You can laugh about it but it is probable being treated by the "public option" of the health care system will lead to an early demise. Those who can pay will be in an upper tier and not have to wait in line for vital procedures.
Social security has a minimum age limit, so why not public employment retirement ?
I believe that would be that socialism that Americans dislike so much. [yes, ALL Americans]
You can't define when someone works, nor can you define that a company has to keep people employed, as much as it is nice to hope you can. Best you can do is provide policies that encourage companies to keep, rather than layoff employees.
Funding doesn't have to carry a connection to its beneficiary; that's just salesmanship.
Housewives don't technically retire, so that is discounted for discussion. Folks who leave public service under my proposal can do whatever they want; they just can't get taxpayer funded retirement money until the official nationwide retirement age.
The advantage to the taxpayers is we get a longer period to grow the pot to pay for the pensions. Why should anyone who simply worked for a government be allowed to retire, in good health, on taxpayer dollars while he/she can still contribute to the economy?
Obama says we all must sacrifice; my proposal is in that spirit. Gov't employees should share in the task.
So, you suggest that someone who spent 25-30 years in the Military, from age 18 to 43-48 should be REQUIRED to find other employment to bridge between their service and 62?
I think you need to revisit the erroneous political dogma triangle.
So, you suggest that someone who spent 25-30 years in the Military, from age 18 to 43-48 should be REQUIRED to find other employment to bridge between their service and 62?
I think you need to revisit the erroneous political dogma triangle.
Yes. I would include all military personnel, school and university teachers, city and county bureaucrats, legislators at all gov't levels and state employees.
In your instance above, no one is requiring the serviceperson to work, nor has anyone ever required me to work. I did find that it made eating more available, as well as housing, etc. We're not requiring him/her to leave the service either. Teachers can teach up to 66. Cops can work the desk, do training. Or they can do private security, run a business, etc.
The plan is to establish an equality that would save our system money to help fund the other socialist projects.
No one would get public taxpayer-funded retirement until the national retirement age.
If someone would entertain doing away with guaranteed benefit retirement systems, which mostly exist in the government, I would also entertain that idea. Again, this is shared sacrifice, public and private, alike.
__________________
Charter member of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy and proud of it.
You could even take it to two levels. Let Insurance be for catastrophic issues [ankles, tumors, MS, cancers...] but also have the system set up for preventive care, to eliminate much of the root cause issues from getting to 11 before things get looked at. While many of us get that annual physical, do the dental and all the preventive maintenance that is necessary to be reasonably healthy, there are a bunch of folks who do not have that option. It is easier to develop a system that allows them to buy affordable care rather than bail them out as they use the ER as their primary care facility.
All insurance is risk based so preexisting factors will increase your rates just like living in Florida will increase your hurricane damage insurance (IF you can get a policy quote).
All insurance is risk based so preexisting factors will increase your rates just like living in Florida will increase your hurricane damage insurance (IF you can get a policy quote).
That is an especially valuable lever to jack rates when the health insurance is a "for profit" entity. Let them compete with a not for profit entity. If they can be more efficient and eek out margins by being more efficient, that is great. If not, that is ok too. The citizens will be able to assess benefits vs. cost and have a genuine choice. Especially when they are sick and lose their existing health insurance provider.
That is an especially valuable lever to jack rates when the health insurance is a "for profit" entity. Let them compete with a not for profit entity. If they can be more efficient and eek out margins by being more efficient, that is great. If not, that is ok too. The citizens will be able to assess benefits vs. cost and have a genuine choice. Especially when they are sick and lose their existing health insurance provider.
Jim
In more likelihood, the private insurers will cherry pick the profitable markets and leave the rest to the public entity. The "not for profit" public entity will be able to operate at a loss since it is backed up by the government. Basic health services e.g. annual checkups, minor illnesses, chronic diseases such as diabetes, will be handled by the government plan while advanced care for cancer etc will be purchasable as an add on plan by the private insurers.
That is an especially valuable lever to jack rates when the health insurance is a "for profit" entity. Let them compete with a not for profit entity. If they can be more efficient and eek out margins by being more efficient, that is great. If not, that is ok too. The citizens will be able to assess benefits vs. cost and have a genuine choice. Especially when they are sick and lose their existing health insurance provider.
Jim
You are making a distinction without a difference; day-to-day operation is nearly identical. A for-profit entity can distribute its earnings through dividends. A not-for-profit can have revenue in excess of costs, but the "profit" is held in reserves and not distributed. An HOA is typically a non-profit, but if doesn't have excess earnings it will be in trouble. My HMO, Kaiser Permanente, is a non-profit with very good earnings.
A for-profit is taxed on all its earnings and dividends are taxed again when distributed. The not-for-profit is usually only taxed on its unrelated business income, such as interest earnings on the reserves.
The income statements are going to be very similar, except what is done with the "profit" at the bottom.
Yes. I would include all military personnel, school and university teachers, city and county bureaucrats, legislators at all gov't levels and state employees.
In your instance above, no one is requiring the serviceperson to work, nor has anyone ever required me to work. I did find that it made eating more available, as well as housing, etc. We're not requiring him/her to leave the service either. Teachers can teach up to 66. Cops can work the desk, do training. Or they can do private security, run a business, etc.
The plan is to establish an equality that would save our system money to help fund the other socialist projects.
No one would get public taxpayer-funded retirement until the national retirement age.
If someone would entertain doing away with guaranteed benefit retirement systems, which mostly exist in the government, I would also entertain that idea. Again, this is shared sacrifice, public and private, alike.
Your logic is flawed on several levels. And yes, in many jobs, you are asked to leave after 30 years. The teaching profession is an exception to that rule. Many federal and state jobs are 30 and out.
As an example there are seldom if ever a 35 year Major. Never a 35 year Captain.
Much like in Corporate world, the longer a person is in government service, the higher their pay grade. Your suggestion would load up the system will all top grade people getting top wages and no room for new hires, causing a backlog of unemployed at the supply end. Also a higher budget at the top end for all the G15s 2009 General Schedule Pay Scale
Your logic is flawed on several levels. And yes, in many jobs, you are asked to leave after 30 years. The teaching profession is an exception to that rule. Many federal and state jobs are 30 and out.
As an example there are seldom if ever a 35 year Major. Never a 35 year Captain.
Much like in Corporate world, the longer a person is in government service, the higher their pay grade. Your suggestion would load up the system will all top grade people getting top wages and no room for new hires, causing a backlog of unemployed at the supply end. Also a higher budget at the top end for all the G15s 2009 General Schedule Pay Scale
My plan would put no restriction on what the government worker does with his career, publicly or privately. He/she just couldn't draw any accrued pension benefit until, e.g. age 66.
30 and out is fine with me and my plan, though I don't seen much logic in that. If there were 15 years left to work before 66, fine, get another job.
I think that to be fair to the taxpaying public, no former gov't worker should be sitting on his can, bringing in more money in retirement than he ever did when working.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
