patrick.net

Well, burritos, for starters, it might help your argument if you were to know what you were talking about. Medicare is the health insurance, which you've paid for through deductions from your paycheck while you worked. Once you've paid enough quarters, Part A (hospitalization) is free to you. Part B, which pays for other medical care beyond hospitalization, currently costs $96 a month. You are eligible for Medicare when you are 65 years old, or after you've been disabled for 2 years according to Social Security's criteria.

Social Security is also known as Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance. You've also paid into that system while you worked. The amount that you draw is proportionate to the amount you paid in. Currently the retirement age is 65 years old to draw your full retirement amount. If you delay your retirement and continue to work, your benefits will be greater. You can retire early at 62, receive a lesser amount and not yet qualify for Medicare health insurance. Retirement age is increasing from 65 to 67 depending upon the year that the recipient was born. People who are disabled qualify for benefits if Social Security decides they're disabled - but they are pretty harsh with their decisions. Instead of weeding out those who aren't disabled, they're just plain cruel to those who are disabled. The Survivors part pays to the spouse of the person who has died if they're of retirement age - so the spouse receives the higher amount of either's income, but not both. It also pays for children whose parents have died until they are 18 years old.

SSI is Supplemental Security Income. It supplements the amount that RSDI pays because the amount that the recipient receives places them below the poverty level for the state in which they live. People who qualify for SSI also qualify for Medicaid because they live at or below the poverty level.

So, Social Security benefits are indeed being increased as you suggest, although not at the rate you propose. When RSDI was created, life expectency was shorter and therefore there wasn't a 30 year payout anticipated. However, if the amount that was paid into the system by each person had actually been invested instead of raped by our government, there would be plenty of money all around for each of the people who was retiring.

So, you see, SSI isn't on the table. The need for Medicare will change as healthcare reform takes hold. And RSDI is already changing.

For those who qualify because of living below poverty levels, I say don't change a thing. However, the ages where people start to qualify for for Social Security and Medicare are arbitrary and were determined when the expected life then is different than the expected life is today. So adjust accordingly.

Social Security age of retirement is adjusting accordingly. It's important to remember that Social Security isn't enough to live on - it was only meant to supplement the retirement income. As we're aging, many people are choosing to continue working to increase their benefits.

As I said, Medicare is the health insurance for the elderly/disabled. The concept is that they couldn't get insurance because they weren't working, but with healthcare reform some of that will change. Something that I also didn't mention is that people pay into the Medicare system the entire time that they work, don't stop after they've paid in their 40 quarters.

In other words, people have paid thousands into the Medicare system and still pay premiums when they have it. It's not so bad of a system if only we would use the money paid in to support it. And we need to completely stop the Medicare Advantage plans - which are HMO's & PPO's that pour dollars into the insruance companies pockets while limiting benefits.

Contrary to popular belief, people don't go to the doctor more than they need to merely because they have health insurance. By providing preventive care, Medicare helps hold costs down. That's the theory behind healthcare reform, by the way.

If you eliminate Medicare you won't have to worry about Social Security.

Yes, bad joke.

We could always eat the elderly.

Kevin says

We could always eat the elderly.

What a crazy idea. The downside is that aged meat is tough. The upside is that they'd be a lot easier to catch & shoot, especially if they're using a walker or jazzy to get around. Bonus - if they're using a jazzy chair, you don't have to carry them back to your vehicle (as long as they've remembered to charge the battery before you kill 'em).

Zlxr says

The only thing is people aren’t getting healthier. We have an obesity epidemic among other things. So if you raise the retirement age the people who can no longer work (but who can’t get disability) will have to go on welfare or die in the streets.
Keeping people at work beyond the age where they can really still perform their jobs can also be hazardous to agencies who keep them on. I’ve had co workers who fell on the job (because of bad knees, bad eyesight etc.) There are also many people who agonize every day due to carpal tunnel syndrome and they look forward to retiring at 62. Changing that date to 65 would really be disheartening. Also - many of the worst affected who have had surgery can no longer perform many of the tasks they used to do and it could cause a problem in older age with just being able to care for themselves.
Also some industries are too stressful physically for a person to do until the age of 72.
Furthermore, if people can’t retire until 72 - what will the young people do for work?
Your idea might work if you only apply it to the wealthy. It would also help if we quit using the money for other things and just used it for Social Security.

Maybe we can pay the people you describe to serve on jury duty.

elliemae says

Contrary to popular belief, people don’t go to the doctor more than they need to merely because they have health insurance. By providing preventive care, Medicare helps hold costs down. That’s the theory behind healthcare reform, by the way.

As someone who works at a Family Practice/Urgent Care I think people do overuse their insurance. I'd say that at best 25% of the people we see(with insurance/medicare), actually need to see the doctor. In other words, their outcome is unchanged whether they see me or not(minus the placebo effect). People who pay cash, I'd say that goes up to 50%(ie. they wait a little longer and are a little sicker before pulling the trigger to see an MD). Granted these people aren't medical professionals, but the worried well over using the medical system is not just popular belief.

burritos says

elliemae says

Contrary to popular belief, people don’t go to the doctor more than they need to merely because they have health insurance. By providing preventive care, Medicare helps hold costs down. That’s the theory behind healthcare reform, by the way.

As someone who works at a Family Practice/Urgent Care I think people do overuse their insurance. I’d say that at best 25% of the people we see(with insurance/medicare), actually need to see the doctor. In other words, their outcome is unchanged whether they see me or not(minus the placebo effect). People who pay cash, I’d say that goes up to 50%(ie. they wait a little longer and are a little sicker before pulling the trigger to see an MD). Granted these people aren’t medical professionals, but the worried well over using the medical system is not just popular belief.

But they're going to an urgent care, where costs are substantially less than an emergency room. The reason that most people go to an urgent care is because they either have something going on that's outside of their MD's office hours, or they don't have an MD. If they don't have insurance that same visit is made to the ER.

We don't want people deciding what's important and not important when it comes to medical care - if they're concerned they should see an MD. It just might save their life. 15 minutes at an urgent care is worth it.

Once again, my point is that your proposals are already in effect, although not in the exact fashion you've mentioned. The age of eligibility is changing for Social Security, not SSI. So when you say you've come up with a great way to fix the system, you're behind the times.

BTW, grandma might actually need to go to the doc. There are meds and treatments that need to be monitored. If the MD can't justify the need for the treatment to Medicare the bill won't be paid - and the doc can't legally charge the patient. Most MD's don't play the system by changing treatment codes - if they do they risk losing their ability to bill Medicare & Medicaid.

Lower premiums for staying healthy precludes those people who were healthy but suffered an illness or accident from benefitting from lower premiums. Anyone can have a heart attack or a stroke, break a hip, etc. Besides, does that mean that people whose family history includes cancer or cardiac problems should pay more because a disproportionate number of relatives were ill? Where do we draw the line?