Would you agree to any changes to Social Security or Medicare?

[kentuck]

Do you think we should raise the limit on SS contributions? Would that not be appropriate at this time? Should there be a limit on income level and FICA contributions?

Should any part of Medicare be means tested? Should retired millionaires get coverage at same price as those elderly at poverty level?

Can you think of any changes that you could agree to with either of these programs?

Many people talk as if there feet are in concrete when it comes to SS and Medicare but on closer inspection, they are not against some changes.

[daa]

1. Scrap the Cap nt

[DCKit]

29. For sure. Forbes "Top 400" averaged >$349 million in income.

That's nearly a million/day, folks. x400.

[MineralMan]

2. There have already been many changes in SS and Medicare.

I believe the cap on SS and Medicare taxation should simply be removed. That would fix most of the problems.

Means testing would be pretty futile. The wealthy go where they want for medical care and pay whatever the costs are. So, I don't see that as much of a change.

They've already raised the retirement age. I'll be 66 this year. I finally reach full retirement age, and can earn as much as I wish without reducing my payements, which I started at 62. That will let me increase the amount of contract work I'm doing. I took SS at 62, because I couldn't find contract work for a while.

There will be changes in both programs. I'm not sure what they will be, but there will be changes, I'm sure.

[NYC_SKP]

3. They have to raise or eliminate the cap.

I'm undecided about whether or not benefits should be means tested, but I lean toward "yes".

I'd give a couple years on the retirement age in exchange for these improvements.

People are living longer, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[doc03]

4. I would agree to raise the retirement age slightly over time. I

think they could make all income subject to FICA then lower the percentage of contribution. I am totally against means testing, that makes it a welfare program.

on edit: I think it would be better to raise the early retirement age gradually to maybe 63 0r 64 but leave full retirement as it is.

[SharonAnn]

12. No, people can't keep working longer. Many jobs require physical stamina

that simply isn't present in older people.

People are not really living longer. The maximum age hasn't really changed.

More people may be living long enough to retire, but that's a different thing.

There's nothing wrong with the current age and structure, it's the financing that may be a concern 20 years from now.

BTW, since when did we, as a country, start addressing problems that MAY exist 20 years down the road? We're not dealing with today's problem, nor tomorrow's problems, but I'm supposed to believe that it's critical to deal with a potential problem 20 years from now?

The reason the right-wing wants to go after Social Security is because "that's where the money is". They stole it "fair and square", by using it to fund tax cuts and government expenses so they wouldn't have to pay taxes, and they don't want to pay back what they stole.

That's the bottom line. They stole it and they don't want to pay it back.

[doc03]

20. People aren't living longer? I find that hard to believe. n/t

[Maine-ah]

31. and you shouldn't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/us-life-expectancy-_n_836662.html

New Record-High U.S. Life Expectancy

03/16/11 04:18 PM ET/AP

ATLANTA — U.S. life expectancy has hit another all-time high, rising above 78 years. The estimate of 78 years and 2 months is for a baby born in 2009, and comes from a preliminary report released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

About 2.4 million people died in the United States in 2009 – roughly 36,000 fewer deaths than the year before.

Deaths were down for a range of causes, from heart disease to homicide, so experts don't believe there's one simple explanation for the increase in life expectancy. Better medical treatment, vaccination campaigns and public health measures against smoking are believed to be having an impact.

U.S. life expectancy has been generally increasing since at least the 1940s, though some years it held steady and a few times it temporarily dipped.

[kentuck]

32. People that are dying today at age 78 were born around 1933...

They lived thru the Great Depression but they also reaped the largest rewards from SS and Medicare. They were the first generation to directly benefit from the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society. No doubt, this helped to extend their lives.

Will the next generation live as long? Perhaps, but there is no guarantee. We expect the Baby Boomers to have a similar life expectancy but who knows the toll that drugs, women, and rock & roll take on the body??

[quaker bill]

46. Yes, but

this is a tricky statistic. People who happen live longer, do live much longer. Fascinatingly this correlates pretty well with the socioeconomic scale. Wealthier folks have better healthcare and make their living on less strenuous jobs. They are living much longer. There is little measurable increase in lifespan for those further down the economic ladder. On average, folks who survive to 70 live do subsantially longer than they used to, thus the "average lifespan" increases.

[Curmudgeoness]

64. Yes, you should.

Studies show that although the "average" life expectancy is increasing, it is increasing substantially for the wealthy, but not for the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/us/23health.html

Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: March 23, 2008

WASHINGTON — New government research has found “large and growing” disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans, paralleling the growth of income inequality in the last two decades.

Growing Disparities Life expectancy for the nation as a whole has increased, the researchers said, but affluent people have experienced greater gains, and this, in turn, has caused a widening gap.

One of the researchers, Gopal K. Singh, a demographer at the Department of Health and Human Services, said “the growing inequalities in life expectancy” mirrored trends in infant mortality and in death from heart disease and certain cancers.

The gaps have been increasing despite efforts by the federal government to reduce them. One of the top goals of “Healthy People 2010,” an official statement of national health objectives issued in 2000, is to “eliminate health disparities among different segments of the population,” including higher- and lower-income groups and people of different racial and ethnic background.

Dr. Singh said last week that federal officials had found “widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy” at birth and at every age level.

He and another researcher, Mohammad Siahpush, a professor at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, developed an index to measure social and economic conditions in every county, using census data on education, income, poverty, housing and other factors. Counties were then classified into 10 groups of equal population size.

In 1980-82, Dr. Singh said, people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years), and it continues to grow, he said.

After 20 years, the lowest socioeconomic group lagged further behind the most affluent, Dr. Singh said, noting that “life expectancy was higher for the most affluent in 1980 than for the most deprived group in 2000.”

“If you look at the extremes in 2000,” Dr. Singh said, “men in the most deprived counties had 10 years’ shorter life expectancy than women in the most affluent counties (71.5 years versus 81.3 years).” The difference between poor black men and affluent white women was more than 14 years (66.9 years vs. 81.1 years).

[anneboleyn]

34. I agree, and I don't think we should require people to work into their late 60s and 70s just

because the average life expectancy is slightly higher now. For many people, one's physical condition starts to change in their late 60s (and I posted elsewhere that men and women who work labor-intensive jobs will really suffer if the retirement age is raised to 70). I know things have changed for my mother (she is 66 this year), and she is an extremely healthy woman whose parents and grandparents lived into their 90s. She was full of energy in her early 60s and, now, in her late 60s, she finds that her body just doesn't snap back as quickly as it did. She doesn't suffer from any chronic illnesses, either. That would make things much more difficult. My father is experiencing a similar change as he turns 68 this year. I just don't think we should raise the retirement age when people give their entire lives to their jobs as it is. People need some time to spend with their families and some time just to enjoy life while they can.

[anneboleyn]

33. I am 38 and I don't think so -- people work for decades in very tough jobs

and one's health starts declining rapidly in the 60s (at least for many people this is the case). I am not personally in that position (a labor-intensive job) but I have seen it with others. I agree with your edit, though I am not sure about raising early retirement either. And I just think it is uncivilized to force people to keep working until age 70 or so. We have so much wealth in this country; we can come up with a reasonable solution that allows people to retire at a reasonable age. I would even argue (outrageous these days, I know) that the full retirement age should be 60 so that people have time while they are still healthy (and I am talking about averages, I understand that some people are very healthy into their 80s and so on) to enjoy life, take a class, visit with children and grandchildrem, take up a hobby, spend quality time with a life partner, and perhaps even travel.

Any men or women in blue collar-type jobs requiring physical labor will be suffering unduly if they are forced to work until they are 70 to receive a full retirement. My relative worked with men who spent decades in very tough labor-intensive jobs, and many of these men were suffering from severe physical problems in their 40s and 50s, yet they could still not retire until 65. 70 is even worse. The whole (kind of sinister) reason for raising the retirement age is that the people who figure out these things know that many people will die from illness (many work-related) before they can even start collecting. The older they are when they retire the better -- one is paid less.

[plumbob]

5. Remove the cap on income for contributions. Then offer Medicare to all.

Not agreeing to anything else.

[MH1]

6. I'm for changes

but then I haven't been posting that any change = gutting, so you're probably not directing the question to me.

I'm open to raising the income cap for contributions.

I'm open to gradually raising the retirement age but only under certain very specific conditions that I doubt any one is talking about. 1, it needs to happen only far in the future so that folks getting anywhere close to retirement now don't have to watch the goalposts move; 2, it needs to be indexed in some way to life expectancy (meaning that planned changes only take effect if average life expectancy increases by a required amount); 3, there would need to be an expanded mechanism to allow for earlier retirement for people in physically grueling jobs (although if we had universal healthcare that would be a little less important because people would be in better health).

I'm leery of means testing because that takes the program away from being a universal program towards being more of a 'welfare' program that is for low-income people. Welfare programs are politically far more vulnerable than universal entitlements. Therefore, as much as means testing might make sense for other reasons, I would probably oppose it.

I might be open to some other changes but I can't think of them right now.

[doc03]

10. How would you define a physically grueling job? n/t

[OffWithTheirHeads]

14. Strap on 50 pounds of tools, a hard hat, work boots and coveralls

Then climb up and down a ladder all day with two 10 minute breaks to pee and a half hour for lunch. That is what I did for the past 43 years as a union sheetmetal worker. At 60, my body CAN NOT do this anymore. I defy ANYONE to try this for ONE DAY and then tell me we should raise the retirement age!

[kentuck]

17. When I was 50, I thought the retirement age might be lifted?

Even when I was 55, I had no problem with it.

Then I hit 62 and now I am 64. I think the retirement age should be lowered to 64 with early retirement at 60 for some professions.

[doc03]

19. I would say that is a hard job for someone that age. But then

again how would you define a grueling job? I worked in a steel mill would you define that as a grueling job?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

57. Depends. Do you manhandle railroad track all day or sit at a computer

Counting up the railroad rails someone else manhandles?

[doc03]

59. Either one could be a grueling job. A laborer at the mill may do

physical labor that is grueling on the body another job may have mental stress. In my earlier years I worked jobs that required physical labor but in my later years I worked jobs that required little physical labor. In my opinion one is just as bad as the other. In my last job I did very little physical labor but I was responsible for keeping the furnace supplied with all utilities and operation all the environmental systems. My last few weeks before they shut my plant down I worked labor and actually enjoyed coming to work for the first time in years. Since I worked both types of jobs over the years would they have a committee in Washington that doesn't know crap about the industry decide when (they think) I should be permitted to retire? We already have SS disability pensions for people that can no longer work.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

62. No argument from me.

[MH1]

30. Sorry, my post wasn't clear.

I don't mean that the law would try to specify 'physically grueling job'. What I mean is along the lines of some sort of early retirement based on partial disability such as might come from working at a physically grueling job.

Here's an example. I know a couple guys in commercial construction. They work HARD. (physically) They would be opposed to raising the retirement age because heck, they'll be worn out by retirement as it is. On the other hand, I know people who work office jobs who retire at the normal retirement age, then come back and work as 'consultants'. The folks in the latter group could handle a later retirement age. I'm betting that anyone who is for raising the retirement age at all, works in a job that's relatively easy physically. It's not that the other group is lazy or anything, just that they end up with all sorts of physical issues from the nature of their work.

For the record, I have one of those easy office jobs. I work hard, too, but no way in hell is it physically demanding like a construction job. That said, I take it upon myself to make sure I get up from the desk and exercise enough through the day, by walking over to other offices instead of calling for example. I'm sure if I didn't do that I could be AFU by 55 too. But in the jobs I'm talking about that's usually manageable.

To be honest, I don't know exactly how this would be codified. But I'd like to see someone try. Otherwise I most likely would not support raising the retirement age except as a last resort.

[pinto]

7. Yeah. Raise the SS FICA withholding limit and allow Medicare buy-in.

Follow-up on program inefficiencies and fraud, as have been mentioned in the budget discussions.

:hi:

[OKNancy]

8. I think they should raise the cap to, however most wealthy

don't get their money from wages, so maybe they should be taxed more and then the US could pay back the money they took from Social Security.
If Social Security is stable, then maybe there would be less crap floating around about getting rid of Medicare.

[customerserviceguy]

9. I've long outlined what I think would be acceptable changes

1) Raise the wage base, but only gradually on individuals, however the sky should be the limit as far as the employer's share. If some megabank wants to pay it's CEO $10 million a year, maybe we should only tax the first $200-300K of his pay from his check, knowing that it will raise his maximum benefit, but perhaps that megabank should consider it a cost of hiring him to pay 6.85% of the ten million as it's share.

2) Who says that the employer and employee shares should be equal? We could have a graduated scale where the most successful companies pay 1, 2 or even 3 percent more than the employee share. It would also raise revenue while creating no raises in the maximum benefit.

3) Consider moving the Social Security Disability program out of the SSA, and on to the general budget. I'm all for helping out disabled individuals, but why should that be solely the burden of a tax on wages, rather than on all income?

4) Recognize that some jobs can be done until 70 (like mine, for instance) and that 67 is too old to work in other ones. Establish a five-point scale for job difficulty (worker's comp figures should be helpful) and if you have the lousiest jobs, you get full benefits at 65, while the pencil pushers have to go to 70 to get the full benefit.

5) Revise the COLA's to reflect the cost of living as a senior, not as a member of the general public. As it is, most COLA's go to Medicare premium increases, a reform of that program could possibly reduce Medicare costs. That's the next bomb to blow up in our faces, anyway.

6) Finally, establish something that Al Gore was talking about when he used the word 'lockbox'. Put future surpluses in places where Congress cannot finance deficit spending with it. And that might require a balanced budget amendment to really be enforceable. Certainly if we ever have the Social Security Trust Fund ever be in a position to lend to the Federal Government, that fund should get regular, negotiable Treasury securities rather than IOU's.

[jpak]

Yup

Scrap the Cap

Means Testing for Donald Trump

Bargaining to lower prescription drugs

Allow folks to buy prescription drugs in Canada if they are cheaper

Lower the age of Medicare eligibility to 55

all good

[Dappleganger]

11. Give it to more people.

[howaboutme]

13. Yeah the TRILLIONAIRES

who are mostly the financial elite of Wall Street have benefited for 30 years by a government that has used this slush fund to fight their wars and pass out foreign aid and provide tax cuts for the hedge fund managers. They need to make it whole again. They need to restore it instead of pillaging it.

Let's raise the limit to include unearned income such as carried interest and qualified dividends. They've had an interest free loan from the working person's social security fund for decades and it is now time they repaid it.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Changes as in increased funding and benefits, yes... cuts, no

[GoneOffShore]

16. Scrap the cap

No limit on income level and FICA contributions.


Lower the age to collect Social Security to 55.

Scrap the War budget.

[Cleita]

18. Lift the cap altogether. No means testing. Everyone who

has paid into it should be able to receive benefits even if they are Warren Buffett. btw If we lifted the cap Warren would be paying for a lot of benefits for others so there is nothing wrong with him getting some back. The only change I would like to see to Medicare is to pay for dental and to pay for 100% not 80%. If you eliminated the Medicare Advantage privatizations and Medicare D as it is now, it could be done and also by raising the cap. Also, Medicare D needs to be scrapped and a prescription drug program run like the VA's to replace it. Oh yes, let's extend Medicare to everyone, young and old, poor and rich.

[juajen]

38. I love your post. You said it so much better than I. NT

[bluestateguy]

21. Yes. Get rid of the earnings cap on taxation

nt

[white_wolf]

22. Yeah I think we should do away with Medicare

and replace it with socialized medicine or single-payer for all, but if we are not going to do that than don't dare touch it.

[msongs]

23. raising retirement age = trying to keep the $ instead of paying back what workers paid in = scam nt

[grahamhgreen]

24. YES! I would like to PAY MORE into SS, so I can have more when I retire. That and raise the cap.

[Citizen Worker]

25. Scrap the cap as daa said. Lower the retirement age to 55. Turn Medicare into a universal single

payer health plan, which was the original intent of the program when it was enacted. Invert the benefits. In other words, the more you earned during your working life the less your monthly Social Security benefit. Conversely, the less you earned in wages the greater the benefit.

The problem with this is that the republicons in the House would never give these ideas a hearing and the democrats will put up a weak fight to preserve the status quo and there won't be any forward progress. As a nation we've been running in place or going backward for 30 years, and liberals think we've won! How silly is that?

[anneboleyn]

37. Amen, worker. I totally agree. Excellent ideas. Fair and civilized. That means the repubs will never

agree to them. But we can hope.

[DURHAM D]

43. SS is already regressive on the collection side and

progressive on the benefits end.

[sabrina 1]

26. Yes, make it illegal to touch the SS fund for any reason

other than what it was intended for. This fund belongs to the people paying into it.

Also make it illegal to privatize SS in any way.

Pass a law NOW, demanding that the funds borrowed from the SS Fund must be paid back within a certain time period, say two years.

SS doesn't need 'fixing'. Right now no 'fixes' are needed and the program is the most fiscally sound program ever created in this country. So successful that it had a surplus even in bad times like this when revenue is lower because of unemployment as it doesn't depend on just one source of income.

Raise the cap also, that would be the only 'fix' I would agree to.

Then, start increasing benefits to those currently collecting their retirement funds which would serve as a stimulus, not to mention the fact that the money is theirs and there will still be enough for future generations.

And start creating jobs. That is the best way to keep SS solvent.

[Lint Head]

27. I think they should change it this way. Pass a bill that says....

No damn congress person can touch the money in either SS or Medicare that the American citizens have had taken out of their hard earned money to contribute to and stop changing the damn regulations to the advantages of private insurance companies, hospital corporations and pharmaceutical companies. Blue Cross Blue Shield is being sued by the department of Justice and the investigation is being expanded to Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina who just bought the CIGNA arm of Medicare. That means a possible felon was allowed to purchase a tax funded Medicare contract and continue to have other Medicare contracts under Palmetto and Trailblazer insurance.
http://www.fiercehealthpayer.com/story/doj-sues-bcbs-michigan-stifling-competition-increasing-prices/2010-10-20
http://schealthcarevoices.org/2011/03/30/justice-department-investigates-blue-cross-blue-shield/

[truth2power]

28. NO. eom

[RebelOne]

40. NO. n/t

[Generic Other]

35. raise the amounts of benefits

cut the mercenary military to accomplish it.

[Mister Ed]

36. I would agree to extending Medicare to all. n/t

[iris27]

39. Absolutely. They should get rid of the cap.

I pay SS and Medicare tax on 100% of my earnings (double on the $2-3k a year I bring in from my side business). Why shouldn't CEOs?

[Yo_Mama]

41. People with high incomes already pay more for Medicare

On a sliding income scale, Medicare premiums do increase. For single filers it is currently:
>85K $161.50
>107K $230.70
>160K $299.90
>214K $253.70

[Bigmack]

44. Is that all? More than $214K only pays ...

$92 bucks more than somebody who makes $85K.

Shit... how about twice as much? If they make more, they can afford more.

[Yo_Mama]

56. I'm sorry - type

> 214K = $369.10

That leaves beneficiaries paying an awful lot for this insurance, which only covers payments to doctors. After a certain point, probably they would just not enroll, so you would lose the revenue. That's $4,429.20 per year.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. Scrap the Cap

And they already charge more for Medicare to those who make lots of money.

[me b zola]

45. Changes that I believe are necessary

Lower retirement age, drop cap, and medicare for all. Yeah, I support changes to the system :)

[MrMickeysMom]

47. Good question, and I think it should be means tested...

It's obscene for people who have not need to collect SS to collect it. It's there for those who DO need it. It's a safety net.

I also think we should clarify some laws that were designed for this budget to be separate from the general fund, as it was finally legislated in early 1990's.

[Cleita]

50. Conservatives love means testing because then they

can complain that the poor are getting welfare that they have to pay for. Boo Hoo!. Even very rich people are entitled to benefits that they pay for. That's like saying that insurance should be means tested. If you are rich, why should the insurance pay for the repairs on your car? I mean you can see that's ludicrous so why would you want to means test Social Security which is retirement insurance?

[MrMickeysMom]

52. It's paid for by a FICA payroll tax, which includes...

Medicare tax, so I can see your making that one point...

However... there what I feel is a basic argument on both sides... As you earn up the income scale, a smaller portion of the high income earners are put away for the FICA tax.

The first thing you need to get rid of is the sealing on the FICA tax, which I think is somewhere around $114,000.00.

[Cleita]

55. We need to eliminate the cap and we wouldn't

have any problems with Social Security or Medicare for a long time as long as the privatization schemers don't get their greedy fingers in the pot.

[Iggo]

48. Not by this Congress. (n/t)

[RegieRocker]

49. Any change I would not trust at this conjecture.

[Snoutport]

51. working til 70 is much easier for a desk job than a labor job...

[The Second Stone]

53. Remove the cap

require corporations to pay into soc sec, increase the benefits and lower the age for Medicare. Those are changes I can get behind.

[quiller4]

54. First, drop the cap. Second I would support a gradual rise in

the retirement age. I would also streamline the SSD application process so that those who are physically unable to work would have an easier time qualifying for disability.

[Bluebear]

58. Yes, make the monthly check more generous.

[MacNfries]

60. Yes to gradually increasing eligibility for both ... as well as adding COLA where appropriate

No doubt that as mortality and morbidity tables change, so should the eligibility & adjustments to these types of plans.

However, these changes should also bring about influencing attitude adjustments Employers have to hiring and retaining older employees.

MacNfries

[Abq_Sarah]

61. Eliminate the cap and means test

It's time to put this "savings account" bullshit to rest. It's a tax and it needs to be treated as one.

[FooshIt]

63. cut benefits to the rich

Why should you get it if you have so much money?