The Truth Behind Social Security’s ‘2.8% Increase’ (This is in proportion to benefit amount, Those with a higher benefit will not see the full 50% loss, as COLA is percentage based and Medicare raise is not. This does apply to many, probably the majority, who need the full raise in the pocket) Why Many Seniors Say It Feels More Like 1.4% — And Why That Matters: Every fall, millions of Americans watch anxiously as the Social Security Administration announces the next year’s COLA — the Cost-of-Living Adjustment. It’s a number tied to inflation that’s meant to help retirees keep pace with rising prices. In 2025, the headline figure was 2.8%. At first glance, that seems like a meaningful boost – especially against a backdrop of stubborn inflation and higher costs for everyday goods and services. But here’s the rub: half of that increase goes straight to Medicare premiums. For many beneficiaries, that turns a 2.8% increase into something closer to a 1.4% net gain. And when you consider the rising living costs of food, housing, utilities, and especially healthcare, that net gain may not be enough to maintain a stable standard of living. Let’s break this down — why it matters, how average Americans are affected, and what real solutions might look like. Understanding the “2.8% COLA” Claim: The annual COLA is calculated based on changes in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) — a specific inflation index that measures how much prices rise for a basket of goods and services over time. Great, right? Inflation goes up, your benefits go up to match. But here’s where it gets complicated. Premiums Come First: Every year, Medicare Part B (medical insurance) and Part D (prescription drug coverage) premiums are deducted directly from Social Security benefits before recipients see their checks. In 2025: The COLA was announced at about 2.8%. But Medicare Part B and Part D premiums increased, consuming roughly half of that raise for many beneficiaries. If you’re receiving $1,800/month in Social Security, a 2.8% boost adds about $50/month — but if your Medicare premium increases by $25, your net gain is only $25/month. That’s roughly 1.4% in real terms. So despite the celebratory headlines about a 2.8% raise, many retirees see only half of that reflected in their actual spending power. Medicare Advantage: Lower Benefits, Higher Costs Compounding the problem, many seniors have turned to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans — private plans that replace traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage was marketed as more affordable and offering extra benefits. But in recent years: Deductibles have increased Out-of-pocket expenses have risen Some benefits have been cut or tightened Providers are limiting coverage in ways that increase actual spending for seniors So even if gross premiums stay stable, many seniors end up spending more on care — meaning that the real cost of healthcare goes up faster than Social Security benefits. Is a 1.4% Increase Enough in Today’s Economy? The short answer: No, not for most people. 1. Food Costs: Food prices have consistently risen faster than the general inflation rate over the past few years. Even modest increases in cereal, bread, dairy, and produce add up quickly for households on fixed incomes. 2. Housing: Rent and home maintenance costs continue to climb in many areas. (Also as we age we cannot do some of the home maintenance we could when younger THUS we have to pay for the maintenance). Housing is often the single largest expense for retirees — and it’s not proportionally captured in the CPI-W used to calculate COLA. 3. Utilities: Electricity, gas, water — fluctuate widely but have trended upward overall. 4. Healthcare: Healthcare costs are not only rising — they’re rising faster. Prescription drugs, (over the counter drugs), specialist visits, long-term care, and dental care often exceed inflation measures used for COLA. 5. Inflation Mismatch: While the CPI-W tracks price changes for a typical urban wage earner, retirees spend their money differently. They have heavier healthcare costs and different consumption patterns — meaning the official inflation figure often understates the real inflation experienced by seniors. In other words: Even a 2.8% gross increase is unlikely to keep pace with actual inflation for retirees — especially after Medicare premiums. How Does This Compare to the Average Wage Earner? So how does a 1.4% net increase stack up for a typical worker? Wage Increases: In 2025 and into 2026, many workers have seen annual wage increases between 3% and 5% in many industries — often more in high-demand fields like tech, healthcare, logistics, etc. Even at the lower end of that range: Workers with a 3% pay increase see far more purchasing power growth than retirees with a 1.4% net COLA. Moreover, workers often receive performance bonuses, overtime, and opportunities for advancement — things retirees don’t have. Retirement vs. Working Households: Working households can adjust budgets dynamically: Take on extra shifts. Re-skilled to higher-paying roles. Benefit from employer-sponsored healthcare. Retirees do not have these options. Their safety net is Social Security and Medicare. When real increases lag behind wages, it highlights a growing disparity between those still in the workforce and those surviving on fixed benefits. Should Medicare Premium Increases Count Toward Cost-of-Living Adjustments? Absolutely. Here’s why: 1. Healthcare Is Not Optional: You can’t decide not to buy healthcare if you get sick, have chronic conditions, or need regular prescriptions. Medicare premiums are a necessary cost for seniors — not a luxury. 2. The Goal of COLA Is to Maintain Purchasing Power: If a benefit increase is immediately consumed by mandatory costs, the purpose of a COLA is undermined. It should be tied to actual cost burdens — including… Continue reading THE TRUTH BEHIND SOCIAL SECURITY’S ‘2.8% INCREASE’
Category: Insurance
Electoral College: Protector of Small Populous States RIGHT TO VOTE
It has been brought to my attention, some states are taking steps to eliminate the ‘ELECTORAL COLLEGE”. Apparently the people trying to eliminate the Electoral College, either missed that day in school, or was asleep when the subject was being taught. You see the Electoral College was put in the constitution to protect smaller states from being RULED by the whims of the larger populated states. It is a safe stop; which is more necessary now than at the time of its placement in the constitution. Before you begin reading the main body of this post, I ask you to keep in mind these numbers. (Although the Electoral College isn’t perfect please consider these numbers). Then tell me who completely controls the “POPULAR VOTE”. California: 38,889,700 people. Texas: 30,978,754 people. Florida: 22,975,931 people. New York 19,467,232 people. Pennsylvania 12,951275 people. I am using numbers available for April, 2024. The total population of just these 5 states, (according to my calculator), 335,893,238 that is almost 336 MILLION PEOPLE. Now as for the other 45 states (again according to my calculator), 206,982,776 almost 207 MILLION PEOPLE. My point being with 5 states having 129 MILLION MORE PEOPLE THAN THE remaining 45 states. These 5 states have more than enough people to elect whoever they want not necessarily who is best for the entire country. This conundrum (to ME). Do I want a president I do not want or even have a say in? The Electoral College is a mechanism established by the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 1. It was intended as a compromise between those who advocated for the election of the president through a vote in Congress and those who believed it should be decided by a popular vote of qualified citizens. The Electoral College consists of 538 electors in total, which represent the 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, and three additional electors from the District of Columbia. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive at least 270 electoral votes. This system is not based on equal representation of individuals, but rather on equal representation of states. Now let’s consider your hypothetical scenario where just five most populated states control a presidential election. These states are California (55 Electoral Votes), Texas (38), Florida (29), New York (29), and Pennsylvania (20) as per the 2020 allocations. This adds up to just 171 electoral votes – still far short from the required majority of 270. Therefore, even though these states might have large populations, they alone cannot decide an election through popular vote due to our current electoral college system. However, if we were to shift to a direct democracy model or use only popular vote to determine elections, theoretically these states with high populations could indeed dominate national elections. This could lead to political imbalance and neglecting interests of less populous areas which often have unique socio-economic and environmental issues that require specific policy attention. If this were the case, citizens from less-populated states might feel that their votes don’t carry enough weight or their voice is not heard adequately in deciding national leadership. This could lead to certain degree of voter disillusionment or lower voter turnout among them because they may see their role as insignificant next to larger populace areas. This concern forms one of key arguments behind maintaining our Electoral College – it ensures all parts of country can have recognizable say in choosing our national leader irrespective of their population size. Furthermore, the electoral college system forces presidential candidates to seek support from a wider geographic base, instead of just focusing on densely populated urban areas. It maintains the balance of influence among states and encourages candidates to understand and respond to diverse needs of different states. So despite criticisms, many argue that maintaining the electoral college is an important tool in preserving our federal system and ensuring that all parts of the country have an equitable say in national elections. In conclusion: What am i missing? After all I am sure these lawmakers have a much better education than I do. OR, are they ??? What is their motive for taking away the voters rights, as IT IS possible that the votes cast by these 45 states are just a matter of going through the motions, allowing the residents to feel their votes count. Thank you. Artie Fischal P.S. Please feel free to leave me comments those who agree and those who don’t agree. Maybe I’ll learn something. Views: 167
Do Our Legislators THINK
It has recently come to my attention, the evils lurking in the banning of incandescent light bulbs. It seems the new CFL bulbs, or whatever you call the CFLs. According to an elderly friend of mine , he and his cronies, while sitting at the local diner for morning coffee; (he calls it his coffee break. He had one at work, and now he needs one to get away from his wi…er, house for a while. Yeah! That’s the ticket. Away from the house). The topic of the proposed LIGHT BAN, came up. It was at this meeting of the minds, he learned many other people have claimed the new CFLs, have caused just about everything from regular headaches, stomachaces, tired eyes,(can’t read as long as they “ustacould”), migraines, a feeling of tiredness, (causing them to have to take an extra nap), angst, and an increased inability to cope with their wife. And it must be the reason they seem to be getting sick more often. Now taking in all of these “facts”. Because I know this to be a very stubb….studious group. How could our legislators possibly disregard their research. and ban incandescent bulbs. After checking these complaints, I have found various articles that support this groups thinking. So maybe there is something to their statements. HEY ! Legislators, LOOK into this. Please. That Is How I See It. Views: 172
Obama On A Genocide Mission?
Gen·o·cide [jen-uh-sahyd]: A noun. The deliberate ans systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or CULTURAL GROUP. Since Mr. Obama has taken office it seems he has pinpointed the elderly as the means to balance his budget. Or should I say slant things to his pet projects. What do you do if you want to spend money you don’t have. You eliminate things you don’t need. Divert that money to what you want. That my friends is just what Mr. Obama has done. First on his agenda was to bail out his buddies in the banking, and manufacturing industries. (Rich helping Rich get Richer). To do this he refused to admit the costs of living rises (Medicinal, Utilities, and yes gasoline) . He even wants to change the formula for figuring these costs, because he says they project a false and higher cost of living than is a true cost of living . Therefore not giving the elderly the raises they deserved, since he has been in office. To subsidize his buddies, the elderly have, by not getting a raise for 2 years. Has amounted to between $45 and $90 trillion dollars. That more than paid the trillions given to the bail out effort. These people have paid into this account for 40 to 50 years. It is not their fault the Government gave that money to other Government agencies. (Which fail to pay it back. let alone pay interest). merely a mismanagement of funds. Some of you will think the amount paid in does not equal the amount paid out….HOWEVER… Let us not forget the INTEREST which this money had been properly invested. How many of the people who have paid in never receive a check, because of death. Or just drop out of the system. How much of this money is being spent on people who never paid in a cent. How about planning our own retirement income. I did this. I invested the maximum I could. Two years later it was all gone. My company shut the doors, Not my fault. Due to EMERGENCIES, and the need to get by until I could find another job, (which has been 3 years now). I have no money. The barter system works fairly good but I still have to do without a lot, So you see that doesn’t help either. So how does this relate to GENOCIDE? By denying the elderly people the money needed to exist on. The poverty level is $10,890 a year. If I were to be on Social Security now I would be getting about $13,800 a year. But as of now I would have about $1392 a year subtracted before I get my check for MEDICARE, Which I have also been paying for all my working life. That takes me to $12,408, a year. Now let us not forget we need a supplement insurance. This cost is around $125 a month (according to friends paying it). This is another $1500 gone. Leaving us with $10,908. This puts you at just $18 above poverty level. Now subtract a conservative average of $600 a month for rent or mortgage. There goes $7200. Let’s see, that takes us to $3708 dollars to pay utilities, and buy food, house or renter insurance, life insurance and let’s not forget MEDICINE, Car insurance if we are lucky enough to have one. But then you would not be able to put gas in it. And let’s not forget we have to pay SALES tax on everything. Including our utilities. It seems that Mr. Obama’s plan is eliminate the elderly as quickly as possible. After all they are a drain on his economy. Genocide or what. I see it as an attempt to eliminate the elderly. That Is How I See It. How many people do we have die of starvation or heat, or just plain a lack of compassion by our leaders. more than between find merely find find Views: 180
Legalize Marijuana?
Legalize marijuana or not legalize marijuana. That is the question. We have heard this argument for many years. Does it really matter? I must admit I have never tried it so maybe I fail to see the advantage, or disadvantage here. From what I understand drugs like marijuana have been used in many different rites during the course of our history. The American Indian supposedly used this or a similar drug in some of their ceremonial rites. The tribes of Africa used similar drugs for the same reason. For all I know our forefathers may have participated in this type of rites, or maybe even recreational purposes. Perhaps the medicinal uses were known way back when. I remember hearing of our ancestors, and even royalty abroad having snuff boxes. (And it wasn’t for tobacco snuff). No! I don’t know the answer. What I do know is this. If it is legalized, our Government will be able to get a piece of the action, (money) . The cost will most likely go down. Thus crime created by trying to get marijuana should go down. I suppose these would all be pluses, and I can’t really think of any minuses; other than there will always be those who have no legal claim to buy marijuana. Also if it is legalized, will growers be monitored like the existing drug companies, like Eli-Lily. If it is legalized will insurance companies pay for it. How much more will this cost us, the consumer in increased insurance premiums. And how will it affect hiring practices of business. There is mass impacts involved here. I’m sure more than I can foresee. Finally let me insert my personal observation. People already take legal drugs, illegally. I know of one young lady who stole a doctors prescription pad, and wrote her own prescriptions. This was many years ago, and the doctors signature would be impressed on the sheets below it. Do doctors now take measures to prevent this? I also know of people who will steal a relatives much needed medication out of their medicine cabinet. Without regard to the relatives health. I also know peoples homes are broken into for the purpose of finding legal drugs. Legal or not people will get their hands on them and use them illegally. MOOT POINT. Does it really matter if it is or is not legal. The government will benefit by getting a portion of the proceeds. That Is How I See It. more than involved Views: 209
Accident 45 Years Ago Adds To 2011 Death Toll
This is one for the books. Perhaps a legal question. Or just an example of how our politicians use statistics, and the like. According to what I read. Forty Five years ago a woman in Northern Indiana was injured in an automobile accident. Extremely injured, she became paralyzed. Now 45 years later she died. Her death went into the records as an automobile accident death for the year 2011. I found this to be puzzling. She has lived 45 years after the accident. But according to the records she died of injuries received in the accident 45 years ago. Of course I realize she was injured, and quite badly. BUT. What I don’t understand is what kind of injury from an automobile accident can kill you 45 years later. And why this would go on the record as a 2011 automobile death. One would naturally think if you live 45 years after an accident, there must have been another cause for death. Will the auto insurance pay a death benefit after 45 years. Will this have to go to court. If the other driver was responsible, will he now face charges of vehicular homicide, or something. There just seems to be so many ramifications of this case. Any one have an answer for me? Doesn’t make sense to me. That Is How I See It. have been became Views: 356
New Car or Old Car
My newest vehicle, other than my motorcycle, and project sports car. My daily driver is a 1995 Ford Explorer. I don’t know how many miles it has on it. The odometer doesn’t work. It had 150,000 miles on it when I bought it 3 years ago. I know I average 20 miles a gallon with it. I chase my kids and their kids in sports. I bought the Explorer 3 years ago, and have put about 75,000 miles on it. I paid $1500.00 for it then. I pay the minimum in my state for license. We have an excise tax added to plate cost each year, until the vehicle is X years old or bottoms out on value. I pay only for Liability Insurance. The insured value would be less than I paid for it. I don’t count in the usual expected expenses for maintenance. Tires, Oil Change, etc. These things come whether you have a new car or old. I was fortunate that that the Explorer had been taken care of and had no rust, or excessive wear on the interior. I subscribe to these beliefs as far as vehicles are concerned. A vehicle is to get me from point A to point B. Do I need a new car for this? NO! If I were to buy a new car, (and I have had a couple. Three to be Exact. the last one I had one year, before I got laid off, seems my vehicle had already lost 50% of what I paid for it. I was able to keep it with the help of my brother. Do I want to take that kind of loss again. No way. If I were to buy a new vehicle payments would run, probably between $250-$350 a month. that would be a minimum of $3,000.00 a year in payments. for about 5 or 6 years. So I figure if I can keep my Explorer on the road for $2000.00 a year I am ahead of the game. Knock on wood I have had to spend $0, beyond the usual maintenance costs for the these 3 years. So at $500 a year ($1500 divided by 3 years equals $500 a year). Well as you can see I have thus far save $2500.00 a year on payments alone. That is $7,500.00 I have saved. I know most of you think you have to have a new car for appearance sake, or mistakenly think you will spend more for maintenance. Think of it this way If you had an older vehicle YOU would still have put more money in your pocket. I had a cousin who only bought a new car every ten years. But he could afford it. By buying only every ten years he was able to pay cash. Pretending to make payments.(putting the money aside), he was able to take his family on many fulfilled vacations with the extra money. Why Buy a New Car when an Older one is just as good at getting you from Point A to Point B, at a huge savings. That Is How I See It, Views: 312
Lockout Insurance
Have any of you received money, a lot of money. I’m talking about $4.5 BILLION, for doing nothing? The way I understand it now; that is exactly what the NFL owners are looking at. It seems that they made some concessions to the Television networks that would allow them $4.5 BILLION even if there is no games played next season. Hopefully we will have a full season coming up. The way I understand it Television money is to be split between owners and players (or players union) The players union went to court to fight this and was given a small award. Which I understand they appealed the ruling. The Players Union want this money placed in escrow until a contract agreement can be reached. The owners want to have total access to the money. Now the current Contract expires March 4, 2011. So, as I see this situation, if the owners have control of this $4.5 Billion they would be able to have LOCKOUT INSURANCE. This gives them unfair leverage against the union. They could choose to not negotiate in good faith. Lockout the player,. NO GAMES, NO PAYROLL. $4,500,000,000.00 (that is a lot of zeros, and they say zero means nothing) in the bank, probably drawing interest. Would the owners split with the players if no season were played? DOUBT IT! Only if they were forced to. In a previous post I have stated that players are overpaid and so are the owners. For me it has become a detriment to my FANDOMSHIP (?) I prefer to watch high school Sports. At any rate I agree with the players. The money should be put in escrow until an agreement is met. The owners should not be allowed to have this LOCKOUT INSURANCE. Hopefully the appeal will see this as the only fair thing to do. Thus not upsetting the balance of power during negotiations. That Is How I See It. Views: 162
Gas Prices
Try as we might, the consumer can never figure when to buy gasoline. I play this game every week. Do I fill up Monday or wait for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, or is Sunday going to give me the best price. Whatever day I pick I the price will go down the next day. But I have an SUV, a Pickup truck. a sports car, and a motorcycle. (Don’t misunderstand my truck is 23 years old, My SUV is 16, my sports car was a gift for me to fix, and occupy my time, and the motorcycle was given to me by a friend who at age 77 decided it was time to quit riding). So I buy gas on one day then go back the next with the other 3 vehicles. (I at least can save a little money on 3 out of 4 vehicles). The gas companies have conspired to raise the price of gas to $3.00 a gallon ever since they reached $2.00. They drove to get the price to $2.00 ever since they attained $1.00. They always have an excuse. We didn’t produce enough gas. Crude oil prices are up. (which I feel they control to an extent). We had an oil spill. The demand for gas is too high. The gas demand is too low. And my favorite. It’s a Holiday. Whatever other reason they can think of. It is always “NOT MY FAULT” with them. A year or two ago our government was saying “we must curb our driving habits to cut down on gas consumption. Then when they realized the loss of tax revenue from our driving less,; using less gas. They wanted to raise our gas tax if we didn’t pick up our usage. We are in a catch 22. Not all us are able to go out and buy the electric cars that government is pushing. (They really don’t look that safe to me.) For city driving they may be okay, For those of us who live in a rural area and have to drive 50 plus miles to reach a city big enough to support charging stations. Retirees? Sometime they purchase one last car as they retire, knowing they can’t afford new car payments, taxes, plate fees, and insurance on a new car. Gasoline companies your days are numbered keep raising prices and you force people to switch to electric cars, bicycles, motorcycles, mopeds. We once had steam cars and they could get us from point A to point B quite effectively. Horses worked pretty good for a long time. I could see a time when mini cities will spring up with all the things people will need can be shopped, bought and delivered to my house. The bygone (in some areas) trolley car can be revived to take people to anywhere they want within the mini city. That Is How I See It. Views: 133
Health Choices
Elderly people are caught in the insurance crunch The company a friend of mine worked for closed it’s doors in April of 2008. He has not been able to find a job. Although he has years of management experience. A Bachelor of Business Administration, a PHD , 3 other degrees, and a Honorary Doctorate degree. He can’t find a job. He was 61 years old when he found himself unemployed Even though He has the education and experience instead of saying you are too old, they say “You don’t meet minimum requirements.” Never mind he has many years experience. If you didn’t just graduate from college you can barely get a job at McDonalds. But to the INSURANCE thing. They want so much money for insurance, you can’t really afford it on unemployment, (which his has run out), His financial adviser told him to get a $5000,00 deductible temporary, or GAP insurance. Because he has always been healthy. This insurance is usually issued for a 6 month period. You can usually renew it for a second 6 month period. What this really translate to is a $7500.00 deductible because it is $5000.00 then you go to an 80/20 for the next $2500.00. Let me say this. When the company closed he had to use a huge portion of his 401K to pay off bills so he could get by on unemployment. Then he had to take out over $6,000.00 to pay his income tax because the firm he worked for did not take enough out of his separation package plus what he had to take out out of 401K to pay bills off. Then a hail storm hit. His homeowner insurance told him the damage was so small he would only need to take a caulking gun with tar and fill the holes. This of course fell below his deductible. His house which is a big old two story house, needed a new roof, and and a few things took what little he had left after loosing a big portion due to the “downturn” of the economy. So he has very little money left. One health insurance company was good until he had to fill a $20.00 prescription. They thought it was for something else. His doctor explained it was not that thing. But for something else. They would not listen. They refused to renew his 2nd 6 month coverage. He went to another company, paid 1 year in advance. They found out that he had been treated about 4 years earlier for possible Gout (that is a surplus of Uric Acid and causes pain in your toe joints). They informed him that because of that he would have to pay 3 times his present cost or be canceled. He couldn’t afford the tripled payment. So now he is out of insurance. The state he lives in has a state sponsored insurance program. Guess what.. He had to do without insurance for 6 months to qualify. Big risk to do with out health insurance for that long. You never know if you are going to be in an accident. He has now found another Gap insurer. He is due to renew in February. But now he needs to have an expensive procedure done. But if he has it done the insurance company will probably not renew his policy. He needs the renewal to cover him until he becomes Medicare Eligible. Now he is asking the hospital for an estimate of it’s cost. The surgeon said he would forgo his charges if that helped. If the estimate comes back within the money he has saved he will get the procedure done. But it is not expected to be that price, which would wipe out his entire savings. So you see his plight. He either loses all his savings and has the procedure, or goes in debt to the hospital. He also feels obligated to pay the surgeon. Also he has been told there may arise complications which will raise the cost. His social security is only $115o.00 a month pre-tax. His is still making House payments, Utility, Insurance, and trying to scrounge money to eat. Or he can put off the procedure (which may or may not prove to be cancerous), for 9 months when he qualifies for Medicare. What would you do if you found yourself in this situation This is his experience with this insurance. Because he has to bounce around from company to company every year. That Is How I See It. Views: 158