JustCare

Author: Nancy Altman

  • New Congress will work to expand Social Security and Medicare

    New Congress will work to expand Social Security and Medicare

    The 116th U.S. Congress reflects the diversity of our country better than any previous Congress, with more than a 120 women and more people of color than ever before in history. Nancy Pelosi – the only woman to ever be Speaker of the House — will be speaker again. House Democrats will work to expand Social Security and Medicare as well as improve Medicare to eliminate out-of-pocket costs and cover critical services.

    For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Social Security Subcommittee, chaired by Representative John Larson (D-CT), will hold hearings on expanding Social Security. And, for the first time, House Democrats plan to hold hearings on improving and expanding Medicare to everyone, Medicare for All.

    These are both issues that are important to Americans, irrespective of party affiliation. Not surprisingly, most of the new members of Congress campaigned on Social Security expansion and Medicare for All.

    Medicare for All is not only good for everyone under 65, it would mean a huge benefit expansion for people with Medicare today. It would end the Medicare premiums, deductibles and coinsurance. The premiums alone already eat deeply into people’s  Social Security checks. Medicare for All would also significantly reduce people’s prescription drug costs.

    Medicare for All also adds more home health care services that allow people to age in place and nursing home care for those who need it.  

    Public hearings on Medicare for All will show its benefits and how it lowers national health care spending. It will show how much more efficient social insurance—Medicare for All–is than commercial insurance. 

    Public hearings on Social Security will show that we can expand Social Security if we want. We can afford it. The majority of the public supports it. And, it makes sense as a public policy priority to ensure the financial security of older adults and their families.

    The House hearings will expose the vast difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Republicans in Congress and President Trump threaten our economic security. Democrats are working hard to strengthen it. In the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, when he signed Social Security into law, “If…the House of Representatives in this long and arduous session had done nothing more… the session would be regarded as historic for all time.” 

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Employers should advocate for increased Social Security benefits

    Employers should advocate for increased Social Security benefits

    Prior to Social Security, enlightened employers sought to provide older employees with pensions, rather than just discard them at the end of their work lives. Providing old age pensions is not just good for the retired employee. It helps businesses thrive. Older workers who retire with adequate income allow younger employees to advance, and demonstrate to those younger workers that, after a lifetime of hard and loyal work, they too will be secure in old age.

    However, the reality has always been that individual employers, on their own, are generally unable to provide their retired workers with guaranteed and secure income sufficient in amount to allow those workers to maintain their standards of living throughout their retirement years. Prior to the enactment of Social Security, employer-sponsored pensions were rare and generally insecure. Indeed, in 1925, just two companies —the Pennsylvania Railroad System and the New York Central Lines—employed 40 percent of all employees covered by private pensions. Moreover, between 1929 and 1932, almost 10 percent of all existing pension plans were discontinued, closed to new employees, or suspended.

    Social Security changed the face of retirement. Prior to the enactment of Social Security, the verb “retire” did not mean what it means today. It was generally used to mean to withdraw temporarily, as, for example, to retire to the bedroom at the end of the evening. The first known usage of the word “retiree,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, was in 1935, the year Social Security was debated in Congress and enacted into law. It was only in the 1940s, once Social Security started to pay monthly benefits, that the word “retiree” became commonly used.

    The evolution of the “retirement” language is not hard to understand. Social Security made the possibility of retiring from work in old age something that all workers could imagine. Social Security provides a secure, independent retirement, with guaranteed monthly income. It replaces wages throughout the retirement years, until death, no matter how long one is fortunate to live.

    But Social Security benefits have never been large enough to allow workers to maintain their standards of living without supplementation. Unfortunately, employer-sponsored supplemental plans have serious shortcomings that Social Security does not have. So-called defined benefit plans are expensive and complicated for employers to administer, because plan sponsors must satisfy minimum funding rules, comply with reporting requirements, and be subject to fiduciary responsibilities. Moreover, employers shoulder the investment risk and are responsible for funding shortfalls in these arrangements.

    Those complications, expenses and risks are among the reasons that private-sector defined benefit pension plans are disappearing. While so-called defined contribution plans (such as 401ks) do not have those disadvantages, they have other serious disadvantages. Under those arrangements, where the worker bears the investment risk, market downturns at retirement age can be devastating. For this and many other reasons, retirement savings plans have proven to be inadequate for most workers.

    Social Security has the advantages of both defined benefit and defined contribution arrangements with none of the disadvantages. It is excellent for employers and employees alike. It is easy for employers to administer, requiring only the collection and transmission of contributions. Yet its benefits are guaranteed and cannot be outlived.

    Employers match their employees’ Social Security contributions dollar-for-dollar. In recognition of this fact, past employers appropriately claimed credit for the Social Security benefits their employees earned. Like other fringe benefits they offered, past employers astutely listed Social Security’s life insurance, disability insurance, and joint and survivor retirement annuities as benefits their employees would earn during their employment years.

    Unlike in the past, today’s employers generally fail to claim credit for Social Security, but they should. Taking credit for this valuable and extremely popular employment benefit is not only accurate, it would provide an important educational role, since Americans are often unaware of Social Security’s survivor and disability protection unless and until they need them.

    In addition to taking appropriate credit, employers should join the fight to expand Social Security. The Democratic Party has recognized that Social Security’s modest benefits should be increased in conjunction with restoring the system to long-range actuarial balance. In the next Congress, Representative John Larson (D-CT), will chair the Social Security Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. He plans to hold hearings on expanding Social Security. There is a high likelihood that expansion legislation will pass the House of Representatives, providing momentum for action in the Senate.

    Legislation to expand Social Security and restore it to long range balance will undoubtedly require some increase in employer contributions, but employers should encourage its enactment. Its benefits will far outweigh its costs.

    The nation is facing a looming retirement income crisis where workers will be unable to retire and maintain their standards of living. Age discrimination laws properly prohibit employers from firing older workers simply because of their age. An expanded Social Security will provide those older workers with greater opportunity to enjoy some leisure after a lifetime of work. It will also lower employer costs, since older workers are often the most expensive, and allow younger workers to move forward in their careers.

    Moreover, retirees are consumers. As they age, they tend to stop saving and start spending what savings they were able to accumulate during their working years. The goods and services they purchase are essential for a strong economy. A report published a half-decade ago found that Social Security’s combined payments in 2012 resulted in the production of approximately $1.4 trillion in economic output, the creation of over 9.2 million jobs, and an increase in the tax revenues of local, state, and federal governments that exceeded $222 billion. And that was a half-decade ago. Those positive effects are substantially larger today. And an expanded Social Security would produce even greater returns.

    Back in the 1930s, visionary business leaders like Eastman Kodak’s Marian Folsom understood the importance of Social Security. They supported its enactment and expansion. They recognized that providing workers with a foundation of economic security, an earned benefit to which both employers and employees contributed, was in the best interest of both. As Folsom explained, “The social security system is a keystone in the economic security of millions of individuals and of the country as a whole.”

    That is still true today. Enlightened business leaders should seize the opportunity to support the expansion of Social Security, following in the footsteps of their predecessors.

    This article originally appeared in Forbes.com

    If you want Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Social Security benefits will rise 2.8 percent in 2019, but checks may not

    Social Security benefits will rise 2.8 percent in 2019, but checks may not

    As a result of inflation, people on fixed incomes find that their incomes decline in value over time.  One extremely important feature of Social Security is that its benefits are adjusted every year automatically to offset increases in inflation, so that the modest, but vital, benefits do not erode over time.  It is important to understand that these adjustments are not increases.  They are intended to simply allow people to tread water, to maintain their purchasing power.

    Unfortunately, the government’s cost of living adjustment for Social Security is based on inflation experienced by workers and not by retirees and people with disabilities who are unable to work. Older people and people with disabilities have, on average, higher health care costs; those costs tend to rise considerably faster than overall inflation.  For that and other reasons, Social Security beneficiaries generally experience higher costs of living than workers, so Social Security adjustments are often inappropriately low.  Consequently, Social Security beneficiaries are not even treading water, but rather losing ground. Nevertheless, even inadequate adjustments are better than none.

    For 2019, Social Security beneficiaries will receive a cost of living adjustment or COLA of 2.8 percent, an average of $39 a month or $468 a year.  That is good news for Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom have little or no other income.  The bad news is that millions of people likely will not experience that full increase.

    Most people with Medicare who receive monthly Social Security benefits have their Medicare Part B premiums deducted directly from those Social Security payments.  For these people, Congress has provided that the annual increase in the Medicare Part B premium must be no larger than the Social Security cost of living adjustment or COLA.  (An exception to this rule is if you are higher income and subject to the Income-Related Higher Income Amount.)

    People who are protected can’t lose some of their Social Security benefits, but they can certainly see no cost of living adjustment, despite the 2.8 percent increase.  In 2018, about one quarter of beneficiaries saw no increase whatsoever and another 18 percent received a monthly benefit that was only $5.00 or less.

    People who do not have their Medicare premiums deducted automatically from their Social Security benefits can, indeed, wind up with less net income, despite the increase.  And, of course, in addition to premiums for health insurance covering doctors’ costs, there are premiums for prescription drugs, as well as costs for copays and deductibles.  As a result, instead of treading water, people are sinking below the surface.  Indeed, bankruptcies among those aged 65 and older are skyrocketing.

    This is unacceptable.  After a lifetime of work, Americans should have enough guaranteed Social Security to maintain their standards of living.  The solution is three-fold. First, Congress should enact a better, more accurate measure of inflation for people receiving Social Security benefits. In addition, benefits, which are modest, but vital, should be increased. Finally, Congress should improve Medicare by expanding it to cover such vital services as hearing aids, dental work, and vision care.  Premiums, copays, and deductibles should be eliminated.  And everyone should be covered.  Improved Medicare for All will improve the nation’s health outcomes while costing a fraction of what we pay today.

    It is long past time to enact a more accurate cost of living adjustment for Social Security, expand its benefits, improve Medicare, and extend it to everyone.  That is profoundly wise policy.  It also represents the views of the vast majority of us.

    If you want Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • The truth about Social Security

    The truth about Social Security

    President Franklin Roosevelt signed our Social Security system into law eighty-three years ago today, on August 14, 1935. It has stood the test of time.

    Social Security protects us against the economic consequences of risks to which all of us are vulnerable. Rich or poor, any of us can suffer a devastating, disabling accident or illness. Rich or poor, any of us can die prematurely, leaving young children behind. Rich or poor, all of us hope to grow old. When we do, if we are to have a dignified and independent retirement, we need a guaranteed steady income which we cannot and will not outlive.

    Social Security addresses universal economic risks that have always been with us and always will be. That explains why more than 170 countries today have some form of social security. It also explains Social Security’s deep and longstanding popularity in our country. In a survey conducted in 1936—one year after the enactment of Social Security, before a penny of benefits was expended—68 percent of those surveyed expressed approval for the new and untested program. By 1944, that percentage was a nearly unanimous 96 percent. That high level of support has been consistent throughout the last eighty years.

    Despite Social Security’s more than eighty-year history, some elites either do not understand Social Security or willfully refuse to understand it. They talk about providing benefits to those who need them, as if the program were government largesse, which it is not. Rather, Social Security is insurance that is earned through work and paid for with premiums regularly deducted from workers’ pay.

    In addition, elites often speak as if the trust funds were some kind of gimmick, somehow less real than private pension trust funds. Perhaps most absurd are those who claim that what the creators of Social Security intended is not the program we now have.

    Indeed, today’s discussions of Social Security are replete with revisionist history—statements made today about what was or was not intended by its original creators and champions. Some of today’s revisionist statements are zombie lies: Claims made and refuted again and again over the last eighty years; claims that refuse to die.

    Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY), for example, has stated that Social Security “was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in ’37 and ’38 to take care of people who were in distress—ditch diggers, wage earners….” Nationally syndicated columnist George Will claims, “People forget Social Security was advocated … in the 1930s, as a way of getting people to quit working, because they thought we were confined to a permanent scarcity of jobs in this country.”

    Syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson in a column entitled, “Would Roosevelt recognize today’s Social Security?” even claims, “Social Security has evolved into something he never intended and actively opposed.” Samuelson, Will, Simpson, and the other revisionist historians are wrong. Indeed, to state it bluntly, those modern-day statements are all nonsense.

    Roosevelt’s and the other founders’ words and actions make clear that they envisioned Social Security to be a permanent part of the economy, once the Great Depression was history. They knew that the nation would return to full employment. When we did, the goal was to have in place Social Security and other programs that improved the economic security of all Americans and prevented, as much as possible, the human cost imposed by the ups and downs of all modern economies. In particular, Social Security was not designed to alleviate the suffering of people caught in the immediate distress of the Great Depression, nor to get people to quit their jobs. Rather, it was set up as wage insurance that people earned.

    This should be obvious to anyone with even a superficial knowledge of Social Security’s history. Because the architects knew that it would take time and work to earn Social Security’s benefits, the Social Security Act of 1935 was written so that not a single penny of those earned monthly retirement benefits was payable for seven years!

    But the absurdity of those revisionist historians goes much further than simply being wrong on the facts. They seek to expunge the far-sighted and noble vision of Social Security’s founders. President Roosevelt and those around him had a sweeping vision that still has yet to be fully realized.

    When Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act of 1935 into law, he described it as “a cornerstone in a structure which is being built but is by no means complete.” He and his colleagues were anything but short-sighted. They were not simply and solely focused on the immediate distress caused by the Great Depression, as the revisionists would have us believe. Rather, they saw Social Security as a “cornerstone,” a beginning on which to build.

    Despite today’s revisionists, the structure and size of today’s Social Security program is completely consistent and harmonious with what Roosevelt began. Medicare is consistent with a first step toward the vision of universal health insurance. The revisionists are wrong when they claim that Roosevelt would not recognize today’s Social Security and Medicare.

    He would be surprised that more progress hadn’t been made, but he would absolutely recognize how those who came later built on what he envisioned and began. Now it is our turn. It is time to expand Social Security and enact an improved Medicare for All.

    This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

    This excerpt was adapted from Nancy J. Altman, The Truth About Social Security: The Founders’ Words Refute Revisionist History, Zombie Lies, and Common Misunderstandings(Strong Arm Press, Publication Date: August 14, 2018).

    ________________

    If you want Congress to expand Social Security,please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • 2019 Social Security benefits should rise, but checks may not

    2019 Social Security benefits should rise, but checks may not

    As a result of inflation, people on fixed incomes find that their incomes decline in value over time.  One extremely important feature of Social Security is that its benefits are adjusted every year automatically to offset increases in inflation, so that the modest, but vital, benefits do not erode over time.  It is important to understand that these adjustments are not increases.  They are intended to simply allow people to tread water, to maintain their purchasing power.

    Unfortunately, the government’s cost of living adjustment for Social Security is based on inflation experienced by workers and not by retirees and people with disabilities who are unable to work. Older people and people with disabilities have, on average, higher health care costs; those costs tend to rise considerably faster than overall inflation.  For that and other reasons, Social Security beneficiaries generally experience higher costs of living than workers, so Social Security adjustments are often inappropriately low.  Consequently, Social Security beneficiaries are not even treading water, but rather losing ground. Nevertheless, even inadequate adjustments are better than none.

    The actual adjustment is not calculated until October, because it is based on the inflation rate of the third quarter of this year, which ends September 30, over the third quarter of last year.  Nevertheless, Social Security’s actuaries project at the end of each year their best estimate of what it will be.  For 2019, they have projected a cost of living adjustment of 2.4 percent, an average of about $32 more each month.  In recent months, though, the rate of inflation has increased, mainly as the result of increased oil prices.  Consequently, it looks like the adjustment might be higher than 2.5 percent – perhaps even as high as 3 percent.

    That is good news for Social Security beneficiaries, many of whom have little or no other income.  The bad news is that millions of people likely will not experience that full increase; some may not see any increase at all and others might see a decline in their overall income, as the result of rising health care costs.

    Most people with Medicare who receive monthly Social Security benefits have their Medicare Part B premiums deducted directly from those Social Security payments.  For these people, Congress has provided that the annual increase in the Medicare Part B premium must be no larger than the Social Security cost of living adjustment.

    So, they can’t go below zero, and lose some of their Social Security benefits, but they can certainly see their cost of living adjustment go completely to health care costs.  For those who do not have their Medicare premiums deducted automatically from their Social Security benefits, they can, indeed, lose even more ground.

    According to the most recent Medicare Trustees Report, average costs for Medicare Part B, the part covering doctors’ bills, is estimated to increase by $327 in 2019.  The average cost for Medicare Part D, insurance for prescription drug costs, is estimated to increase by $63.  That is a total increase of $390.  For those receiving a Social Security benefit of $15,000 – and tens of millions receive less than that — the adjustment will only add $375, if the 2019 Social Security adjustment is 2.5 percent.

    This is unacceptable.  After a lifetime of work, Americans should have enough guaranteed Social Security to maintain their standards of living.  The solution is three-fold. First, Congress should enact a better, more accurate measure of inflation for people receiving Social Security benefits. In addition, benefits, which are modest, but vital, should be increased. Finally, Congress should improve Medicare by expanding it to cover such vital services as hearing aids, dental work, and vision care.  Premiums, co-pays, and deductibles should be eliminated.  And everyone should be covered.  Improved Medicare for All will improve the nation’s health outcomes while costing a fraction of what we pay today.

    It is long past time to enact a more accurate cost of living adjustment for Social Security, expand its benefits, improve Medicare, and extend it to everyone.  That is profoundly wise policy.  It also represents the views of the vast majority of us.

    If you want Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • 2018 Social Security benefits should rise, but checks may not

    2018 Social Security benefits should rise, but checks may not

    One of the strengths of Social Security is that benefits are adjusted annually to offset increases in inflation, so that the modest, but vital, benefits do not erode over time. Unfortunately, the government’s cost of living adjustment for Social Security is based on inflation experienced by workers and not by retirees and people with disabilities receiving Social Security benefits. Older people and people with disabilities generally experience higher costs of living than workers, so Social Security adjustments are often inappropriately low.

    Indeed, Social Security benefits have increased microscopically or not at all in the last several years. For 2018, however, the Medicare and Social Security Trustees project an increase of 2.2 percent.  (We won’t know the actual adjustment for another month.) That adjustment of 2.2 percent would make it the biggest increase in Social Security benefits in six years.

    The good news is that if this increase goes into effect, benefits for individuals should increase on average $28 each month The bad news is that millions of people likely will not see that full increase in their Social Security checks  — and some may not see any increase at all because their Part B Medicare premiums may increase.

    Most people with Medicare who receive monthly Social Security benefits have their Medicare Part B premiums deducted directly from those Social Security payments.  For these people, Congress has provided that the annual increase in the Medicare Part B premium must be no larger than the Social Security cost of living adjustment.

    People whose Medicare Part B premiums did not increase these last few years when their Social Security benefits did not increase–thanks to that so-called hold-harmless provision in the law–will likely now see an  increase in their Part B premium. They no longer will be held harmless. Unfortunately, the Medicare premium increase may absorb part or all of their Social Security inflation adjustment.  Consequently, the 70 percent of people with Medicare who have been paying an average monthly premium of $109 because their Social Security benefits have barely increased over the last few years will likely see no bigger Social Security checks despite the automatic increase.

    The solution is three-fold. First, Congress should enact a better, more accurate measure of inflation for people receiving Social Security benefits. In addition, benefits, which are modest, but vital, should be increased. Finally, Congress should expand and improve Medicare and move toward a more efficient health care system, with lower premiums. Though Medicare covers the most expensive part of the population, older adults and people with disabilities, it is much more efficient than private sector health insurance.

    With these solutions in place, Social Security benefits will be more adequate, will not erode over time, and will not be swallowed up by expensive health care costs.

    If you would like Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • House bill to expand Social Security responds to what public wants

    House bill to expand Social Security responds to what public wants

    Last week, Congressman John Larson of Connecticut, and 156 other congressional Democrats reintroduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to expand Social Security benefits. (There were 157 original sponsors, including Larson.  In just the last few days, one additional member has joined.)  More than 80 percent of the Democrats in the House sponsored the bill, responding to what the public wants. Right now, there are no Republican co-sponsors. Will Republicans sign on?

    The Social Security 2100 Act, H.R. 1902, would ensure that Social Security had the funding to pay more generous benefits in full through the end of this century. Beginning in 2018, it would increase Social Security benefits for everyone by around 2 percent. It would also rely on an annual cost of living adjustment specifically geared to reflect the spending patterns of older people.

    Today, the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment does not properly reflect increasing costs to older adults and people with disabilities. It does not take into account that they use far more health care services than working people, and health care cost inflation is greater than other costs.

    The Social Security 2100 Act would address our retirement crisis, helping to ensure the retirement security of tens of millions of Americans currently at risk of not being able to meet basic needs once they stop working. It sets the minimum benefit for Social Security at 125 percent of the federal poverty level. It affords working families greater economic security, strengthening the middle class.

    In recognition that Social Security’s old age, disability, and survivor benefits are intertwined, generated from a common benefit formula, the Larson bill combines its two trust funds into one.  This is a commonsense, long overdue change that simplifies and streamlines Social Security.

    The Social Security 2100 Act pays for all the improvements, while restoring the program to long-range balance by requiring the wealthiest Americans–the top 0.4 percent–to make Social Security contributions on earned income over $400,000 and by gradually increasing the Social Security contribution rate by 1.2 percent, from 6.2 percent to 7.4 percent, between 2019 and 2042.  That amounts to a .05 percent increase each year–or the equivalent of 50 cents a week for someone earning $50,000.  Polls and surveys show that Americans are willing to pay more to ensure that Social Security remains strong.

    If Republicans listen to their base, their constituents, the people they represent in Congress, they will join with Congressman Larson and the Congressional Democrats supporting this bill, helping to improve economic security in America.

    If you want Congress to expand Social Security, please sign this petition.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Republican New Year’s Resolution: Dismantle Medicare

    Republican New Year’s Resolution: Dismantle Medicare

    The New Year is a time of resolutions.  Consistent with that tradition, the Republican New Year’s Resolution is clear: Dismantle Medicare, ending Medicare as we know it. What’s most scary is that with Republican majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, they have the power to make good on their intention to destroy Medicare.

    To be sure, you are not likely to hear the Republican leadership talk about gutting Medicare.  Instead, they euphemistically talk about “saving” Medicare. Simply put, they are “saving” the government money by cutting Medicare spending and forcing older adults and people with disabilities to spend more out of their own pockets for their care–if they can even afford the medical care they need. Let there be no doubt that, in the view of the Republican politicians, Medicare (and Social Security, for that matter) need not continue to guarantee people’s health and retirement security.

    The truth is that Medicare doesn’t need “saving.” As the wealthiest nation in the world, the United States can afford a greatly expanded Medicare that offers far more coverage and covers far more people than it does today. In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, the nation’s Gross Domestic Product was, in real terms, a quarter of what it is today ($4.1 trillion in 1965 versus $16.7 trillion today.)

    Expanding Medicare is the way to provide high quality, cost effective access to care for everyone in the U.S.  Because we rely on for-profit insurers, the United States is unable to rein in health care costs or to drive the system changes that we need to improve our quality of care. Other countries have, essentially, Medicare for All, and pay a fraction of what we pay, frequently with better health outcomes.   We spend three times more per capita than Japan on health care, for example, and live, on average, around five fewer years!

    Ryan and the Republican leadership’s Medicare plan will only drive up costs and undermine quality further. They want to return the country to pre-Medicare days, allowing insurers the freedom to offer inadequate coverage or no coverage at all. “Free choice” in their world simply means freedom to fall into medical bankruptcy or to forego needed care. Medicare was enacted because commercial insurers were unwilling to offer older adults good coverage at an affordable price.

    The Republican plan will simply empower commercial insurers by giving people a voucher to help cover the cost of their commercial insurance. At the same time, it will disempower older adults and people with disabilities who will not be able to buy reliable cost-effective coverage they can count on. To make matters worse, the Republican plan proposes to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67; and, though it would permit people to use their vouchers to buy Medicare, the program will, foreseeably, wither on the vine, as a result of a vicious circle: Medicare will be available only to the oldest and least healthy part of the population, and so will become more and more expensive, covering people with the greatest health care needs, while commercial insurers cherry pick the healthy.  Even fewer healthier people will opt for Medicare, and the price will go up even more.

    Rather than giving all Americans the option of cost effective coverage through a robust federal Medicare program, people in Medicare today and their children and grandchildren increasingly will, under the Republican plan, be forced into a commercial insurance plan that they cannot rely on to meet their health care needs.

    We need to expand Medicare, not end it, if we care about the lives of people in the U.S. If the Republicans end Medicare, we are destined to have an unsustainable health care system that increasingly rations care based on people’s ability to pay. Medical bankruptcies will rise. And, life expectancies in the U.S. will continue to be shorter than in other countries.

    To stop the Republicans, I urge everyone who is old or hopes to be old someday to make your own Medicare resolution for 2017. Tell your elected leaders: Hands off Medicare except to expand it.

    Sign this petition and ask your friends to join you. Mobilize and make your voices heard. Then, as a resolution for 2018, we can all resolve to elect leaders who listen to us and have the good sense to expand, not destroy, Medicare.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Americans united around Social Security

    Americans united around Social Security

    These days, it can be hard to find issues upon which the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S. agree. But, the latest poll from Public Policy Polling shows that Americans are united around keeping Social Security strong. Regardless of race, gender, age or party lines, people want to increase Social Security benefits–not cut them–and have the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.

    Social Security benefits us all. It’s an intergenerational program that supports families. It helps ensure older adults, people with disabilities, and families where a breadwinner has died prematurely, have some financial security. In the process it allows their kids, grandkids, parents, and siblings to sleep better at night.

    Who supports expanding Social Security?

    • 75 percent of men and 69 percent of women
    • 69 percent of whites, 82 percent of African-Americans, and 79 percent of Latinos
    • 70 percent of 18-29 year olds, 65 percent of 30-45 year olds, 76 percent of 46-65 year olds, and 70 percent of Americans over 65
    • 87 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Republicans

    Presidential candidate Clinton and the Democratic leadership are fully aligned with the public, committed to expanding and not cutting Social Security. Now, it’s time for the full Congress to listen to the public and to unite around Social Security, expand benefits and require the wealthiest Americans to contribute their share into the Social Security Trust Funds.

    Expanding Social Security is smart public policy. Social Security is a critical source of retirement security. Few Americans still have defined benefit pensions, and 401k plans do not measure up in terms up guaranteeing retirement security. Americans are struggling to save, with as many households nearing retirement with less than $14,500 in savings than those with more, way too little to replace job income. Not surprisingly, 60 percent of older adults depend on Social Security for the majority of their income, and 33 percent depend on Social Security for essentially all of their income.

    In sharp contrast, presidential candidate Trump has never argued to expand Social Security, and he has flip-flopped in his commitment to not cutting it. Moreover, the Republican leadership, his Party’s leadership, have a longstanding commitment to cutting Social Security. If elected President, Trump will feel pressure to support his party on this issue. On this issue alone, Americans should elect Clinton.

    To support expanding Social Security benefits, click here.  

    ____________________

    For simple money-saving tips and advice, as well as peace of mind, subscribe to Just Care’s weekly newsfeed.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Trump doesn’t understand Social Security

    Trump doesn’t understand Social Security

    Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has released a new ad revealing that either he doesn’t understand Social Security or he wants to galvanize opposition to Social Security. His rhetoric undermines our collective security.

    In his ad, Trump wrongly attacks immigrants and refugees. Contrary to Trump’s claims, unauthorized workers do not receive Social Security. In fact, while they contribute to Social Security through their jobs, they cannot receive Social Security. Undocumented immigrants are not even eligible for means-tested welfare programs, like Supplemental Security Income.  There is no ambiguity or debate: They are not eligible for Social Security’s earned benefits.

    Unauthorized workers have billions of dollars in Social Security contributions deducted from their pay checks each year. Social Security’s chief actuary estimates that in the last ten years they have paid more than $100 billion into Social Security. But, under the law, they are not eligible for benefits.

    Donald Trump appears to be trying to undermine people’s confidence in Social Security. Yet, Social Security is a foundation of economic security for all of us.  It pays vital benefits to tens of millions of retirees, people with disabilities and many others, including nearly one in ten American children. Indeed, Social Security is one government program that old and young, Republicans and Democrats, all overwhelmingly support.

    President Eisenhower, recognizing Social Security’s enormous support, spoke of the “tiny splinter group” who oppose it. He added, “Their number is negligible, and they are stupid.” Let’s ensure that Donald Trump understands Social Security’s value and the benefits it offers to all Americans. And let’s not allow him and others who oppose our Social Security system to hoodwink the rest of us into believing things about it that just aren’t so.

    Here’s more from Just Care: