WASHINGTON, DC, July 28 — There is a consensus that Social Security and Medicare are in desperate need of a fix. Yet, the new Biden administration seems oblivious to that fact and what it means for America’s growing population of senior citizens.
Perhaps President Biden has forgotten, too, that as the oldest Chief Executive this country has ever had, he might show a little more compassion for his elderly constituents, too many of whom rely on Social Security and Medicare for survival.
The administration is seeking outlandish amounts of money for a variety of pet projects dear to the hearts of the progressive socialist elements in the nation’s capital. To paraphrase the late Senator Everett Dirksen, a trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon, you’re talking real money. But there are barely enough dollars for the lifelines that too many older Americans rely upon.
According to the Social Security Administration:
- Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 50% of married couples and 70% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.
- Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 21% of married couples and about 45% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.
Chris Jacobs is a health policy analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. In a recent Opinion article published by the Daily Caller, he pointed out that, “By ignoring the crisis facing our current entitlements [Social Security and Medicare] while proposing new financial commitments, Biden will create problems for multiple generations. Thanks to inaction by this administration and congressional Democrats, today’s seniors will face an uncertain retirement.”
Some might say, “who cares!” and others might say, “so what?”
But the fact is we should all care, and we should all be concerned about “what happens.” Growing old is something each and every one of us can look forward to, some with anticipation and some with regret. However, the coronavirus pandemic has shown that Ageism may have gripped the nation, and more and more of our fellow citizens could care less.
One recent piece of research goes so far as to point out that:
“During the pandemic, public discourse that suggests older generations should sacrifice their lives in order to reduce the economic cost of COVID-19 for future generations has emerged. In this case, the ageist expression is that older lives are expendable, which is set against the benefit of reduced economic burden on younger generations. This is a stark and clear expression of age bias against older adults, and a damaging characterization of how a society feels about its older generations.”
Governor Gavin Newsom [D-CA], who is facing a recall election this fall, was taken to task when the pandemic was spreading at full steam last spring. He was “roundly criticized,” according to the Los Angeles Times, “after his administration advised hospitals to prioritize younger people with greater life expectancy for care during the coronavirus outbreak. Those guidelines were swiftly retracted.”
So, can the lack of response from the Democratic regime in Washington to the critical attention that is needed to deal with the Social Security/Medicare crisis be an extension of the increasingly hostile attitudes emerging generally as regards the elderly?
Not long ago, the Website NursingAnswers.net published a description of what Ageism is all about: “Ageism generates unnecessary fear, waste, illness, and misery; hence it has an impact on both society and culture, even though most individuals are not aware of it. Ageism and ageist attitudes are one of the factors that can contribute to elder abuse by creating a fertile environment in which the abuse can develop, leading to age discrimination, and devaluing and disempowering older people.”
It appears that disdain for the elderly motivates a growing part of the population, and it is reflected by those in power, those such as Governor Newsom and the socialist lackeys who are disrupting Congress. It’s no wonder, then, that the desperate financial needs of Social Security and Medicare are being ignored.
The promise to guarantee Social Security for all Americans must be kept, says the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), the largest conservative alternative to the AARP. AMAC has developed and recommended to many in Congress a solution that avoids the “political third rail” those in Congress fear. In this connection, AMAC has examined the many proposed solutions presented in the recent Social Security Trustees Reports and selected the alternatives best suited to save Social Security’s retirement trust fund. These have been combined with several other recommendations in the Social Security Guarantee-Social Security Plus proposal to achieve what is the best path to long-term trust fund solvency without raising taxes.
AMAC’s proposal has three primary objectives:
1. Guarantee an increase in benefits for those with lower earnings;
2. Guarantee achieving solvency and ensure benefits continue; and
3. Provide a means for all earners to have more income available at retirement through a complementary or supplemental Social Security Plus account.
In sum, AMAC’s proposal provides solutions for Congress as it will hopefully engage prudently in addressing the guarantee of Social Security’s retirement fund without penalizing individuals, businesses, and jobs by seizing on payroll tax increases as being necessary in the absence of first evaluating the results of needed changes in the Social Security law.
We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...
Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.Donate Now
70 years was not long enough for Congress to do the retirement math for the Boomer Generation.
One solution to increasing benefits for those who rely most on SS without breaking “the bank” is to institute a graduated payout system based on total income, with those in greater need receiving a larger benefit. SS has little impact on the total income of wealthy retirees, while having enormous benefit for those in need. We should consider SS as a retirement insurance program rather than a guaranteed benefit. It’s there if you need it! The graduated benefit wiuld be phased out over a certain income and adjusted to inflation.
Americans have paid into this with the understanding that it would be there as income at retirement. Had this money been invested and not stolen from, there would be no problem. The government owes this to those who paid into the system and met the requirements. If it’s not going to be there for future generations, they should stop paying that tax and fund their own retirements. Otherwise it’s just another tax for the government to mismanage.
I’ve wondered fir quite a while….where does the money really go when a person on Social Security dies and there is no one such as a spouse to begin receiving that person”s monthly SS income?
Social Security for those that worked (and are still working at 71, like my husband) should be there for him when he retires ….if he gets to retire. We only have that and our savings which is not enough to survive on decently. So, we keep working. Why is there always enough money for everyone who comes here illegally and not those that abide by the rules and pay their taxes and are LEGAL??
Taxes raised? Shouldn’t we also as seniors have a raise too? We shouldn’t have to pay medical. As our Heavenly Father says in His words Honor thy Father n Mother the only Commandment w a PROMISE. Majority of us have worked 40-50 years contributed into to system diligently, faithfully. When we were young I didn’t want to (contribute)than got some sense knocked into my head. Lol. Now that I’m here a senior collecting ss, w todays inflation, n unable to qualify for assistance, jus barely making it month to month, can’t save nothing. It’s terrifying. God keeps me grounded Hallelujah! My faith in God will give you life too.
Seniors tend to be more conservative and vote Republican. The more that die of COVID in rest homes or depression and homelessness the less votes for their enemy, the Republicans. From father to son, since they lost the Civil War, the Democrats have hated the Republicans.
Free education for students at the new indoctrination camps, while homelessness and depression for seniors.
Bernie Sanders and AOC have already laid out the plan for what they want Biden to do regarding both SS and Medicare. To boil it down to its base form, both SS and Medicare as they exist today would be done away with. All remaining monies in both programs would be shifted to the new UBI and so-called Medicare for All (which is really single payer government run health care) programs that would take their place. A series of new, across the board taxes would also be enacted to help pay for these programs, so your income actually ends up going down, as these new social welfare programs consume more and more of our overall economy. The Democrats have NO interest in salvaging either SS or Medicare as it exist now.
Under UBI, what any current retiree receives from SS would of course be meaningless. UBI would provide either $1,000.00 or $2,000.00 a month to every American, regardless of age, depending upon what the final legislation reads. One size fits all as it has to be “equitable”.
Single Payer would work like the system in the UK or Canada and the government would ration medical care according to your remaining economic value to society. The older you get, the less chance the government will approve an expensive treatment or drug. The government does compensate for this (sarcasm here) by allowing the government doctors to prescribe lots of cheap pain killers. There are literally hundreds of articles on-line that accurately describe the system. I also have several friends and relatives that have personally experienced the so-called quality of care delivered by single payer in several European countries. I seriously doubt most seniors would appreciate the change.
Several months ago, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine (“joints”, to us old people) injected something called SynViscOne into my knee. A week later, I had a severe reaction to the injection, and could barely drive to get back to the doctor’s office.
After he admitted that successive injections (this was my third) markedly raise the probability of a bad reaction (possible surgery, sepsis, and death) I was surprised by his reaction, essentially, “Why are you coming to me with this? You should go see Dr. D.” And I’m not even a crabby patient! If I had known about the odds (12%) of a bad reaction, I would not have gotten the shot. He gave me the paperwork describing side effects after the second visit…
So, yes, I do think Medicare patients are not getting the quality of care as those not on Medicare. We’ll end up on gurnies lining the hallways, like they do in the countries you referred to.
I know of persons who have both Medicare n medicaid they pay nothing n are prescribed top of the line meds. These are people on disability. Plus $200 foodstamps. Never worked so they never contributed into the system. A little “J” you know I am. Unfair practice.
Unless they’re born disabled, ok I got no gripe about them. It’s the liars, cheaters, fakers…
Once we adopt Single Payer here, if the Democrats ever get their way, and ALL doctors are forced to be controlled and regulated by the federal government, in order to be allowed to practice in this country, people in this country will look back at this time as paradise compared to the quality of care they will be receiving. Access to care specialists or any expensive medication, will require prior approval from the government and for most seniors, that means you’ll be turned down.
In most countries with Single Payer, if you have a serious illness or disease that is highly expensive to treat, they send you home with an automatic, refillable prescription for cheap pain pills until you pass away. They don’t want you to take up limited hospital bed space or gurnies. If you die in a hospital, that reflects poorly on the government stats. If you die at home, it doesn’t make the stats for Single Payer look worse, because you’re not actively being treated within the medical system. That is how one doctor in Europe explained the rationale to me a few years ago. It’s all about making the government numbers look good.
I DO BELIEVE THAT BIDEN HAS FORGETTON ABOUT THE SSA BECAUSE HE HAS GIVEN FPORTH STIMULUS CHECK TO THE IMMAGRENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE BUT WHEN IT COME TO SSA AND SSI HE SAYS HE CAN NOT AFFORD – SO COULD SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT ?? PLEASE .