Right now, our leaders are arguing over what to cut and what not to cut in order to deal with our debt ceiling (which, btw, has been increased, like, 16 times in our history, so it's hardly new to do so), and one of the issues on the table - and one that I'm feeling Obama is NOT standing firm on, are Social Security benefits (and of course, Medicare and Medicaid). But right now, my mind is reeling with questions about Social Security: Specifically the raising of the age at which one becomes eligible to retire and collect SS.
My mind keeps going from question to question, so I did some research.
First of all, we are living longer than in 1935 when Social Security was created by Roosevelt. Back then, the life expectancy for both sexes was 62.9 years (59.7 for men, and 63.5 for women) and yet, oddly enough, you couldn't retire until - are you ready? 65. Laughable, eh?
Okay, now go forward one generation (based on the above #'s in '35) to 1997 and the life expectancy was 76.5 (73.6 for men, 79.4 for women) and the retirement age? 67. Better than in '35, that's for sure. Now a man had almost 9 years ahead of him and a woman; 14 years+!
So that brings us to today and the projected life expectancy, which happens to be 79.5 (77 for men and...are you sitting down? 82 for women). This is a major improvement as it gives men 12 years following retirement and women 17 years! But it also gives credence to an argument on raising the retirement age. After all, why should we actually get to enjoy retirement longer? Who the hell do we think we are, anyway? Senators?
Obviously, the fact that we're living longer is a given. Health care was bound to improve - in spite of itself. In fact, I think we can thank both WWII and the Korean War for a good many of the improvements in medical treatments. But that doesn't mean our health care is anywhere near where it needs to be.
SO my mind asks another question: What is the quality of life for us and those of our children as they live those years between retirement and death if the age is raised? And with health care actually on the chopping block - combined with our refusal to meet the standards of the rest of the world in providing superior health care, well, it doesn't bode well, does it?
Then another question pops up: Who the hell can really retire NOW at any of the acceptable ages (62, 65 or 67) except the rich? So what do we really gain by raising the age limit? And do you have any idea how many city bigwigs and retired CEO's who do consulting STILL take their SS?? Maybe that's where we should start when talking SS reform?
My brain finally decided that we basically work forever, our health declines because we're at the mercy of health providers who are corporations and thus in it for profit, and at the mercy of the drug companies who create drugs for pennies and charge a 400% mark-up (and of course, they don't really care if their drugs work or how many side effects - because the idea is to get their drug on the market FIRST). And when we're finally ready and legally able to retire, our benefits won't be equal to the COL and we probably just had another crash and lost all our 401k's etc. and the company we worked for lost all our pension money...which reminds me....
There are also many loopholes that allow full pension payments AND full SS at the same time, meaning someone who is making, say, $50,000 a year off their pensions, can still, under certain circumstances, collect their full SS. There's another area where some work could be done, but yes, it would require real sacrifice because, come on, you really did pay into SS, so it's YOURS. And you paid into your Pension Plan/s, so it's YOURS.
Makes the whole thing a real conundrum.
So final question: What's the answer?
My choice: President Obama? Stand tall and firm. Don't give anything away but plan on reforms in the future to cover loopholes and improve Medicare/Medicaid. Otherwise, a cow could run against you in 2012 and they'd win. Trust me on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment