First it starts with raising SS age to 67...

[Javaman]

The door is then open. The concept of the "3rd rail of politics" will be revealed as a myth.

They will go after Medicare and Medicaid.

Chip, chip, chip; the pieces fall away.

Those paying attention won't be fooled by the slight of hand, but we will be shouted down as negative nellies for refusing to do the "hard" things during tough times!

Then comes the great dismantling when the next repuke comes in. And don't fool yourself, there will be a next repuke president.

The doors will already be kicked in, all the repukes have to do then is to pick and choose what they want and what they will toss over the side.

To quote Green Day:

Don't want to be an American idiot.
One nation controlled by the media.
Information age of hysteria.
It's calling out to idiot America.

[xchrom]

1. indeed. nt

[SharonAnn]

88. Should be PAST tense. "It started in 1983 with raising SS age to 67."

It's important that people understand that the delay in Social Security full retirement was done in 1983, almost 30 years ago, in Regan's administration.

That was also the time that FICA taxes were raised to set aside a surplus so that there would be adequate coverage when the Baby Boomers retired.

So, that part's already a "done deal".

It's not hypothetical.

"It STARTED in 1983 with raising SS age to 67."

[PoliticAverse]

2. The SS retirement age was already raised in 1983. n/t

[sinkingfeeling]

6. +1

[Divernan]

8. Think OP meant to say Medicare coverage

[BlueMTexpat]

35. Yes, I was only able to receive full benefits when I turned 66 ...

and that was almost two years ago.

[Alameda]

92. It was raised 2 months for every year after 1937, until it go to 1943

that is those born after 1937. Also, although I could have "retired" early, I would have had to pay back a dollar for every two over $11,000 I earned. Seeing as I was working, I didn't collect until I was 65 years and 10 months. I think it stays 66 for those born between 1943 and 1953, then it goes up again.

It's complicated, but the point is, they have been messing around with it for quite a while, but nobody seemed to notice.

I might also mention, we have not gotten a cost of living raise for two years.

[TheKentuckian]

71. Seems like a good enough starting point of a downward slide toward dismantling.

Incrementalisim at work.

[tekisui]

3. Yep. We are giving up what should be untouchable to the repukes.

The next repuke pres will be able to go hard after gutting it all.

[Marrah_G]

4. I agree

Much like what you see with Gov Walker.....now other states are looking at doing the same. It really is a slippery slope.

[A wise Man]

78. not necessary

Dems. have to stop being nice and start fighting back like mad dogs fighting the devil. Complaining here is only preaching to the choir.

[kenny blankenship]

5. Jam the Third Rail up their ass!

[bullwinkle428]

7. End it with a whimper, rather than a bang, and perhaps the

"great unwashed" won't even be paying attention. :banghead:

[Dappleganger]

9. Agreed, it is their foot in the door.

IMO even one day less than 65 or one dollar cut in benefits is too much!

[SnoopDog]

10. They don't want to pay us OUR money - instead they want to give it...

to the rich, war profiteers, and big business.

[WinkyDink]

14. Big Insurance.

[CleanGreenFuture]

11. Yup, chip, chip, chip until we're dead before we can benefit from it.

[MineralMan]

12. The age for full SS was raised a long, long time ago.

You can still start drawing at age 62, but if you want 100% of your payments, you have to wait. For me, it was until age 66. For my wife, it will be age 67. One of the things that may be a target for change is that early retirement at 62. I expect that to be under attack. I started drawing Social Security at 62, because I couldn't find work. I get 75% of what I would have gotten had I waited until 66. However, when I did the math, based on my actual life expectancy, it made sense to start at 62. Everyone has to do the math to figure out what is the best move.

Medicare, on the other hand, has always been fixed at age 65.

[Javaman]

18. It was bad then and it's worse now...

a repuke did it then.

It's now a democratic president suggesting it. If he gets this through, I can guarantee you, the repukes will have a free for all.

remember george w. moron* wanting to privatize it?

Do you recall all the demand by the tea party halfwits wanting to dismantle medicare?

This is only the beginning. This IS the slippery slope.

[bahrbearian]

44. He is not just suggesting it ,he is pushing it.

[Javaman]

52. Oh I know...

I just didn't feel like getting jumped on via terminology.

yeah, he is pushing it. And there are many here in DU saying he isn't.

[truedelphi]

67. Plus people here are applauding statement that the price

paid by seniors for MediCare will not be nudged up; it's just that the providers will see further payment cuts to their practice.

Rah rah, say the President's supporters.

But when the providers no longer provide (and in many areas of the nation, it is already difficult to see the gerontologists as they are getting so little in terms of payments that they are closing up shop) how will it matter whether or not the prices have gone up? If no doctors are willing to see MediCare patients, then what?

.

[SammyWinstonJack]

79. Yes he is.

:grr:

[WinkyDink]

13. 100% agreement.

[JackDragna]

15. You got it.

When the next financial crisis arrives, we've already set the precedent that SS is just another "government program" we can axe. The government will then likely do the same thing it's doing now: cut taxes, continue outrageous military spending, then blame the economic mess on programs that collectively amount to a hill of beans.

[global1]

16. Trying To Be Reasonable About This - Let's Face It.......

The 65y/o of today is a lot healthier and younger in mind and spirit than the 65y/o of their parents generation. The 65y/o of our kids generation when they get to that age will be even a lot healthier and younger in mind and spirit than us. Because our life expectancies have been increasing I can understand and even get behind raising the retirement age from time to time to keep pace with improvements in the health of the American People. This just seems reasonable to me.

I don't think any proposal will hurt those baby boomers now that are reaching 65. Any change in retirement age is directed to those now younger Americans. If I'm not mistaken and I'm 62 y/o - that in my lifetime the retirement age was at one time 62 and during my working years it was raised to 65. Can anyone verify that for me?

[Fire1]

19. You can retire at 62 with a percentage of your benefits. Full

benefits depends on the year you were born.

[MineralMan]

20. You can still start drawing SS at age 62, but you'll receive a

smaller payment each month. I wouldn't count on that continuing too much longer, though. You need to do the math to see whether it makes sense to start receiving SS at age 62 or not. For me, it made sense, and actually prevented economic collapse in my household. For others, it does not make sense.

One caveat: If you take SS before your full retirement age, the income you can earn without having your SS payments reduced even further is limited until you reach full retirement age. You need to plan carefully.

[former9thward]

22. Your are not accurate.

The retirement age was never 62 for full benefits. FDR set the retirement age at 65 when SS was started because that was the life expectancy age at that point. Very few were expected to draw on SS. Do you really think we should have to work until we drop dead? Who cares that our health has improved? That should be a good thing. Not something to be used against us.

[global1]

37. I Don't See This As Being Used Against Us Or Working Til We Drop Dead.....

I see it that a Senior's life and contribution to society can be extended and make us feel like we have and can still make a contribution to society. I find it ridiculous that AARP begins recruiting you at age 50. The only reason being IMHO is that they want to sell you something. They want their hands in your pocket to fleece you to buying into something you might not need or want.

Seems like we have this M.O. in this country that being old means being sick and useless. I for one want to continue working as long as I could and as I feel good. I can still be an active participant and make a contribution and still enjoy life as well. When the time comes that I'm really forced to retire because I can't do the job anymore or may really be disabled or sick - that's when I'd like to have a safety net to take care of me. That safety net is what I paid into the system - a system I supported all my working life.

I feel that I helped people in their time of need by supporting that system and that - yes - I'm now "entitled" to that same support.

Notice I used the word "entitled". I didn't use it with the negative connotation that Repugs use it. I used it in the sense that I paid in and now I'm cashing out. It was an insurance policy that I bought into and paid for all my working life. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

[Fire1]

41. Thank you, global1! You said it much better than I did, obviously.

[former9thward]

50. If you wish to work as long as you can that is fine.

We don't have mandatory retirement in the U.S. except in a few specialized jobs (pilots, etc.). So even if you become eligible for SS you still can work. But I think we work way too long and I support full benefits at 62 or even lower.

[WatsonT]

89. So then wouldn't FDR approve of setting SS full benefits at somewhere in the late 70s?

If that's the standard he used.

[roxiejules]

46. Older people today look younger because of

the easy access to hair dye, cosmetic procedures and the youthful appearance of today's clothing 'styles'. They don't seem any healthier to me, just more involved in 'vanity'.

Left out of the equation is WHERE are the seniors going to work until they can retire?

[Fire1]

49. Cosmetic procedures are expensive and people have been

dying their hair since the 40s and 50s. So, that's not it. People are exercising more, getting more check-ups, screenings and taking preventative measures. We've learned alot about the effects of stress, anxiety and depression that we didn't know 30 or 40 years ago. There are many aspects that contribute to why this generation manages to look AND feel younger.

[roxiejules]

51. It was the 60's

before do it yourself hair color really caught on and was affordable for the general public. It has made a huge difference in how women look.


1950: Miss Clairol Hair Color Bath launched. This is the first one-step hair color product for professional (salon) use.

1956: Miss Clairol Hair Color Bath—the first at-home permanent hair color—debuts.

1965: Clairol launches Nice 'n Easy—the first shampoo-in hair color—with the catchphrase, “The closer he gets, the better you look.”

Even by 1956, when Polykoff was assigned the Clairol campaign, hair dye was still considered something only tawdry women used.

To counter the stigma of hair color and create a wholesome image for Clairol, early print ads—some of which were shot by fashion photographers Richard Avedon and Irving Penn—featured girl-next-door-ish models accompanied by children sporting locks of the same shade. The idea was to skew toward the sentimental, not the tawdry.

“Does she…or doesn’t she?” became one of the most effective campaigns of the time: Within six years, 70% of all adult women were coloring their hair, and Clairol’s sales increased 413%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairol

[Fire1]

63. Ok. But that's still not it. n/t

[right2bfree]

76. Nonsense! Many people are on medications now, and they are overweight too, compared to the past. nt

[WorseBeforeBetter]

68. Hair dye was used in ancient times.

Cosmetic procedures are expensive. And I don't know too many grandmas stocking up at Hollister or Abercrombie, but for the grandkids.

Good question about where seniors will work until retirement, though. According to some Third Wayers on this board, seniors will be THRILLED to work at Walmart as greeters. Ain't life grand?!

[WatsonT]

90. Also they live longer and have access to better healthcare

with the internet we have access to a vast repertoire of knowledge that we for some reason refuse to use.

And people always assume that their plight is the worst plight in history.

[Kermitt Gribble]

48. Because 44 years in the workforce is not reasonable, right?

This will hurt people who do not have a fat pension or 401K to retire on at an earlier age.

[Yo_Mama]

53. IT'S ALREADY 67!!!!

It was raised in stages years ago. People my age can't retire with full benefits until they are 67.

Most people retiring now are 66.

No, the full retirement age was always 65. At 62 1/2 you can retire early on lower monthly stipend.

This is really a SS benefit cut for the lower income workers. Most people won't be able to work until 67 - lose a job even at 59/60, and you just don't get another one. You are relegated to Lowe's or Walmart, and those jobs are running out. So people with savings will be able to hold out a lot longer, but people who are poor are forced to take early SS retirement.

[JVS]

58. Maybe among the affluent

[right2bfree]

75. Nonsense. I have seen classmates who look and act like they are 10 years older then me. Genetics. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Oh, yes! 65 is young now!

Life expectancy for African American Males is currently 70.9 years. So if you think 67 is a good age to retire, for some you are saying work until the last 4 years of life. White women, it is over 80 years. So any chance you want to share which group you are in?

[eilen]

81. Not necessarily

People in their late 50's to late 60's are the largest cohort at my hospital. People are coming in younger and younger with chest pain/heart disease- 40 and up now. First time cancer diagnosis have larger number in 50's-60's.

People live longer and healthier because of medical/surgical interventions. When people can't access them d/t costs and lack of insurance, they die.

[emmadoggy]

93. Maybe - but...

Consider this - The U.S. is already behind most of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia in life expectancy. Think about the fact that we do not have government run health care like those other countries. Think about the problems we are facing right now and the band-aids and half-measures and cuts, cuts, cuts, the government is proposing to address those issues. Think about how the middle and lower class in the U.S. is sinking and losing standard of living. Income disparity is not being addressed. As I see it, we are devolving and going backwards. I'm not sure that in 10 or 20 or 30 years, that people reaching their 60's really are going to be as healthy and strong as those right now. At least not if the trajectory we are on right now isn't corrected.

Also, there are many very physically demanding jobs that after doing for many, many years are very difficult to continue doing into your 60's and certainly not 70's. People doing those types of jobs tend to take a pretty good beating over the years and are pretty worn down by the time they can retire. I think people deserve to have some golden years that they can still enjoy.

[SharonAnn]

94. No, full Social Security retirement used to be 65. 62 was always a lesser amount.

[Fire1]

17. If we sit down and let it happen while watching them chip

away at it.......?????

[WillyT]

21. I Want To Go The Other Way... Let People Start Taking Benefits At 55

So that people who want to retire early can do so more easily, and make room for employing the young and others who still want to work.

Raise the payroll cap to pay for it.

:shrug:

Current system: http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm

On lowering the age for benefits...

Here: http://www.calitics.com/diary/12132/another-reason-to-lower-not-increase-social-security-retirement-age

And here: http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/08/cash-geezers-lower-retirement-age-55-now

:hi:

[DURHAM D]

23. If you meant to say Medicare (instead of SS) -

The fix is very, very simple. Just raise the contribution to Medicare for employers/employees. It is very low. (.029 combined) It has not been raised in 25 years. I think it was raised twice during the Reagan administration but not again.

I assume the reason no one is talking about it is because they are trying to protect business owners. JFTR - I am a small business owner and have thought for years the amount needed to be increased so we would not arrive at this day.

Common Sense needs to be in the room. Someone please invite her in.

If some good Democrat doesn't raise this issue than I can only assume that everyone at the table wishes to destroy the program - including Obama, elected Democrats, and Republicans.

Where is Tip O'Neil when you need him?

[Javaman]

24. Of course it's simple, but honestly

in this climate when the repukes scream like babies over even a hint of raising anything, do you believe that they will raise the cap?

Hell no. They will call it some half assed thing like a old age tax.

And no, I meant SS. Obama stated that he's "exploring" the idea of raising retirement age to 67.

[DURHAM D]

25. Raise what cap?

[Javaman]

26. On the contribution to SS.

christ.

[DURHAM D]

27. I am not discussing SS - I was discussing Medicare contributions.

Apparently the OP meant to say Medicare - not SS.

christ yourself...

[Javaman]

31. And my post was about SS.

stay on the page.

If you want to start your own thread knock yourself out.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DURHAM D]

34. I see you have edited to cover your mistake. nt

[Fire1]

29. Full retirement age for SS for some of us is already 67. n/t

[DURHAM D]

39. I guess it is time to be more specific regarding SS/Medicare.

Born in 1942 - Full retirement age is 65 and 10 months.

Born between 1943-1954 - full retirement age is 66.

Born in 1955 - 66 and two months.

Born in 1956 - 66 and four months.

Born in 1957 - 66 and 6 months.

etc.

Born in 1960 or later - Full retirement age is 67.

Medicare age - is and always has been 65.

[Fire1]

40. 1950 is also 67. n/t

[DURHAM D]

42. Yes - everyone 51 and younger is already at 67. nt

[TheKentuckian]

60. and why the fuck isn't that enough? If you feel spry and marketable then work till you die

if you want but everyone isn't you. We age at different rates, some families die young. Some folks actually toil and can't keep up after a handful of decades.

Most importantly there will be less and less need for labor as we go forward. The only thing this does is steal from the people while killing our wages by purposefully creating a labor glut.

[dflprincess]

74. And some of us are just getting tired of working

and would like to be able to retire while we are still healthy enough to have some fun. - Maybe go on a trip or two and not worry about when I have to get home because I don't have enough PTO.

When I get get to 66, I'll have been working 50 years. I want to have some fun and never set my alarm clock again unless it's something I really want to get up for.

[TheKentuckian]

95. No doubt!

[Yo_Mama]

57. The tax needs to be raised a percent to 3.9%

That would be 1.95% for employer and 1.95% per worker.

[Zen Democrat]

28. You can still retire at 62 and get an increasing benefit up to the full benefit age.

And if you work longer, your ultimate monthly benefit increases with each year you work.

My Dad retired at 62 and has been drawing his check for thirty years. And before he was eligible for Medicare, he received health insurance through his union. That's all changed for us. Now, we can retire at 62 if we are wealthy, or have another family member carrying us on their insurance, but the average person at 62 today cannot retire before eligibility for Medicare. Extending Medicare eligibility to 67 would be a disaster for millions of people.

I wouldn't mind means testing nearly so much. I have a side of my family that is wealthy and a side that is working class. I do believe people that are retired and have a grand portfolio with dividends pouring in throughout the year can afford to pay a bit more for their Medicare benefits to cover the ones who dearly depend on it. I have an aunt who, without Medicare, could pay up front for her medical costs without insurance, and never miss the money.

I am NOT for means testing of SS. But Medicare? I could handle that.

[Fire1]

32. So far, means testing was only suggested for medicare. n/t

[DURHAM D]

45. In the beginning early SS trailed by 3 years.

Full retirement 65 - early retirement 62.

As full retirement age has gone up early retirement remains at 62. The split is now 4 years.

I think that the early retirement age should trail full retirement by only 3 years as a constant spread. I think policy should be changed effective by 2013 or 2014 because so many boomers are reaching early retirement years.

And for me another target is the non-working spouse of high wage earners who get a SS check for 1/2 the amount of their wage-earner spouse (while both are still alive) having never worked a day in their life. I don't know where this policy came from but it needs to change.

What do others think?

[Yo_Mama]

56. It would cost more

See, if you go out on disability you get your full retirement benefit. Plus you get early Medicare (Medicare after two years), but you get Medicaid in the interim usually.

If you take early retirement, you get less. So back when they raised the full retirement age to 67, they ran the numbers and they figured it would probably cost more to raise the early retirement age.

You can't save any money by pretending that old folks aren't old. The number of people able to work full time at 65 is not that great. If they try, they get stress illnesses. By that time everything from arthritis to high blood pressure is catching up with you. A lot of people have medical problems that begin in their 50s that aren't that serious, but as they get into their sixties their bodies don't deal with stress that well, so those problems snowball quickly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

83. That's my sister. Never work, married a millionaire and now, at 62, getting a SS check.

:shrug:

[DURHAM D]

87. Does it piss you off? nt

[Yo_Mama]

54. Wealthy retirees already pay more for Medicare

https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2306/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL2ZhbzJBM3pr

They also pay more for prescription coverage, and they get less of their drugs paid.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. 'More ' is a cute way to put it. How much more? Answer

not much more at all. And that is why those of you who post that never post the numbers.

[jwirr]

30. What they will end up with on the raising the age is that the number

of people filing for disability will go up.

[Yo_Mama]

55. That's why they didn't raise early retirement that much

They talked about back when they raised the full retirement age, but they realized it might cost more, because a lot more people would go out on disability and get their full benefit.

This way, if you are disabled after 62 1/2 you have take early retirement instead of disability, and you get less per month.

[JVS]

59. yup.

[guitar man]

33. It's stealing

That's what it is, pure and simple stealing. They are stealing something that, in fact,belongs to all of us who have paid in. I've been paying in since 1979 when I got my first real job in high school as a dishwasher.

The only question that remains is, what are we going to do about it? If someone broke into your house and was stealing your possessions, how would you react? I see no difference in what is happening here.


Every working class person in this country like me should be LIVID.... MILITANT...UP IN ARMS over this proposed theft, and we shuld treat thes thieves as we would any other, :grr:

[Fire1]

43. Go get em!! n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

85. It is stealing and they know it and don't give a rat's ass.

And why don't they give a rat's ass? Because they have their cushing pensions that they will collect at whatever age.

How about we raise their retirement age to whatever age they raise SS. Good enough for the rest of us, should also be good enough for them.

[NNN0LHI]

38. Been trying to warn of this for over ten years but no one wanted to hear it

Problem is the factory workers building our imported stuff don't contribute any of their earnings to our social programs. But we still have all the people who used to do those factory jobs here needing to collect from our social programs.

This really is not all that complicated. Its not rocket science. Its common sense.

Don

[moondust]

47. That's right.

Obama is making a mistake if he lets them chip anything off because it will just lead to more. Big chunks, little chunks, whatever they can get; it all adds up. Like taxes on corporations and fat cats, once they succeed in chipping some off they'll never allow those chunks to be put back on--as long as dumb voters keep sending them back to Washington in significant numbers.

Scenes from Hell, coming to a sidewalk near you!

[eilen]

84. Let's them? It's his plan!!!! nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

86. Yes it is and he needs to be called on it! 2012 my ass! And NO, I am NOT in!

If he pulls this crap, a whole lot of people won't be in!

Think he knows that? :shrug:

Bet he doesn't care! :grr:

Maybe the PTB and the repugs told him, "You 'fix' SS/Medicare and we'll 'fix' the election."

Because he can't really believe people will turn out in large numbers to vote for him after this bs, can he?

[closeupready]

61. No changes.

None.

[bananas]

62. k&r nt

[treestar]

64. No, I wouldn't find it that worrisome.

Look at it from a right wingnut's point of view. It started during the FDR administration right? They'll never be able to get rid of it now. It's way too established. So the age - that's just tinkering.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

73. "Tinker"...

: to repair, adjust, or work with something in an unskilled or experimental manner
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tinkering

: Attempt to repair or improve something in a casual or desultory way, often to no useful effect.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=tinker&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=au0gTrHKHMnV0QGl5cjOAw&ved=0CBUQkQ4&biw=1004&bih=586

: to busy oneself with a thing without useful result
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tinker

But hey, you're finally right about something!

[myrna minx]

65. K&R n/t

[bvar22]

66. Well, the sensible Centrists have always claimed that Obama...

...was an "incrementalist".
I fear they are correct.

[kenny blankenship]

69. Incrementalism explained:

[MichiganVote]

70. K&R

[sarcasmo]

72. Working till you drop the American way.

[Cereal Kyller]

77. K

R

[Cherchez la Femme]

91. Completely accurate, except

instead of "Chip, chip, chip..."

it will become Chop, chop, chop!