff out there, because THEY don't pay for it. WE DO!! And we have to take the generic stuff.

Bankruptcy laws? Whole different topic. But why shouldn't you be responsible for your actions? If you can't pay it, don't buy it.
Would you fix a car , and not expect payment? Why expect anyone else to do their job, and not be paid? It lowers the cost to everyone in the long run. (bad debt)

One of the scarey things today, is everyone EXPECTS to have all the nice things in life, regardless of how hard they work. Take "Joe Blow" who decides he wants to work construction in the summer only, and doesn't want to work winters. Should he have all the luxuries of life? Or should he make sacrafices? Like drive a used pickup instead of an H-2? He has the income in the SUMMER to buy it, but unemployment just covers the necessities in the winter.

No one saves for emergencies. EVERY single person out there should have a MINIMUM of 1 years salary in the bank. LIQUID CASH. Can't save on your limited budget? Make some sacrafices. The kids don't NEED Playstation 300, nor do they need 4 pairs of $200.00 sneakers. Its about using YOUR judgement, and deciding whats best for your family LONG term. My wife and I wanted 4 kids. We knew we could only afford 2. Especially when it came to sending them to school. (Ay Currumba!!) That time is here, and $30K a year with no tuition aid is a killer. My daughter can't even get a job on campus, because thats reserved for low income kids. The kids going for FREE, incidently. Thats SUCKS!

Ok,enough ranting..... Anyone have any prozac?
04-26-2005 08:20 AM
cboy Post entered in error and then deleated.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.