response 34 of 96:

Feb 2 01:04 UTC 2006

Re resp:17: It's an interesting concept, but again I think it would 
cause adverse selection problems.  The people who chose to add their 
parents to their health care plans would be the people with the sickest 
parents.  Maybe if you made it mandatory for everyone to add their 
parents, so it would rope in a large number of healthy people, too... 
 
You simply can't run an economical health insurance program if the 
insured population is allowed to self-select. 
 
 
Re resp:24: Actually, that's an interesting point.  Congressmen already 
have government-run health care, and by all accounts their system works 
pretty well.  That's at least one counterpoint to the "government will 
inevitably screw it up" argument. 
 
 
Re resp:33: I always find it funny when the Republicans come up with 
some poorly-designed government program that's designed to fail, then 
point to it and say, "See?  Government can't do anything right!"  Of 
course government isn't going to work when you elect people who openly 
believe government *can't* work. 

response 36 of 96:

Feb 2 01:52 UTC 2006

Having people add their parents to their health insurance plans isnt
exactly a good solution. For one thing, it isnt exactly fair to people
who cant have kids or to people who only have one kid who dies before
the parents are elderly. 

response 38 of 96:

Feb 2 05:37 UTC 2006

re #36
I didn't suggest that it be the end all solution for old people.  I'm just
suggesting that it would be a nice option for kids that care for their folks.

response 40 of 96:

Feb 2 12:14 UTC 2006

Someone please explain to DB what "in general" means.  I don't think I 
can get through.


I know I can't get through to Curl.  (I never argue religion with him.)

response 42 of 96:

Feb 2 15:35 UTC 2006

Unfortunately, recent events seem to indicate that it's a great way for 
your folks' former employer to become insolvent and go bankrupt.  Given
that I think it's fair to say very few firms will be offering medical
coverage for retirees in the future.

response 44 of 96:

Feb 2 15:42 UTC 2006

re #41 unfortunately you cant even take that for granted anymore, because
numerous companies these days are filing chapter 11 bankruptcy these days for
the purpose of killing their employee pension plans.  

response 46 of 96:

Feb 2 16:32 UTC 2006

Good points. Luckily for my folks, their retirement health care is 
being paid by taxpayers due to a retirement from a public sector job. 

I imagine that since health care is so expensive for older people, 
there simply are no easy solutions. Personally, I can think of a lot of 
reasons why it might be better for everyone if employer based health 
care were switched to a more socialized form of health care. And oddly, 
I imagine that lots of big businesses are going to start to lobby for 
that kind of thing. 

I am very interested in this business of firms getting out of paying 
benefits for retirees. I need to look into it further but it seems to 
me that the auto industry in particular will have a hard time getting 
rid of such obligations because they were part of collective bargaining 
agreements. But then I dont know anything about bankruptcy law. 

response 48 of 96:

Feb 2 17:13 UTC 2006

Academic (and medical, and some other) institutions as a group got out of 
the "pension" business for their employees a long time ago. An investment 
corporation was formed, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association - 
College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) in which academic employees 
invested part of their income, usually along with a match from the 
employer, to form private retirement portfolios. These retirement funds 
are also transportable between employing institutions. This has worked 
very well for such employees. I don't know why the model hasn't been 
adapted more widely for other groups of employees in other industries. 
There is no governmental involvement (except regulation, and tax exemption 
for the invested funds until they are withdrawn).

response 50 of 96:

Feb 2 17:20 UTC 2006

Gee, Curl thinks that TIAACRF is the greatest thing since sliced bread, 
but when President Bush wants to allow employees to choose to do 
essentially the same thing with their social security contributions he 
goes ballistic.

response 52 of 96:

Feb 2 17:40 UTC 2006

marcvh!

did you know that the u.s. spends more on healthcare per capita than any other
industrialized nation, yet doesn't even offer free medical care to its
citizens?!

response 54 of 96:

Feb 2 17:47 UTC 2006

My employer matches contributions 1 for 1 to my 401(k) up to 3% of my 
income.  The U-M matches $2 for every dollar contributed to their 403
(b) by staff and faculty, with no limit as I understand it.  It used to 
frustrate the heck out of me, during my 1st marriage, that my ex didn't 
contribute much to her retirement fund.  I thought she should have put 
in her entire paycheck and we should have lived on my income.  Had we 
stayed together, we could have both retired when I was 50 and lived as 
millionaires.

response 56 of 96:

Feb 2 18:00 UTC 2006

The government imposes a limit on employee contributions to a 403(b) or
401(k) plan.  In 2006 it's $15k.  The employer may also impose their own
more stringent limits.  And jep, if you feel bad about your match,
remember that some employers (like mine) don't give out any match at
all.

I'm not sure that 401(k) plans have exactly been a rousing success.  The
employee is limited to what the employer chooses to offer, which are
often high-cost plans.  Because the plan is tied to the job, a large
fraction (something like half) of people end of cashing out of the plan
when they leave their job, which totally defeats its role as a
retirement savings vehicle.  Employees at companies facing financial
difficult sometimes find that their employer is making ends meet by
delaying the deposit of their contributions to the account.  And so on.

response 58 of 96:

Feb 2 18:23 UTC 2006

I cashed out of my 401(k) after leaving my last two jobs.  There just 
wasn't much money to roll over, and it made more sense to me to pay off 
bills.  Also, my ex was the one in charge of the money and she's not a 
long-term planner type of person.   When you're in your 20s or 30s, 
retirement is a lot more distant than the credit card balance.

I'm doing better at putting money away in my current job, since my 
divorce 4 years ago, anyway.  I need to get my contributions up some 
more, but I'm buying a house now, my wife has a house which is about 
half paid off and is getting significant renovation over the next year 
or two, and things look pretty good for us.  We'll increase our 
contributions when we see how the bills shake out after a few months.

Marc, T Rowe Price's WWW page says I can contribute 75% of my income to 
my 401(k) pre-tax, then 10% more after taxes.  That would be a bit more 
than $15,000 if I could actually do it.