A new congressional budget proposal dubbed Brighter American Future would not privatize Social Security or Medicare, but it would raise the age of eligibility for Medicare up to two years and provide alternatives that could help drive Medicare costs down, U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, told a group of citizens Tuesday at a town hall meeting in Fort Smith.
Womack, the 3rd District congressman from Rogers and new chairman of the House Budget Committee, addressed the concerns over Social Security and Medicare presented by Mona Harper of Fort Smith and a group of five others at the University of Arkansas ...
The only recommended change to Social Security the budget proposal would make is “closing a loophole with disability insurance” that “allows someone to collect unemployment,” Claire Burghoff, communications director for the House Budget Committee, wrote in an email Wednesday. ...
14 comments:
Unemployment requirements vary by state, and although many states require an individual claim they are "able to work," if the state's requirements are low, it is not uncommon to qualify for both unemployment and Social Security. Most commonly this is due to the state's definition of "able to work" falling far short of Social Security's definition of "work" (sga, regular and continuing basis, etc.). Another argument is a great many states limit the distance they expect the unemployed to travel to a potential worksite, meaning if they cannot find work within a few dozen miles of their residence, they qualify.
I would be curious to see how this "loophole" could even be closed.
Maybe it's just me, but raising the Medicare age will have the same effects as raising the social security retirement age. It will force people to work longer. That, in turn, has an effect on SS Disability as it results in more claims being filed by people who can't make it to the full retirement age or full medicare age. It also might cause an increase in filings for SSD due to the availability of medicare for SSD recipients.
In short, this doesn't seem like a solution that will result in long term savings for either program.
Raising Medicare eligibility age to 67 will make it harder for people to retire sooner because many people will not be able to retire without health insurance. At the same time, it removes what is generally considered a healthier cohort (ages 65-66) from Medicare so the savings is not that great, if at all.
The "loophole" of collecting DI and UI is not that great of a cost to the program. At the beginning, since most UI during good times is limited to 26 weeks, most workers would have their UI expire during the waiting period. The impact is on those on DI who return to work and while still on DI, lose their job and then qualify for UI. I don't think this is a large number. It does bring up the argument that to qualify for UI you must be able to and be seeking work and that applying for and/or receiving DI implies neither. Many state courts have already ruled on this issue. The whole DI/UI issue is much overblown.
simple--disability benefits are offset/reduced in the amount of the UIB received for the same months.
Can you say Medicare for All?
It is amazing how some GOP's will spend a dollar to keep an extra nickel from being spent. The goal should be keeping down total costs, including administration costs. SSI and UI should both be structurestructured to keep administration costs down. If people are trying to workwork , encourage them! You do this by allowing them to keep more of what they do earn. This consternation about "fraud" by the less fortunate seems to me the same kind of envy you see of the richer people by those wanting them "to pay their fair share."
They take money out of my paycheck for unemployment premiums. They take money out of my paycheck for Social Security. If I qualify for one, the other or both and they don't pay, then that's the government ripping me off. It's nice that the politicians who want to rip off the American taxpayer have outed themselves by proposing this change.
So on the one hand Congress wants to do more to encourage people on DI to leave the program and go back to work....and on the other they're planning to cut people's benefits if they try to work and get laid off?
Anyone born after the Boomers knew this was coming and have been waiting for it. I was just surprised they stopped at 67 really thought they would go for 70. All in favor of privatization, if I am going to get screwed on retirement and insurance at least I might have a chance to make some money in my 401k off of the companies with the contracts.
@9:35
I disagree, although it is a matter of opinion. Social Security run by the government has proven to have much less in operating costs and overhead as a percentage of benefits than similar services run in the private sector. Also, private companies are in it for profit, which takes the forms of fees and commissions which SSA does not charge, unless you are an attorney collecting a fee. The so called fiduciary duty some private financial services have to you is a watered down joke in many cases. If it comes down to them making a profit vs. your best financial interests, expect to lose.
The point you make "knew this was coming" is the caveat. If the American public allows these attacks on Social Security and Medicare to succeed then it could wreck the system for everyone. Some politicians on the right wing who have sold their constituents out to the financial sector are constantly testing to see if they can get away with it and this is just the most recent iteration. Advocates and the public need to remain vigilant and slap them down (politically speaking) each time.
Administrative costs for implementation of all Social Security Programs including retirement benefits have been at 1% or less for the last 30 years. You're not going to find very many, if any, private sector charitable programs that have lower costs than this. The only way you're going to significantly lower costs in these Federal programs is to cut benefits or cut the number of employees in place to implement the programs. Either way the public is harmed.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html
I will take my chances vs an ever changing date of coverage, retirement and who knows what else I will do. Just another thing the prior generation left for us to fix. Offer an opt out and I am there instantly! I will take a crooked investor over a crooked politician any time!
Fortunately, the program isn't run by politicians.
The standards for disability and unemployment are different which is why people can draw both. We're not talking about major money here, why do we want to make life so difficult for the sick and unemployed? Sometimes, a doctor will limit a person so severely they can't get unemployment while we work on their disability case. A person can't get SSI and unemployment at the same time; that is needs based and would cancel SSI eligibility.
@805PM They also take out for survivor benefits but I doubt your relatives will qualify for that and you be able to look for work.
Post a Comment