Social Security not in Obama deficits plan: White House

[ObamaKerryDem]

Heartening news. I think the President has been on the right track since the big speech :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/15/us-usa-debt-obama-social-security-idUSTRE78E38X20110915

[Mass]

1. From later in the article, and less heartening

A senior administration official said the package Obama will recommend is still being finalized and it was not yet possible to say whether other reforms to government assistance programs, such as a change in the eligibility age for Medicare health benefits, would be included.

I am not sure whether the official was asked specifically about the age, or whether it is a comment from the reporter, but it is not reassuring.

[Blaukraut]

2. If they had any brains, they'd lower the eligibility age

As a matter of fact, Medicare for All would fix the cost problem once and for all. Of course that's never going to happen.

[ObamaKerryDem]

3. All too true point! But no, that's "socialism"..

:eyes: :thumbsdown:

I do think this shows that the President is not "behaving like a Republican" on this, though, as some (not on this forum but on greater DU and other places) have charged, that at least his heart is in the right place here..

[Mass]

4. Not raising Medicare age should be a no brainer.

The fact they do not seem ready to take it off the table is bothering.

[karynnj]

5. I agree

They KNOW the problem insuring the people age 55 to 65. In the Finance committee hearings on the ACA, Kerry lobbied to reduce the multiplier that could be used to get the rate for that oldest group versus the youngest group. He spoke of how this group often were without insurance due to forced losses of employment - making the high cost even harder to afford. The problem is that this is a more expensive group to insure because the expected costs are higher. It is too bad that they didn't go with allowing them to buy into Medicare as was proposed.

[Blaukraut]

6. I've been thinking about this and suspect a backdoor SS 'reform' here

If people are not eligible for Medicare until age 67, but can technically retire at age 65, how are they going to afford to pay for health insurance for two years on SS income? Hence, the majority of them will be forced to continue working until age 67 anyway, thus effectively having their retirement age raised via a backdoor.

[YvonneCa]

7. It's already been raised. My age group gets SS..

...at 66 (full benefits)not 65. I am still eligible for Medicare at 65. I am sure the age 67 SS mark will be phased in and coordinated whatever is decided on Medicare.

[karynnj]

8. 67 is already in the rules

Here's the table - http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm

I was surprised that the 66 started with those born in 1943.

[YvonneCa]

10. Thank you for posting that. Sometimes the debate over...

...SS doesn't seem to include that information. :)

[karynnj]

12. I only looked it up after your post

I knew that it was 66 for me and I know it changed a long time ago. It does seem weird that some of the Congressmen seem to be confusing the Medicare age (65) with the Social Security age (variable). As all seem to say that they don't want to affect the people very close to retirement, it is hard to understand what the "raise it to 67" would mean other than to adjust the schedule to make it happen earlier - which would impact those of us nearing retirement. It almost seems the change they are proposing was actually already used in the 1980s fix.

[YvonneCa]

17. That's exactly my take on it, too. The shift to age 66...

...for my age group has been in place for years.

I am very interested in the debate, and in whatever changes are proposed, because I DO want to keep SS solvent for my children. But small incremental age adjustments seem reasonable to me...in most cases.

[Inuca]

13. Yes, it is

it is the bracket for instance for my younger husband. No time to click on the link again now, but if I remember correctly, the 66 bracket ends with those born in 53.

[MBS]

9. I heard that Sherrod Brown was pushing to raise SS age to age 67

It's not just about Obama or super committee "caving" . For people not in physically demanding jobs (people with physically demanding jobs are an important exception), a modest raise in SS age even makes sense to me.

[Inuca]

14. I completely agree

The thing is though that it may be difficult to formally and legally categorize the physically demanding jobs. Some are obvious, some others not so much. And it should allow for medical exceptions as well, I think. But the basic idea, that for many people "60 is new 50" is definitely true.

[Inuca]

11. I am in the same situation, and

I am embarassed to say that I did not know about this until VERY recently, a couple of weeks ago when I went to the page linked to by karyn (I think I got there from Kos, of all places). It was quite a shock to see that I will not be eligible for full benefits until I am 66 (in spite of the fact that the estimates I get in the mail each year keep mentioning 65). I don't particularly mind, I have an easy job now, that hopefuly (likely?) I should be able to keep until then, and I am not partucularly fond of the idea of retiring in any case, but still.... By the way, I turn 60 next month :-(.

[YvonneCa]

18. Happy Birthday...

...in advance...to you! Embrace your sixty-ness...it is a GREAT age! :party:

[Inuca]

20. I'll try not to get too depressed

and enjoy the month and a bit I still have of still being in my fifties :-). When I turned 50, I offered myself a brand new small red car (I needed the car in any case). Money is more scarce now, so I guess I'll have to make do with some good ice cream :-)

[YvonneCa]

22. I think money is more scarce for...

...many of us. Ice cream is good... :hi:

[karynnj]

23. Happy birthday next month

(I'm already 61 - which sounds unreal when I say it.

[Inuca]

24. Unreal sums it up very well :-) n/t

[Mass]

15. Raising SS age is a very regressive measure (even with the protection against

difficult jobs).

Unfortunately, statistics are very clear on the fact that the life expectancy of poor people is much shorter than those of richer people, partly because generally they have much more difficult living condition, and because they do not have access to healthcare. So, they already benefit from SS a lot less than people above the median income (I refuse to use the term middle class, which has become dramatically meaningless. There is little in common between a family earning %40,000 a year and a couple of professionals earning $150,000 a year).

This will mean that these people will have paid (generally longer than people with a higher income, because they started to work earlier), and benefit a lot less of retirement. Raising the cap will make this even worse.

I favor raising the cap (and the Sanders bill is a good example, even if I favor raising the cap on ALL and make the FICA tax progressive, but this is probably socialism).

[Blaukraut]

16. Exactly right, Mass!

I was unaware of SS eligibility age having been raised already for people born after 1953 (I think?). My statement also uses 65 as the basis although apparently I won't be eligible until 67.
This raising the retirement age, like you said, is inherently unfair and would be very difficult to apply in an evenhanded way. I like your idea of raising the cap and making the FICA tax progressive. Socialism or not.

[YvonneCa]

19. I agree with both you and with Mass. My only point...

...was that this is already in place. Age 66 applies for those born in 1954 and before and the age increases by birth year until 1960, where the eligible age becomes 67.

My guess is that the changes proposed to the age requirement will continue this past 1960. I do think it is unfair to do that...especially if it is a stand-alone change. The changes you propose...raising the cap and FICA...should happen, too, IMHO.

Though I doubt anyone in government listens to me... :7

[Inuca]

21. I heard Sanders say a few days ago that

uninsured people live on an average 6 (or 6 and half, I do not remmeber exactly) years less than people that do have insurance. I do not mention it as a counter argument to what you said, only to say that I was surprised that the number was so low, I would have thought the difference in life expectancy to be much higher.