OT - Sickening Statistics - Rant

Watching the local news, this morning, Louisiana will rebid its contract fo r Medicaid eligibility and other Medicaid program aspects.
Louisiana's population is 4,601,893, as per the US 2012 census. There are 1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That' s 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials hav e allowed this program to get out-of-hand.
The 2012 US census states that, between 2007-2011, there are 18.4% of the L a. population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be belo w poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.
What are the 28.25% of the population doing with themselves, other than sit ting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contrib uting, productively, to the State, in any way.
I wonder what the stats in other states are.
Sonny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2013 8:17 AM, Sonny wrote:

Personally I worked for my own welfare and not the state's.
The rules of the past have made people wards of the state, as they have been forced to give a large percentage of the wages into the Social Security system. The money each person "deposited" into the Social Security "Insurance" System would be close to a million dollars for most people who have contribute for 50 years. The only way they can recover it is through Social Security.
You know share the wealth, which is the theme of the social democrats.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2013 9:14 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

That is an interesting idea. Let's say $50,000 wages/year for 50 years. That's $2.5 million. What you are suggesting is that 40$ of those wages went to SS. Really?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ever hear of "compound interest"? I didn't think so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2013 4:08 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

As a matter of fact, Karl, I have and it has worked nicely for me. He said deposited into. And, forced to give a large percentage of the wages into SS. If he intended to include the interest, he should have said so. I responded to the statements he made. No more, no less.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2013 9:42 AM, Mike wrote:

I don't know about you but if I have money I don't put it in a mattress. When I made the original post I assume that a normal person would have put the money into a strong investment program that has earned about 10% of the past years, or at least in government bonds or a bank account.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2013 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

Well, let me first say that like you I don't put money in a mattress and I wouldn't argue against the SS contributions being worth close to $1M after 50 years with compounding.
However, I'm not sure we would be considered normal (whatever that is). If you can believe the financial rags, an overwhelming percentage of the population has little or no savings and that seems to cut across all income levels. By some definitions, that would be considered the norm. What mystifies me is that I knew a number of people that made well into 6 figures that never saved a dime and somehow thought they would be able to live on SS when they retired. I, on the other hand, did not expect SS to be around when I retired. It is still around and I'm retired, but I can't work up much enthusiasm for trying to live on what they are willing to pay.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/business/change-in-worth-by-household-category/113/
18% of all households are in debt (negative net worth). 56% of all households have less than 100k in net worth.
I'd argue the close to $1M point, too.
Assuming an annual contribution of 7500 (7.5% of 100k) over 50 years at an interest rate of 2% (better than you'll get today with no risk), you'd have 647,032.42 if the balance is compounded annually (with a total of 375000 in employee contributions).
A lot of assumptions there, most folks over the past 50 years would have had annual contributions much less, and while the interest rates have been historically higher, they'd in no way be even close to $1m.
Now, given that 647,032.42 above. Assming that one were collecting SS for 20 years after eligibility, and without factoring in COLAs, you'd have been paid $250,000 (COLA's will raise that) in benefits exclusive of surviver benefits and dependent benefits assuming $12,500/year.
If one collects for 30 years, one collects the same amount (375000) that was directly contributed by the employee FICA deductions.

It's my understanding that SS was never intended to be a sole-source of income.
What pisses me off is Congress' misuse of the SSTF, which should have been compounding over the last 50 years giving substantial cushion for future benefits.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 04/23/2013 01:42 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/business/change-in-worth-by-household-category/113/

Except for the brief "tax holiday", you and your employers SS contributions have been 12.4% of gross.
I invested 10% of gross all during my working career (retired at 55) and $1M isn't at all out of reason, and I never quite reached the $100K annual income level. AAMOF, even with withdrawals to make life comfortable, the balance continues to grow. My kids are both following the same saving/investing strategy.
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/23/2013 4:56 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

The average growth of stocks is about 9.6% for the last 50 years. There are two parts to this number growth and dividends.
These statistics are all over the Web, and can be found at any financial advisor's office http://www.financialphysics.net/model.html
These numbers held until Sep 28,2008 when pelosi reigned on the housing loans. In the next 10 days the market lost 30% of its value 11500 to about 8200. 3 months after obama was took office the market was more that 50% of its 2007 high and 2000 points lower than the first of the year or about 6400, Five years later, the market is now just passing its high in 2007. If the 35 year trend had continued the DOW as a measure of the market would be about 20000 today, instead it is only about 66% of that value or 14000,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:25:04 -0400, Keith Nuttle

Your assumption about "most people" is flawed. As demonstrated in the recent economic crash, a scaringly large percentage of people had all their money and then some tied up in bigger houses than they needed, better cars than they needed, and more toys than they needed - without the cash investments to pay to "rescue" them when the bubble burst.
As for how much money the "socialist" government of Canada has gotten from me since 1969 in "pension premiums", it is a total of some 20,500 dollars. I will get 6600 per year when I start drawing at age 65. In 3 years I get back my "investment" and if I live as long as my Dad did, I'll collect for another 17 years. I have put away some money on my own as well, and I doubt I'll get 6 times what I put in out of THOSE investments - particularly if the economy doesn't do REAL well over the next couple years to erase the recent losses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Approximately 1.2 million, most of whom are children under 19.
http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/220/n/20
You may also qualify for Medicaid coverage if you:
Are disabled according to the Social Security Administration\u2019s definition Have corrected vision no better than 20/200 Are a low-income parent of children under age 19 Are a child under age 19 Are pregnant Have no insurance and need treatment for breast and/or cervical cancer Receive Medicare coverage and are low-income

It's best to get all the facts prior to the rant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:01:48 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

He had the facts and it sickened him as it does me. What makes it even more sickening is that the above conditions you pointed out qualifies one to be on Medicade. This is repulsive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:17:58 -0700 (PDT), Sonny wrote:

1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That's 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials have allowed this program to get out-of-hand.

population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be below poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.

sitting on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the State, in any way.

Here's a breakdown by state:
http://www.ppinys.org/reports/2010/innovation/MedicaidEnrollment.html
AL comes in at 21%
Alabama has similar population numbers and apparently similar demographics.
basilisk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:17:58 -0700, Sonny wrote:

Lots of people who are working at low income jobs qualify for Medicaid. Recipients are not all unemployed.
--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

1,300,000 Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, as per the news report. That's 28.25% of the population, disgusting in itself! Seems past officials have allowed this program to get out-of-hand.

population below poverty level. Apparently, one doesn't have to be below poverty level to collect Medicaid benefits, here in La.

on the ass collecting welfare. It can be assumed, they aren't contributing, productively, to the State, in any way.

At a quick glance you can tell which states vote blue. I can't be too critical though as I'm on Medicare and SS disability. I paid in till I was 59 then an old guy lost control of his car and pinned me to the back of a boom truck. Having been thru that I can tell you the system isn't very effecient.
Mike M
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/22/2013 4:12 PM, Mike M wrote:

Yep, you can! Louisiana is a reddish-purple to red state. It's also a right-to-work state, which gives employers all the power in employer/employee negotiations. Sure, you can go to another job, but that one doesn't pay well, either.
I'm glad you are a bit realistic, though. Sure, there are many conditions that qualify one for Medicaid (or Medicare or SS disability), but just ask my wife, who is on Medicare and SS disability, too, if she'd rather be poor and healthy or disabled and subsidized.
Scritch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.