Should the Social Security and Medicare Age be Raised

[percysunshine]

The real question is...are there enough schmucks out there who are willing to keep paying into the system before I die?

 

[Flopper]

And where would we get the money to put people on Medicare? We're now spending trillions trying to make the country green. We're tapped out, 30 trillion in the hole now.

I'm on disability, and they won't let me go on Medicare until I've been on disability for two years. Mind you I'll be paying for Medicare, but they won't let you get it until one day before 2 years. If anything, allow us to go on Medicare immediately after being approved for disability since we are obviously in need of medical care. I'd go on Commie Care, but they don't have any plans for the provider I go to. If you like your hospital--you can keep your hospital was nothing but a giant lie.

Are you sure about Medicaid not covering your provider. Typically Medicaid provides coverage for any licensed MD that accepts Medicaid. Almost every hospital will accept Medicaid but not ever doctor. The reasons so many hospitals accept Medicaid is due to ER patients who end up in the hospital. Once in the hospital your care is going to be the same regardless of insurance. My son and his family were on Medicaid for 5 years. The biggest problem is that many doctors do not accept Medicaid or limited the number they accept.

 

[Flopper]

I can't wait till I'm 62. If I want to, I can retire. But, I may keep working because I don't hate my job and I make good money. If I wait till 63, the SS payout will be a little better. Ultimately, it'd be nice if I could and wanted to work till I was 65 then I get medicare too. I don't want to pay for healthcare from 62-65 years old out of pocket. I'm sure that won't be cheap. Who wants to privately insure someone that old?

Are you on SSDI or SSI? If you are on SSI, in many states, you automatically become eligible for Medicaid.

 

[sealybobo]

Are you on SSDI or SSI? If you are on SSI, in many states, you automatically become eligible for Medicaid.

No I'm not on SSDI or SSI.

 

[Flopper]

The Republicans had several chances throughout the last couple of administrations to end these programs. So why didn't they? Why did they not even bring it up? You can't answer these questions.

If we didn't have these programs we would have them by the state, the way our founders intended. But since I paid for it anyway, sure I'm going to collect. You pay for house insurance your entire life, but if your house burned down, would you not file a claim? You would be a moron not to.

They didn't end these programs because there are 54 million people that depend on these benefits. And the percentage in red states are just as high as in blue states. The train to eliminate social welfare left the station decades ago. So every time you hear republican lawmakers talking about cutting social welfare programs, they always preference their comments with eliminating government waste and denying benefits to people that don't deserve the benefits but insuring that the benefits will be available for those who really need them.

In order to seriously reduce any of these programs, you would have to change the basic structure of the federal government to eliminate American democracy. As long as the American people have the power of the vote, these programs will be there. This is one of our greatest problems arising from a democratic form of government. When enough people are receiving benefits they will not support cutting them even though it may mean the eventual downfall of the country.

 

[Flopper]

No I'm not on SSDI or SSI.

Sorry, that was meant for Ray.

 

[beagle9]

It’s 67 for people my age. 51. Do you think people want to work when they are 68?

I wish they would give medicare at 62. I might have to wait till 65 because of healthcare.

What do you think about lowering Medicare to 62? Then if you want to raise the age on people younger than me, sure.

How much would you take to buy out of social security? At age 60. What if they said take $20,000 and you’ll get no social security. Would you take it?

What if our government would quit lying to the seniors, and then out of no where "poof" they find billion's upon billion's of dollars in order to bail other countries??? Then it attacks oil and gas here, but tells Europe we will sell them LNG to make up the shortfall if they quit with PUTIN (thought gas was badddd?), all the while we hear them out of their same mouth's telling the senior's here, (otherwise who have worked to build this country all their working lives), and for whom have funded all it's Damned pet project's over the years, and funded all it's vote buying schemes, that they aren't worthy of a retirement or medical before they are almost in their Graves ??????? The disgusting bull crap should enrage American's young and old, because sooner or later the young folk's will be old and disrespected in the same ways.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Republicans had a chance during the Trump administration and Bush administration to end these programs but they didn't because there are 54 million people receiving social welfare benefits. And the percentage in red states are just as high as in blue states. The train to eliminate social welfare left the station decades ago. So every time you hear about republican lawmakers talking about cutting social welfare programs, they always preference their comments with eliminating government waste and denying benefits to people that don't deserve the benefits such as convicted felons or illegal immigrants. And S.S. and Medicare are even more of a sacred cow.

In order to seriously reduce any of these programs, you would have to change the basic structure of the federal government to eliminate American democracy. As long as the American people have the power of the vote, these programs will be there.

The point is it's not a Republican agenda. You may find people here or there that are against all social programs, but they are so few their opinion doesn't even count.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you sure about Medicaid not covering your provider. Typically Medicaid provides coverage for any licensed MD that accepts Medicaid. Almost every hospital will accept Medicaid but not ever doctor. The reasons so many hospitals accept Medicaid is due to ER patients who end up in the hospital. Once in the hospital your care is going to be the same regardless of insurance. My son and his family were on Medicaid for 5 years. The biggest problem is that many doctors do not accept Medicaid or limited the number they accept.

Not even close to being accepted for Medicaid. I think the maximum income is something like $8,000.

What started this conversation is that they make you wait for two years once you get your first disability check (not when you were approved) before you can get Medicare. Once you hit two years, you are automatically enrolled whether you like it or not. You have the option not to have a supplemental private carrier, but you cannot refuse Medicare. If you are caught dropping out once you have it, SS will fine you every year you don't have it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It depends. I made far more than $1300 a month working till I was 70. Also, you have to consider two very important factors. First if you work till you're 70 vs retiring at 62, that is 8 years of retirement that you will not need to finance out of retirement savings and social security and that can be a lot of money. For example if you are single and your living cost in retirement will be about $50,000 a year and your S.S. is $15,000 a year then you will need to draw $35,000 a year from your savings or $280,000 over 8 years. Second, that additional 8 years of working allows for significant growth in your retirement nest egg, particularly if you have a 401K with matching employer contributions. However, the downside is loosing 8 of what would likely be the most healthy years in your retirement.

If your sister really hates her job that much and would be happier living off social security and whatever retirement she has been able to save, hopefully to last 30 or 40 years then she should seriously consider early retirement. I know a lot of people in retirement but only a few that live solely off their S.S. and seem to be happy.

For those nearing retirement age and needing to retire yet have not put away enough to retire are pretty well screwed. This is why I keeping telling my grandkids in their 20's that now is time start saving for retirement. Those early years are really important in building a retirement nest egg. Of course, they ignore me because they have other priorities.

This is true. What they pay for disability is what I would get for retirement if I was at retirement age when I was accepted so I really had no choice. In the long run I made out better because I was going to retire at 62 anyway at the discounted amount which was 75% of full benefits. Now I just get the full benefit.

As for my sister she screwed herself. She had a nice house my father built for her which I'm pretty sure was paid off or just about paid off. In any case she had to move to a better community which of course costs much more money. Now she's going to have a mortgage likely the rest of her life which is why she needs to work until 67. I could have done the same but I don't like living paycheck to paycheck, or having to be forced to work until I drop dead. I used to love working when I was younger, but once I got in the 50 year old range, I hated waking up every morning to go to work.

The damned thing is I've been out of work nearly 2.5 years, and I dream about working almost every Fn night.

 

[struth]

SS and MC were started in 1934 and 1965 respectfully. In 1934 job were much more physical and people’s bodies broke down starting in their 50s. Nowadays go to any company and you see people working well into their 70s… heck even construction are less strenuous on the person’s body. The trend is only going to increase. In addition, medicine is getting better and people are living longer. This reality should be recognized.

In addition it is much easier to take care of oneself and eat better and feel better at older ages.

Our safety nets need to reflect this new reality.

like most ponzi schemes they have to do something or they will fail

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yea but the way you guys attack the programs, you hurt people like yourself.

That's ok. You'll never understand.

Oh, and many many MANY vets get their legs or arms blown off and they don't even get 100% disability. So how did McCain? He was working all those years. CLEARLY he wasn't 100% disabled. He should be ashamed me took those benefits.

Every year him and his son hiked the Grand Canyon. Ever see someone who's 100% disabled do that?

It depends on what the military considers 100% disability. Even on regular disability, what's considered disabled is a medical condition that prevents you from doing your job, so there are people on disability who probably could do things like go hiking. Somebody may have a desk job and a vision problem that makes it hard for them to read, but otherwise they can workout at the gym every night.

Again, nobody on the right "attacks these programs," they attack people who misuse the programs who otherwise doesn't really need them.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, but the war machine and corporate welfare should be terminated, and the tax code changed to eliminate all the loopholes for the ultra wealthy.

While I agree we both know that won't happen.

 

[beagle9]

And where would we get the money to put people on Medicare? We're now spending trillions trying to make the country green. We're tapped out, 30 trillion in the hole now.

I'm on disability, and they won't let me go on Medicare until I've been on disability for two years. Mind you I'll be paying for Medicare, but they won't let you get it until one day before 2 years. If anything, allow us to go on Medicare immediately after being approved for disability since we are obviously in need of medical care. I'd go on Commie Care, but they don't have any plans for the provider I go to. If you like your hospital--you can keep your hospital was nothing but a giant lie.

This country has the resources Ray, but they are prioritized in ways that ignore the need of our senior citizen's many times, and so the social security fund is allocated in ways that would make the creator of the ponsi-scheme blush..... They suggest to us that they have cut it to the bone or it's running out blah, blah, blah, blah in a highly disrespectful way when it comes to our senior's. Pathetic situation when we keep seeing all these million's or billion's showing up out of thin air to fund all these created crisis going on all over the place these days.

If Biden was a CEO of a corporation, surely he be shown the door quick fast and in a hurry.

 

[gipper]

While I agree we both know that won't happen.

Very true, which further proves we live in a failed state.

 

[Flopper]

What if our government would quit lying to the seniors, and then out of no where "poof" they find billion's upon billion's of dollars in order to bail other countries??? Then it attacks oil and gas here, but tells Europe we will sell them LNG to make up the shortfall if they quit with PUTIN (thought gas was badddd?), all the while we hear them out of their same mouth's telling the senior's here, (otherwise who have worked to build this country all their working lives), and for whom have funded all it's Damned pet project's over the years, and funded all it's vote buying schemes, that they aren't worthy of a retirement or medical before they are almost in their Graves ??????? The disgusting bull crap should enrage American's young and old, because sooner or later the young folk's will be old and disrespected in the same ways.

When you say our government what do you mean. There are 456 elected politicians and their staffs which total about 6,000, a president and vice president whose administration exceeds 3,000 and the various agency and bureau heads plus the rank and file workers whose number is about 1.8 million. The federal government is like a serpent with a thousands heads and each saying something different.

 

[Flopper]

It depends on what the military considers 100% disability. Even on regular disability, what's considered disabled is a medical condition that prevents you from doing your job, so there are people on disability who probably could do things like go hiking. Somebody may have a desk job and a vision problem that makes it hard for them to read, but otherwise they can workout at the gym every night.

Again, nobody on the right "attacks these programs," they attack people who misuse the programs who otherwise doesn't really need them.

There is also SSI disability which applies to those who have not earned 40 quarters of Social Security, typically ten years. SSI has different requirements than SSDI. And of course veterans disability has other requirements. The reason for this tangle web is because these programs were created by different legislation over a period of 75 years, administered by different agencies and departments with different funding sources.

Here is how all this really get's confusing and becomes totally fucked up. A young man 17, becomes totally disable. Since his father is covered by SSDI and he is a minor, he is entitle to SSDI. A year later his father dies and he is no longer eligible for SSDI because he is now eligible for survivors benefits which stops at age 22. So at 22 he has to apply for SSI which requires he prove he was disable before he reached 22. That required he submit the medial information with his diagnosis from 7 years ago. The clinic that made the diagnosis no longer existed so he had to request the information from the receiver who claimed they had no responsibility to supply the information because the time in state law had expired. So he gets a lawyer and finally gets his diagnosis. However, his application for SSI had expired since 18 mos has passed since he applied. So he reapplies and a year later he is approved. He received back pavement for benefits since the date he applied. So all is well but he had found a job that was paying him about $400 a month and that is above the limit for SSI payments so SS wants the benefits back which he has spent. I would go on but this brings the story up to date. He is still fighting with S.S because he has lost his job and should be eligible for benefits but SS won't start payments till he pays them back.

 

[GHook20]

It’s 67 for people my age. 51. Do you think people want to work when they are 68?

I wish they would give medicare at 62. I might have to wait till 65 because of healthcare.

What do you think about lowering Medicare to 62? Then if you want to raise the age on people younger than me, sure.

How much would you take to buy out of social security? At age 60. What if they said take $20,000 and you’ll get no social security. Would you take it?

My dad is 76 and became a millionaire sometime in his 40s. He worked to 72.

I make just shy of $200k

Instead of raising the age, I would be in favor of something along the lines of deciding on a case by case basis or how the funds are doled out. Some people just need to retire at 65 and can't work anymore while with others you could have an age of 80 or even higher. We need to quit thinking along the lines that you can work up to a certain age but the day after that age you are no longer able to work anymore. This holds true especially in an age where we need older people to fill unfilled jobs.

To ripe for corruption and placating segments. Work has become less strenuous on the body (even in construction). People live longer and healthier. Medicine and surgical procedures make life easier. I say move it to 75 (and incentivize 80 if with larger paymentand privatize it (much like Chile).

You can always retire earlier if you save better.

SS should be a safety when most can’t work at the end of their life.

 

[beagle9]

When you say our government what do you mean. There are 456 elected politicians and their staffs which total about 6,000, a president and vice president whose administration exceeds 3,000 and the various agency and bureau heads plus the rank and file workers whose number is about 1.8 million. The federal government is like a serpent with a thousands heads and each saying something different.

The one's guilty, how bout that ? LOL

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is also SSI disability which applies to those who have not earned 40 quarters of Social Security, typically ten years. SSI has different requirements than SSDI. And of course veterans disability has other requirements. The reason for this tangle web is because these programs were created by different legislation over a period of 75 years, administered by different agencies and departments with different funding sources.

Here is how all this really get's confusing and becomes totally fucked up. A young man 17, becomes totally disable. Since his father is covered by SSDI and he is a minor, he is entitle to SSDI. A year later his father dies and he is no longer eligible for SSDI because he is now eligible for survivors benefits which stops at age 22. So at 22 he has to apply for SSI which requires he prove he was disable before he reached 22. That required he submit the medial information with his diagnosis from 7 years ago. The clinic that made the diagnosis no longer existed so he had to request the information from the receiver who claimed they had no responsibility to supply the information because the time in state law had expired. So he gets a lawyer and finally gets his diagnosis. However, his application for SSI had expired since 18 mos has passed since he applied. So he reapplies and a year later he is approved. He received back pavement for benefits since the date he applied. So all is well but he had found a job that was paying him about $400 a month and that is above the limit for SSI payments so SS wants the benefits back which he has spent. I would go on but this brings the story up to date. He is still fighting with S.S because he has lost his job and should be eligible for benefits but SS won't start payments till he pays them back.

I have the mother of one of my tenants that moved in with her. She took care of her disabled son until he reached his 30's and finally died. He was a vegetable (no disrespect) but no other way to put it.

She used his disability benefits to take care of him, but of course after he passed away, the payments stopped. Now in her 60's, she has no SS savings of her own since she took care of him full time and couldn't work. She could have said to hell with it and let the state figure out how to care for him, but she did it on her own. But because she took care of him on her own, she saved the state millions of dollars and now has nothing for herself to live the rest of her life. Now living with her daughter and working part-time at a nursing home, she has no place to go.

For people like her, she should have some help from government even though she didn't pay into the system because she couldn't.