Would you accept "ANY: changes to SS & Medicare?

I put ANY in quotes for a reason.

ie: I would love changing the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67, BUT it would bring Medicare into line with SS that was changed back in the 80's. I also feel there should be exemptions for anyone who has a very labor intensive job, like a roofer, brick layer, blast furnace tender (if we still have any of those!), etc. You can't expect anyone to work jobs like that when they''re that old. As I said, I wouldn't love it, but I could accept it because I can see some rationale.

I am torn about the means testing. Certainly, the Bill Gates' of the country don't need medicare or SS. SS would maybe pay part of their weekly lunch bills, and I'm positive they could care less about Medicare coverage. They most likely have Cadillac coverage elsewhere.

On SS, ditto my comment on Medicare. I suspect most very wealthy don't even bother signing up for it. I have a BIL who's wife signed up for SS just so it could pay her car payment, and they're not rich, just studious savers and wise investors.

I can see increasing the ceiling on SS deductions, where the tax is applied to a higher income level than we have now. Not removing the cap completely, because IF a means test were to be applied, I believe it is unreasonable to ask the very top wage earners to pay for something they know they will never collect at all.


People keep saying "If there are any changes at all, I refuse to ever vote for Obama again." I disagree with that. I think it depends on what those changes are.

What do you think?

1% Total increase - half by the employee and half by the employer

However, haven't seen anyone suggest it. It has not been increased in 25 years.

that hasn't increased in cost in 25 years, except for computers of course? It seems to me the increase should be more like 2 or more % manily because of the massive increase in health care costs. Even THAT's a bargain!

No SS checks for non-working (or barely worked) spouse while both are still alive. Right now a spouse who has never worked receives a SS check for 1/2 the amount that the working spouse receives.

Example - The max for a high wage earner SS check is about $2300. The spouse who has never worked receives a check for half that amount or $1150 for a total of $3450 for the couple. (When the wage earner dies the spouse then receives just the $2300 amount.)

Single people and middle to high earning working couples are screwed by this "Married couple one stays at home 1950s model".

In most homes both people have to work and SS checks are based on each of their work history. But in couples with a high income earner the spouse (usually the wife) doesn't work but gets SS at close to same level or greater than women who have always worked outside the home.

I know of a case that two wives are getting SS of their dead husband. 1st wife was married to him for 10 years before they divorced so she qualified to get his SS when he died to his 2nd wife's dismay. I find this odd!

when my dad died both my mom and dad's second wife got his survivor benefits. i think the rule was you had to be married for 10 years.

At least those are separate households.

Its the couples I watch that use the unearned second check for cruises, trips to Europe, and second homes that irk me.

My parents didn't get SS because my father worked in government his entire life and got a federal disability pension. My mother didn't get anything while he was alive, and on his death got (I think) 50% of what he was getting. I assumed SS was set up the same way.

For the amount to be increased by 50% to a family when one spouse never worked ... that sucks for those of us who won't ever get that benefit.

On the other hand, I would have NO problem with it if people were willing to pay taxes to support that benefit - and obviously the GOP thinks they're not willing to pay taxes. So if we're cutting back, that should be one of the first things thrown overboard.

I also agree with raising the SS payroll tax ceiling.

I don't agree with raising Medicare eligibility age because that is the opposite of the direction we want to go. We need 'Medicare for all' i.e. single payer. Reducing the Medicare pool will not help.

Currently, on the first $106,800 is taxed. Remove that ceiling, lower the percentage slightly, and set up the payment calculations so that people that made buttloads of money in while working don't get buttloads of SSA money when they retire. Bend the curve, so that at a certain point, making twice as much money doesn't get you twice as much Social Security.

After all, if they're making THAT much money, they made it in part by not paying their workers (the people that did the actual work) enough to live comfortably in retirement, nor giving those workers some kind of pension.

For high end wage earners it is already a bad deal at retirement.

I guess they'll have to cut down their Russian caviar from 3 days a week to 2.

I'm interested in "changes" but not like the OP means.

on SS, small increase in medicare rates

speculation.

It doesn't matter that the wealthy will never collect on SS or Medicare benefits. The point is to keep the fund solid for those that cannot afford medical care on their own. Better still, go for a single payer system!

Ensure that the government can bargain with drug suppliers across the board. The drug companies don't actually do the kind of R & D that provides new drugs; that's usually subsidized by the government too. Make sure there are caps on drug prices, both new and old.

it would effect us. hubby seems to hit the cap around september every year. it's nice to have that extra few hundred bucks for a few months, but i'd give it up for the greater good.

And the idea that big pharma is gonna give up its millions in profits for some "socialist" idea of equality is, IMHO, a waste of our time anymore. I wish I didn't feel that way, but now I do.

We fought the good fight (and hell, I've been fighting it for a LONG time and am now old). But it seems that nobody but us here on DU cares. I always believed that myth of 3rd rail of politcs. But I don't see any 3rd rail happenings...it looks like the repugs stole SS and Medicare from us and we (collectively, not us on DU and other true progressives) are letting it happen without a fight...

the only country in the world without drug price caps of some sort is the U.S.

The U.S. is also the only country in the world where the whole system is quite so blatantly bought and sold.

I think we've seen with our visionary Obama presidency that our dearest rights have been traduced. We have been betrayed by our own people.

Of course, "it can be done" but I don't see it being done, do you? If anything, I see more betrayal on SS and Medicare, a selling out just to make the repubs happy.

I never thought this would happen when I voted for Obama. I thought a new world was coming. I cannot tell you how reduced in power I feel tonight...

Abolish the Social Security Wage Base.

Medicare Part "E", for EVERYONE!

.... but maybe a tax break for those that opt out of taking SS - sort of a voluntary means testing.

still get the benefit of their contributions over the years. I wonder if any of the legislators have ever heard or thought of that? You should writee an email to them about it. AT least to your Rep & Sen, and to the WH.

Let me know if you don't want to do it, and I will.

...Maybe Senator Nelson, but Nugent & Rubio - oh my side hurts. I'll give it a try.

The only way I can see to ccut it in half is to close a lot of bases and retire, or not renew the contract with a lot of military personnel. On it's face it sounds great, except, what are you asking those people to come home to? Unemployment, no jobs, little hope for any either, and the unemployment figures skyrocketing and cuts in almost every damn program that would help them. I don't think now is the time to do that.

not bear the brunt of this economy as we are forced to do? They vote also you know? Right now, I would bet that the majority vote republican, because the republicans are never in favor of cutting the military. The uniform is not sacred, especially now that they are being used to collect oil and not for a legitimate reason. I miss the days when "Hell no, we won't go" was heard throughout the land.

And notice I said military budget, not Pentagon budget, they are two different beasts and the military budget is much larger than the Pentagon budget. Anyway, cut the military budget in half and you will have enough money to create a WPA style jobs program, not to mention send all those soldiers into college on the GI Bill, etc.

To hang on to the MIC simply because it provides jobs is a piss poor excuse. It is another method of transferring the wealth of this country to the top, and impoverishing all of us in the process.

The US Military does the same job better, more dependably, cheaper. It's also safer for the troops because they abide by the Law.

The amount of waste that goes into paying contractors to do jobs that our military did for years and can do again is insane.

protect the wealthy. Less heroin in the country. Then these hard-working, well-trained soldiers can DEMAND a New Deal program from Congress. You want to see protests? You ain't seen nothing until these folks come back home.

To remain consistent, SS eligibility should begin at 81 years old.

That seems very unlikely.

I think raising the eligibility age should definitely be on the table.

and the differences are not as bad as you think - a lot of people lived past 65 back then, the numbers were skewed because of infant mortality.

http://www.handsoffss.org/now-that-people-live-longer-than-we-used-to-will-that-cause-social-security-to-go-bankrupt.html">But isn’t it true that people now live longer, and so retirees will draw benefits for more years? Won’t that cause a problem?

I'm 69 and my hubby is 70 now. I had to quit working in 1999 due to physical problems, and my hubby had to work until he was 67 1/2 until I was eligible for Medicare because we couldn't afford private HC on his SS alone. I think everyone needs to understand that the avg. life exp. has increased dramatically and 67 is not unreasonable for SS and Medicare. Logically it probably should be higher as you said, but if it gets to that, I sure hope they spread the increase over many years so people can adapt their thinking.

I do not expect the economy to really improve for a very long time. Better to let people retire and open up job slots for the youngsters. If employment does not improve soon, there may be some intense unrest. I am all for letting people have some rest and relaxation after a lifetime of uuork.

get employed. They're too "old" and would cost too much, so say the employers. Many over 50's are being "retired" now, before they can collect benefits, unless they get a severance package. Instead it should be lowered to 62 and that also will stimulate the economy.

As the Social Security Administration points out (see link below)

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

"As Table 1 shows, the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women)."


As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retiremnt benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940. "

for medicare. it's different with social security. you have the option of collecting a reduced rate at age 62.

who's going to insure a 65 year old? it would cost a fortune.

i'd be okay with the means testing. right now it's $170,000 for a couple. $150,000 would be okay with me plus higher co-pays. maybe even $130,000.

my friend is 66. her husband is 63. she works for the health insurance which costs almost $700 a month. he has pre-existing conditions. she's starting to feel her age -- aching knees, etc. if she has to work another 4 years instead of 2 i think she'll have a nervous breakdown.

and most likely would streach to 30 years from now.

from their benefits to the Trust Fund due to the taxation of social security benefits.

taxation of social security benefits was another reagan "reform". before reagan, for the first 40-odd years of the program, social security benefits WERE NOT TAXED.

The strength of social security is that it is a UNIVERSAL program. Anything that destroys its universality is a step on the road to its complete destruction.

Reagan put the first holes in the wall, obama appears to be trying to add to the damage.

If we give a millimeter, they'll take it all. Don't touch it. Not a &^%$ing thing.

Social Security is perfectly fine as it is. Unless the economy gets far worse in the near future and stays that way, Social Security http://www.handsoffss.org/will-social-security-go-bankrupt-in-the-future.html">will pay full benefits as far as has been studied (75 years).

Medicare's problem is that our country continually chooses to have provably-inferior health care at astronomical prices. If we control health care like every other industrialized country does, costs will drop by at least a third and everything will be fine.

Hands off!!!

forum?

The only changes any progressive democrat would agree to would be to extend Medicare to all Americans and to increase SS benefit payments so that the people who earned them are getting them, spending them and stimulating the economy.

To make sure SS stays as secure as it is right now, a number of things can help that.

1)Raise the cap on SS taxes.

2)Create jobs instead of cutting them as is currently happening.

3)It might be a good idea to legalize undocumented aliens and let them start paying into the system.



Then fix the Fed. Govt's problems because if we have a stable economy, everything else will be fine.

1) Eliminate the Bush Tax Cuts

2) End the wars

3) Cut the Pentagon Budget at least in half. That is where all the money is going and that is where the most egregious waste can be found, criminal waste actually.

4) Start a jobs program, rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure eg

Just doing those few things will lower the deficit. There are more things, like start prosecuting the criminals who collapsed the economy and get our money back eg.

But it's really not difficult. And SS has nothing to do with the deficit.

I can't believe it.

SS and Medicare can not be excluded from the cuts. That position IMO is no different than the no taxes position of the republicans. I can accept phased in increase in full eligibility age and raise in the Medicare tax that is currently capped around $107K of earnings. They should also eliminate the 28% subsidy given to companies on their post 65 retiree prescription drug costs. The subsidy isn't even taxed but will be beginning in 2013. They should eliminate it altogether. That would deliver some billions over a 10 year period. The subsidy is worth $4 million a year at the company I work for and we have less than 5000 post 65 retirees.

is. medicare doesn't have a cap.

President mentioned it as a possible negotiating point during the Debt reduction debates. i'm not as unreasonable as some who say "Do absolutely nothing". I am willing to listen to possible changes that wouldn't harm anyone and would reduce the costs of the programs.

I mentioned raising the cap, means testing as things that might make sense. I forgot the two things my favorite candidate, Howard Dean keeps talking about and that's forcing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and computerizing Medicare data.

I have a problem with Dems who insist that any change is bad and they won't even listen to any.

Sorry if you feel it's wrong to discuss this on a Dem Board.

making these programs bargaining chips in ANY debate?? Do you realize that if he does this, he will lose the next election? These programs are for the most vulnerable people in this society. Up to now, NO Democrat would bargain them away in a fake battle with Republicans.

I DO feel it's wrong, I do not think it should be forbidden, but it is WRONG to see democrats giving these insane ideas any credence at all.

The poor did not create the economic problems and the poor should never, ever be asked to pay the gambling debts of Wall St.

This president should be going after the wealthy who do not want to give up ANYTHING, and he should be trying to get MORE for the poor, not less.

I am just thoroughly disgusted with all of this.

I remember when Bush tried to do some of these things and he was practically eaten alive by the left and had to back off.

NOW we have Democrats thinking that the same insane ideas coming from a Democrat deserve consideration. The PTBs know how to manipulate people, that's for sure.

ONE: He knew all he had to do was present ANYTHING and they'd be against it. The risk for him was nil.

or

He saw this as an opportunity to promote things like Mediare negeotiating drug prices, means testing SS & MC, and the one you probably hate, bringing Medicare enrolement age inline with SS at age 67.

The first thing I thought of as soon as I heard him say his plan was $4+ trillion in reductions was "He;s bluffing! He knows from his history in the WH that no matter what he proposes, even if it's something the Pubs were oushing before, they'd hate it if he subscribed to it." I STILL believe that. He can't deny it to calm the Democratic nerves because that would give away his plan.

We soon shall see. Tiime is runnign out. My guess is that the Pubs will take the McConnell plan and give the President authority to raise the Debt Ceiling alone.

happen in my lifetime. (I'm 69 and on Medicare) I'm OK with it being inline with SS age rquirement. Raygun changed the SS to 67, adjusted over quite a few years, and i think it's very close to now being the full age 67. I'd still like to see exemptions for anyone who has a ohysically demanding job that you can't really expect anyone to be able to do at that age but havineg the two programs inline is not bad.

good grief.

I don't. Are seniors all across the country taking to the streets?

Good grief, indeed, Warren. If anything, you need to get a grip. Nobody is reacting to this but the few of us on DU and maybe on a sprinkling of other progressive websites.

A chill cold wind is blowing. We're in it. The American people won't or can't stand up to this onslaught of their own rights, those of their parents and for the future. We are too busy, aren't we, with our IPads, and Blackberrys and every other distraction under the sun that is being sold to our people.

This is a goddamn tragedy. This deserves to be in an updated version of Barbara Tuchman's "The March of Folly." We are going off a cliff and we don't even know it, just like generations before us...sad...

which should be fairly easy to do now since there isn't anything for Congress to keep robbing, and turn them back into the pay as they go insurance programs they were always meant to be, with raising the cap the way to increase revenue and lowering the cap and the percentage when overpayments are substantial.

Medicare would have the eligibility age lowered this year to 55 for full price buyin. In two years, after the dust settles, it would go to 45. Then to 35, then to 25 and then be open to all. Opening it up to healthier, younger adults would ensure its continued solvency.

These are the two changes that will save it long term. Nothing else will work, it will only be bandaid after bandaid.

inflation and instead of getting a small incremental raise, we are receiving nothing, while the wheels of inflation go round and round. Everything on the grocery aisle is more expensive, not to mention the pharmacy aisle, meds and toiletries, and energy prices are higher, including my electric bill and cable bill. In a lot of states taxes are being added or increased. It's ridiculous.

We are also taking in our unemployed children and grandchildren, nieces and nephews, you name it. We have income, no matter how small and that is a great commodity right now. So we are doing without needed meds and trips to the doctor because of co-pays, etc.

We need a raise, not a cut. A raise to SS would also help the economy, as it would be spent right away and will be a stimulus. I know, I know, I'm whistling Dixie, as we say down South.

1) Eliminate the cap on taxable income.
2) Allow the Government to negotiate prices with pharmaceuticals.
3) Open Medicare to everyone.

get rid of the payroll tax, etc.

People working and paying are the only things that keep it semi-solvent.

We can pay for it the way we pay for everything else.

why should old age pensions and medical care be less important?

Put that into Medicare and extend it to everyone. Problem solved.

That's what you are doing when you raise the age of eligibility, cutting benefits. As far as means testing and exempting manual laborers, that would be a nightmare.

'some cuts are the pragmatic, adult thing to do'.

There's no actual need to cut social programs at all. Our problem is that the rich aren't paying their taxes and we're hemorrhaging money securing their investments overseas.

Lowering retirement and Medicare eligibility ages.
Using the CPI-E, designed specifically to account for the spending patterns of seniors
Raising the FICA cap.

Everything is off the table until all 3 wars are ended and all troops are back and the Bush tax cuts end.

Why should I support a Dem Prez doing something that was George's Bush's dream?

End of story.

There is literally no legitimate rational for raising the medicare eligibility age. You need to stop falling for right wing talking points.

Lower the social security benefits age from 65 to 55. Raise monthly benefits by 30%. Expand Medicare to cover all Americans.

Pay for it by cutting the defense budget by 80% and taxing the living shit out of millionaires and billionaires.

You did say "Any" changes.

...for example, Social Security: raise the cap. Voila! projected shortfall averted. Medicare: lower the age of availability. Better yet, make it available to all. Voila! people have the freedom to change jobs, entrepreneurs don't have to worry about paying for and administering health care programs for their employees, etc.

If we can't have single payer, then Medicare at age 55 would help many people who cannot get benefits at work (if they have jobs!).

the unemployment rate for child rearing age people.

That is why I am against the Third Way. If the Third way is the Democratic Party now, and it looks like it is, then I'm just a progressive (in real terms).

yearly COLA + 1% or so.

No cap on income that is eligible for taxation.

And set taxes to cover exactly last years expenditures + administration costs + some small amount extra just in case (to be returned if not needed).

...means testing or raising the eligibility age.

Eliminate FICA entirely, reinstitute the pre-reagan era tax rates on income, treat all income the same, eliminate all the corporate income tax loopholes, etc. Make both SS and Medicare (for everyone) funded out of general revenue.

of gambling it in the stock market.

Get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan -- STAT -- and start taking care of Americans!!!

What, I'm supposed to agree to fuck myself?

Also, lower the age of eligibility to at least 50 for medicare.