Retiree Group Life Insurance Plan Beneficiary: Fill & Download for Free

As I answered the same in an earlier similar question, it’s true. U.S. military personnel who die during their service have not only a $100,000 death benefit gratuity for their beneficiaries but also can provide an additional $400,000 with an SGLI (Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance) is they opted for it since it comes in increments of $50,000 or more.No, there is no existing million or 5 million jackpot for SOF personnel or any others that die in service or retirement.Military retirees can continue their SGLI under a similar VGLI (Veterans Group Life Insurance) with the $400,000 bur without the $100,000 death benefit gratuity.Those that are eligible can also participate in an SBP (Survivors Benefit Plan) which the spouse may collect half of or all of deceased members retirement depending on several factors.There is also the SDI ( Survivor’s Death indemnity) normally given if the death is related to a 100% disabled veteran with VA disability rating & receiving compensation & who has been at least 10 years or more rated as permanent & total. The spouse will be able to collect the entire VA disability monthly tax-free compensation of the deceased veteran if the death is related to the officially recognized VA disabilities.

Yes. My wife had been paying in 11% of salary into Massachusetts teacher retirement plan and if she makes it to age 60 plus 30 years can get up to 80% salary. Adjusted to use the 4% rule, this represents the cash flow you would get from a $2 million nest egg.This fund is asset backed and lower risk than a ponzi scheme like social security or unfunded state pension promise. In this case, this plan replaced social security which she doesn't pay into. She may get some minimal social security benefits from earlier jobs and a period she was consulting. It might be worth taking something part time job before starting social security because you get zeros averaged into your payout calculation if you don't have enough years of contribution.Since this is a defined flow, it is a good minimum income for the case you live a long life. Annuities are a typical solution to prevent running out of money for the long lifetime case and thus will not be necessary. This is nice because annuities arevexpensive.The school system also allows retirees to stay in the town group health plan (but paying the full cost) which has lower costs than privately secured plans. My unemploymed 62 year old neighbor is thinking about selling his house to help cover insurance costs of $20k a year he's paying on the private market. This means retiring before 65 when Medicare kicks in is more of an option.The state also provides a 403b which has similar rules to a 401k. This allows her to save an additional $20k+ before taxes.Given this base of guaranteed compensation, We are maintaining a more aggressive stance for investments. For example, one holding is Vanguard targeted retirement where the fund purchased is the planned retirement year plus 15. This defers the transition into lower risk reward assets. Some savings are being kept in cash equivalents as we attempt to build assets towards funding for a better retirement home. We've also used cash to pay down existing debt and mortgage.One item of note is to check survivor beneficiary settings on such benefits plans. The default in this case is a cash payout of contributions which is lower value than selecting the payments stream option. Beneficiaries should be set in all plans to avoid processing through probate court.One should also note there are risks to getting to full retirement. Numerous teachers burn out and retire before reaching full retirement age in which case benefits fall off rapidly. The spouse in this case is attempting to help support the education worker's mental health by being a good house elf, among other things.Also note in this case this is not "government employees with outragious benefits". The pension plan is teacher funded.

The answer is different for each one.MedicaidMedicaid does not have an eligibility age, it's based on income and disability, regardless of age. So, there's no age to raise.MedicareMedicare is primarily available at age 65 and above. Some have proposed raising the age to 67 to match Social Security. The reason the eligibility age should not be raised is that it would actually cost more, not less.Medicare functions somewhat like its counterparts in the private sector, by pooling risk among all the payers/beneficiaries. In the Medicare pool, the 65 and 66 year olds are the healthiest, lowest cost members of the pool. Their relatively lower costs improve the averages and balance out the more expensive folks in their 70s, 80s, 90s, and above. What would happen if they were suddenly removed from that pool? The average cost of insuring all the remaining members would go up. What else would happen? The cost of insuring all the younger folks with private insurance would go up too! Why? Well, those 65 and 66 year olds would go from being the healthiest in the Medicare pool to the least healthy in the private pools. Employers would have to pay more, as would employees and those in the individual market. It's counter-intuitive, but completely logical. Here are the projected numbers:The Kaiser Family Foundation found that raising the age of eligibility would save the federal government $5.7 billion a year, while raising costs for other payers. According to Kaiser, raising the age would cost $3.7 billion to 65- and 66-year olds, $2.8 billion to other consumers whose premiums would rise as insurance pools absorbed more risk, $4.5 billion to employers offering insurance, and $0.7 billion to states expanding their Medicaid rolls. Ultimately Kaiser found that the plan would raise total social costs by more than twice the savings to the federal government[Emphasis added]Sources: Kaiser Family Foundation Study & Wikipedia U.S. Medicare PageSome might assume that the overall costs would be the same, that it would just be a wash, since it's simply shifting people from public insurance to private, but that is not the case. Believe it or not, Medicare is a far more cost efficient program than private insurance. It has lower administrative costs; it doesn't do much marketing and never expends any resources vetting and rejecting potential customers since they accept everyone. There's no profit margins to build into the costs and as the largest player in the health insurance market, it has tremendous leverage and thus the lowest benefit costs.Even with the oldest, sickest customers, Medicare costs less per person than private insurance!Also, Medicare isn't entirely "free" to its beneficiaries. Part A (inpatient care) is free, but beneficiaries pay premiums for Part B (physician and outpatient care) and Part D (pharmacy). These premiums are indexed by income. Raising the eligibility age would mean foregoing those premiums from the younger, healthier age cohort.It may be counter-intuitive, but raising the Medicare eligibility age would ultimately cost more, not less. Removing 65 and 66 year olds from the insurance pool is penny wise and pound foolish in a big way.Social SecuritySocial Security's eligibility age has already been raised and is now being gradually phased in based on a retiree's birth year. Reduced benefits are available at age 62, while full retirement benefits come if they wait until 65-67 (again, depending on age; 66 for my mom, 67 for me). Some people propose raising the eligibility age again, to 69, 70, or beyond. The most common argument heard from folks in favor of this change is that people are both working and living longer now, and the program was not expected to support people for 25+ years.The tricky thing with that argument is that the improved life expectancy they cite is only half the story and thus misleading. Some people are living longer, some people are not. Guess who's living longer? The most affluent groups; the folks that can afford the best healthcare, that get paid vacations, that have more savings to fall back on or can work into more advanced ages because they don't have physically demanding jobs.Guess who isn't necessarily living longer? The working poor. The folks without the best healthcare and without paid vacations, the folks with the most physically demanding jobs. It isn't just arthritis either: two recent studies associated these jobs with increased likelihood of stroke and heart problems.Physically Demanding Jobs Increase Heart Disease RiskWorking Too Hard? Physically Demanding Jobs Tied to Higher Risk of Heart Disease | TIME.comIf you spent 4 years at a university and then ages 22-66 sitting at a desk, typing on a computer, and talking on a phone, then spending another few years doing that is not an unbelievable hardship, at least physically. However, if you went straight from high school at age 18 to a job hammering sheet metal for the next 50 years, you might have a different perspective.Some workers have such physical jobs that tacking on an extra few years at the end of their careers is a daunting, legitimate struggle. It doesn't even have to be a coal miner or construction worker, what about a waitress that's already spent 50 years in the workforce? Do you think that woman should have to spend 10 hours a day working on her feet into her seventies?Let's really think this through for a second. Think about what proponents of raising the eligibility age are actually saying: Hedge fund managers are living longer and costing more, and they can stand waiting a little longer for Social Security, so let's just have everyone work a few years longer, not just the hedge fund manager but the elderly janitor that mops the floors at his country club, the auto worker that built his car, the gas attendant that fills his tank, the coal miner that powers his house, the waitress that brings his food, the dock worker...what's a few more years?This is to say nothing of the fact that higher income workers already get a break on their social security taxes. That's right, it's a Regressive tax -- lower income workers pay a higher percentage of their income than affluent workers because the payroll tax that funds Social Security is capped around $110k. The well off pay less (% wise) and get more (years of benefits) -- Lower income folks pay more (% wise) and then die younger (using fewer benefits). It's not very fair. Raising the eligibility age would just make it worse."So I said, just raise the Social Security age. No biggy! Problem solved!""Say what now?"