Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question: how would you feel if they raised the minimum age of Social Security or Medicare? [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)98. Medicare and Medicaid are not the same, nor is SSI and SSDI.
Last edited Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:11 AM - Edit history (1)
I am not saying you do not know that, but some here may not. Below is some information from my experience with disabled people and a few links.I have personal knowledge of persons put on SSDI prior to 55 who received Medicare 2 years later. Provisions are in place to retire workers before standard retirement ages and that will not change. Please note, I am referring to SSDI, the federal program, not SSI. AFAIK, the amounts given are the same as one who is going on full retirement, or at any rate, they are greater than those on SSI alone, who would qualify for Medicaid. Some qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, some do not.
Obama eased these more despite RW hysteria when he got into office. I have gone with people into the SSA office and found their attitude has changed greatly since Obama took office. They are much less adversial than I found them to be in the last few decades, IMHO.
Here is a little information to ease some of the concerns people have about any change in the retirement age. Although this comes up often, the increase in age was put into effect long before Obama. Here is something from a law firm citing the C. F. R.'s and easy to understand. ALJ stands for Administrative Law Judge, who is a frequent feature in initial claims. Contrary to RW propaganda, it is not easy to be declared disabled at ages beneath those listed above, unless it is a condition from birth, and that requires a lot of documentation:
Social Security Disability Law: Borderline Age
The Social Security disability regulations provide that the Commissioner will not apply the age categories mechanically in a borderline situation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1563(a). The Commissioner considers a borderline situation to exist when there would be a shift in results caused by the passage of a few days or months. Social Security Ruling 82-46c. The Social Security disability court decisions appear to refuse to permit the mechanical application of the age rules where the disability claimant is less than a few months shy of the next age category.
Regulations
20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1563(a), 416.963(a)
The regulations generally provide that age shall be considered a factor in determining whether a claimant is disabled. However, the regulations specifically provide that the age categories will not be applied mechanically in a borderline situation. The regulations were amended in April 6, 2000 to clarify that if a persons age category changes during the period for which SSA is adjudicating a disability claim, SSA will use the age category that is applicable to the person during the period for which SSA is deciding if the person is disabled. See 65 Fed. Reg. 17994, 17995(April 6, 2000). SSA further explained that in borderline age situations, SSA will not apply the age categories mechanically, and that a borderline situation means that the individual is within a few days to a few months of reaching a higher age category.
Tip
If you are close to a critical age, such as 50, 55 or 60, examine if the Medical-Vocational Guidelines dictate a finding of disability once you reach the next age category. If so, have your attorney argue at the hearing that the ALJ should consider you disabled six months prior to this key birthday.
Rulings
Social Security Ruling 83-10
Social Security Ruling 83-10 provides that older age is an increasingly adverse vocational factor for persons with severe impairments. *The chronological ages 45, 50, 55 and 60 may be critical to a decision.* The ruling notes that the regulations also provide that the age categories shall not be applied mechanically in borderline situations. For example, a rule for an individual of advanced age (55 or older) could be found applicable, in some circumstances, to an individual whose chronological age is 54 years and 11 months (closely approaching advanced age). No fixed guidelines as to when a borderline situation exists are provided since such guidelines would reflect a mechanical approach.
Acquiescence Ruling 88-1 (11)
AR 88-1(11) was issued in response to the Patterson v. Bowen, 799 F.2d 1455, 1458 (11th Cir. 1986), decision in the Eleventh Circuit (discussed below). In cases where the claimant resides in Florida, Georgia or Alabama at the time of the determination or decision at any level of administrative review (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing or Appeals Council) and (1) the issue of disability is resolved at the last step of the sequential evaluation process; (2) the Medical-Vocational Guidelines would otherwise direct a decision of not disabled; and (3) the claimant offers substantial credible evidence of his or her physical or mental impairments as proof that the ability to adapt to other work is less than the level established under the Medical-Vocational Guidelines for individuals of the particular age, a specific finding must be made as to the claimants ability to adapt to a new work environment.
http://www.jamesdisabilitylaw.com/borderline-age-legal.htm
This issue comes up often in threads, as if it a new program. It is not new, it has been expeced for decades. The increase in retirement age was enacted under Reagan. It should not, as I posted the link above, impact a person who is unable to work anymore. *I found this to be a great help to those who worried about age and have seen it applied.*
The upper level should be for those who are in good health. I have been surprised to find people who have just retired in their sixties, drawing pensions from their employment, social security and starting second careers making more than they did before. They are in fine shape (they were not doing physical work) and an older age for recieving social security will not impact them. We are simply getting closer to the timeline set in the eighties, AFAIK:
SUMMARY of P.L. 98-21, (H.R. 1900)
Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983
...Raises the age of eligibility for unreduced retirement benefits in two stages to 67 by the year 2027. Workers born in 1938 will be the first group affected by the gradual increase. Benefits will still be available at age 62, but with greater reduction...
http://www.ssa.gov/history/1983amend.html
I hope this helps those worried.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
258 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Question: how would you feel if they raised the minimum age of Social Security or Medicare? [View all]
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
OP
with Obamacare, insurers might oppose raising the age, and it might add to the deficit anyway
CreekDog
Nov 2012
#191
totally agree - no one takes into account the kind of work 90% of us do.
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#62
Give the desk jockeys a break, we're all in this together. The attitude you project about those
Egalitarian Thug
Nov 2012
#129
The pay is definitely an an issue even though many office guys make less that physical work.
Egalitarian Thug
Nov 2012
#163
i'm urging folks to start thinking about what you're able to do to prevent this
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#190
But you posted incorrect information about disability and Medicare, claiming that
Bluenorthwest
Nov 2012
#227
If you are trying to make a point, spit it out. Using questions is like Hannity. nm
rhett o rick
Nov 2012
#111
I'm 51. I do NOT believe "Social Security" as we know it now will be in effect when I'm 60, 65...
cherokeeprogressive
Nov 2012
#11
The Soc Sec trust fund is intact. In fact it runs a surplus. Which is invested in interest-bearing
pinto
Nov 2012
#205
precisely -- but, the good thing is that it hasn't been taken seriously in this latest debate.
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#234
I agree, it should stand on its own. And does. Soc Sec payments aren't borrowed money.
pinto
Nov 2012
#237
If you were born in 1960 or later, your full benefit age is already 67.
Sekhmets Daughter
Nov 2012
#28
cutting off payments to people with income >120,000 would cut less than 1% out
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#46
Not only would I feel betrayed but I would never vote again. I mean, why bother?
forestpath
Nov 2012
#23
the range of ages collecting, means that a raise in the age lowers EVERYONE's benefits.
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#90
It's such a cynical way to cut off benefits to people. A certain percentage will die before ever
geckosfeet
Nov 2012
#26
As pointed out above, you (and I) aren't even eligible for full benefits until you're 67.
bluedigger
Nov 2012
#34
probably too young to care or be paying much attention. up into your thirties you
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#48
nope, 1983, ushered in in steps. reagan, the source of all things shitty where SS
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#64
Americans live longer today than in FDR's time. Therefore, it is not necessarily something to deny
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#36
Benefit age has already been raised. The gap between post-retirement longevity
HiPointDem
Nov 2012
#54
raising the age would actually REDUCE the benefits everyone gets, regardless.
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#82
I blame Ralph Nader for this too... Gore and Bush were NOT the same, yet Nader lied again.
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#131
Nobody said you were simple minded, your argument is and you did nothing
TheKentuckian
Nov 2012
#137
If Obama gets us a France like health care, we save 1000 times the money SS provides
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#138
it is flat-out untrue that people are living longer (dying at an older age)
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#145
this isn't about "the baby-boomers being greedy" it's about Wall Street being greedy
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#151
Wow! Well lucky you if your kids won't need SS. Lucky me too. But I am not so
sabrina 1
Nov 2012
#202
ranting is nice, but reading what I said would be nicer. Nobody is taking SS away. However
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#213
TOTALLY P.O'D! Seriously. I will be very angry. Very very very angry. It's unacceptable. nt
Honeycombe8
Nov 2012
#47
Goddamn right. UNACCEPTABLE. We can expand, NOT contract the social contract
DirkGently
Nov 2012
#49
+10000000 -- there's too many people who want you to think it's "inevitable" right now...
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#66
totally betrayed. i started paying in just when reagan doubled fica, exactly to prevent this.
unblock
Nov 2012
#53
seriously -- to pile and age change with the decimation the middle class has endured
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#85
this assumes your elected politicians care what you think now that they elected again nt
msongs
Nov 2012
#63
It would be another American ripoff in US = United Stupidity, Inc. on the fast train
RKP5637
Nov 2012
#68
I'm eligible to file for early SS in December--and I am--to begin when I turn 62 next March.
mnhtnbb
Nov 2012
#70
If you get $700 month at 62, and the age is raised to 69, your benefit drops to $610 (less $90)
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#84
call and write your senators, also -- that's where the action is right now.
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#175
You have it all wrong. See, the money doesn't all go into offshore accounts
MannyGoldstein
Nov 2012
#102
An honest description of how I feel about this would probably be a TOS violation. n/t
gkhouston
Nov 2012
#94
Enraged. That would be discriminatory and there's no need to raise the age
BlueCaliDem
Nov 2012
#101
it's a RW red herring that "people are living longer" -- completely NOT TRUE
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#150
Raising the age is ok for some worker classes. All workers should have the option to
bluestate10
Nov 2012
#167
wondering also, given how negatively we feel about it, what are we willing to do?
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#184
indeed -- most people don't realize this. also, you're able to take a percentage of bennies
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#181
we have a messed up way of thinking about work -- i mean, working people KNOW the product/service
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#196
AFL-CIO is doing an organized effort against this -- sign the petition
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#200
What would they do if the 99% just said no and stop working until we got what we wanted
Pakid
Nov 2012
#204
Encourage you to persistently document med conditions that effect your work abilities.
pinto
Nov 2012
#206
What amount a year is the largest amount someone receives from their SS a year?
graham4anything
Nov 2012
#219
people aren't living longer -- that's a Wall St myth: why do rich guys want to raise retirement age?
nashville_brook
Nov 2012
#229
Are you smarter than a US Congressman? I think we all are- why are we waiting on them?
RepublicansRZombies
Nov 2012
#246