The government plans to offer Social Security benefits via a debit card. This is intended to make it easier for the 4 million Social Security recipients who don’t have bank accounts. The government believes a deibt card is safer, more reliable and cheaper than paper checks.
It saves the government 88 cents per recipient, and saves recipients the average of $6 they pay to cash a check. It also reduces inconveniences associated with lost, delayed and stolen checks.
The card can be used in the same way regular debit cards are used. There is no annual balance, and account balances can be checked online or by phone. Those who are intimidated by this type of technology can elect to continue to receive paper checks.
According to a recent study, workers with office plants rated themselves happier with their work life than those workers without plants. They also rated themselves as happier with life in general. The most satisfied were those lucky enough to have windows and office plants, but that group was only slightly happier than those who did not have windows but did have office plants. It is believed that the reason they benefit is because indoor plants help to purify the air, provide a calming visual, and link us to our evolutionary past.
With the cost of fuel increasing, many Americans may find it in their financial interest to move from the suburbs to the metropolitans. If they make the move, they will reverse the trend of moving to the suburbs that began in the 1940s with the creation of the Levittown, NY suburbs.
Moving to the suburbs was originally motivated by a desire for space, quiet, safety, better schools and to get away from Jews, Hispanics, and Blacks. Of course later, those groups would challenge the laws that made it legal to exclude them, and move to the suburbs themselves. The resources put into making the suburbs desirable could have easily been invested into cities, increasing their desirability. When gas was cheap suburban life made sense, but with gas prices skyrocketing and no end in sight, many suburbanites are beginning to reconsider suburban living. Empty nesters who no longer have to factor in schools will find this an easier decision to make.
I made the decision to move to the city almost 8 years ago, long before gas prices reached the more than $4 /gallon level. I was living in the Los Angeles area and was exhausted by the commuting I had to do in order to make my life work. Even then I felt that the cost of maintaining a car was too costly. I was also concerned about the environmental cost associated with owning and operating a car. My decision was made easier with the death of my Alzheimer’s mother, and with my youngest child’s completion of the public high school. Although there are some things that are pleasanter in the suburbs, I like the grittiness of city life, and the fact that amenities such as museums, concerts, theaters are easily accessible.
Yes, according to the New York Times. The Times reported a few days ago that spurred on by more bad news in the housing sector, the Senate is near to approving a bill to help homeowners. The latest housing index showed prices had declined in April by more than 15 percent from a year ago. This is especially bad news for soon to be retirees who expected their homes to provide some of their retirement income. While this group cannot expect the housing bill to help much, there are others who can benefit.
The Senate is considering a rescue-refinancing plan that is intended to stem the more than 8000 foreclosures a day. The plan would allow qualified owners to refinance into more affordable, 30 year fixed rate loans with a federal guarantee. The legislation benefits first time buyers, who would receive a refundable tax credit up to $8000 or 10 percent of the value of a home. The limit on loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could purchase would be increased from $417,000 to $625,000 in the expensive housing markets.
We may be in a bear market. If that’s true, aging baby boomers may end up with less retirement income than they anticipated. That’s because unlike in earlier times when we could expect to retire with company provided pensions, since the 1980s, we have increasingly come to expect our 401(k)s to take care of our retirement needs.
Your 401(k) is a portion of your salary that is deducted from your paycheck and placed into a special acount. That money is invested in mutual funds. Mutual funds are a collection of stocks and bonds. In other words, your retirement income is invested in the stock market. If the market is headed for a prolonged decline then expect that income to take a nosedive. That’s what has happened to retirement income during earlier bear markets.
In “What to do if this goes on … and on,” by the L.A. Times, by Wall Street’s definition, the period between 1966 and 1982 was a secular bear market. During that period the Dow made no net progress, although there were huge rallies and steep declines, typical of a secular bear market. Many of the people who had invested in stocks for their retirement ended up with far less than they expected.
By 1982 Americans had sworn off stocks. But in the ‘80s and ‘90s there were big increases in stock prices. Prices reached their height during the dot com bubble. The bubble burst in 2000 and stock prices plummeted. Some experts believe that we’ve been in a secular bear market since that time. The first phase was when overvalued tech and blue chip stocks crashed. The new phase is the credit crunch stemming from the housing crash. There are some who expect this to slow economic growth for years. It doesn’t help that we are now facing record oil and commodity prices, driving inflation up.
Given the precarious nature of the economic times, if you are close to retirement, it might make sense to invest in cash and short term bonds.
For those of you who can’t keep it straight, a bear market is the bad one. A bear market is usually signified by a 20% decline in stock prices. According to the L.A. Times, for Wall Street “a very long period of falling or, at best, sideways-moving stock prices” is considered a ‘secular’ bear market.” The most recent bear market followed the tech bubble burst and lasted from March 24, 2000 to Oct. 9, 2002.
Rebate checks began going out the first week of May. They seem to be having some effect on spending, but expect it to be limited. For those trying to survive off a limited income such as social security and low wage work (remember older Americans are likely to work in low wage jobs such as retail) the checks can only provide some temporary debt relief. What is unfortunate is that so many Americans are suffering from real economic distress because economic policies that have shifted wealth from the middle and lower tier to the top one percent of the population.
A typical Wal-Mart walker can be had for $59.92. Medicare pays close to $110 for the same or a similar walker. This is going to change on July 1st, or at least that’s what’s supposed to happen. Traditionally the price for walkers and various medical equipment is set by Congress. This price is well above market value and according to the New York Times has the effect of “handing out a few hundred million dollars of corporate welfare to the equipment makers.” As of July 1st companies will have to submit competitive bids if they want to continue selling products to Medicare.
But enter the lobbyists. Lobbyists have stepped up their contributions to Congress, while making absurd claims that competitive bidding will deprive patients of needed oxygen equipment, and will cause job loss. Congress, of course is caving. After all its allegiance is to medical equipment makers, and not to the taxpaying public. A bill supported by Pete Stark and John Dingell, two Democratic committee chairmen, and John Boehner, the House Republican leader and overwhelmingly passed by the House aims to throw out competitive billing. According to the New York Times
A small number of companies, including Invacare, Pride, Praxair and the Scooter Store, want to keep the billion-dollar subsidy that they’re receiving every year. Or at least they want to keep as much of it as possible — which explains their strong support for the current House bill, even though it includes a 10 percent fee reduction. They recognize that the alternative — competition — would be worse for them
A similiar bill will soon be taken up by the Senate.
I read in the New York Times the other day about the rising opportunities for those working as geriatric care managers. Some working in this field specialize in dementia or aging related issues like depression or relocation.
There seems to be opportunities to make good money. The article reports that it’s possible to work solo and for social services agencies or small practices, making from $50,000 to $80,000 at an agency or small practice, $250,000 to $500,000 as an owner, or up to a $100,000, working solo.
Requirements are related to licensing and experience. Technically, anyone can call themselves a geriatric care manager. But the association requires new members to hold one of four certifications. Among them is care manager certified, issued by the National Academy of Certified Care Managers. It requires several years of supervised experience and a four-hour exam.
Another possibility is working as a certified case manager. Certified Case Manager Certification requires a degree in a caregiving field such as nursing and social work, as well as experience and an exam.
Anyone working in the profession need to be familiar with the physical, emotional and social issues of aging, as well as with local resources. More colleges are offering programs in geriatric care management. Information on training and requirements can be acquired at the care managers association www.caremanager.org.
Of course there are some drawbacks. According to the article, some of them may have to do with mediating bitter family conflicts, being on call round the clock. Because geriatric care management is rarely covered by insurance, most clients pay out of pocket. Those starting practices may earn nothing or very little the first year, as they build networks.
I am reprinting this posting on the argument against privatizing health care. The title is Should our health care be further privatized?
Is the primary purpose of my life to make those already rich, even richer? Health care is a general good just like education, military and police. Is government’s reason for being to ensure or to promote the general good? Do the rights of a small group of individuals to make money off my health triumph my right to this general good? I ask these questions as I reflect on John McCain’s free market approach to health care.
If we believe that government’s reason for being is to promote the common good, a free market approach to health care can be disastrous. Already our privatized health care system is ranked a low 37 by the World Health Organization. To put this in perspective, when it comes to health care, countries like Costa Rica and Columbia rank higher than the US.
John McCain’s proposed health care plan would shift the responsibility for health care from employers or the government onto individuals. He plans to do this by shifting the tax benefits that now go to employers onto individuals. Under his plan individuals would receive a $2500 credit, families a $5000 credit. The fear is that change would cause some businesses to drop coverage. The result would be a large number of workers flooding the system as they try to obtain individually based plans.
The problem with individually based plans is that individuals have to qualify. For the young and healthy that might not be a problem. But the elderly and those suffering from chronic health problems might be unable to purchase health care plans. A second problem is that the administrative costs of individual polices are at least triple of those of employer based policies.
McCain also wants to deregulate the insurance industry; a step he believes would promote competition. A possible downside of deregulation is that it could lead to looser standards and higher costs and diminished coverage. As it stands now each state sets minimum standards under which plans can be sold. McCain’s plan could override state regulations. Companies would be able to sell in every state any policy that was approved in any state. That means that if an insurer’s policy was approved in a state with looser standards, a state with higher standards could not impose those standards on the insurer. For example if one state require insurers to pay for specific procedures such as mammograms, a state that does not set this standard is the one whose rules ensurers must follow. Or if one state sets a minimum deductible, a state that sets a higher deductible is the one that prevails.
