OWL - The Voice of Midlife and Older Women

Social Security Cuts Devastate Older Women!

2010-08-21T08:41:00.003-04:00

By Kathie Piccagli, OWL National Board Member

I am coming increasingly to see the attack on Social Security as an attack on women. Instead of recognizing the financial restrictions women have faced and valuing the countless unpaid contributions to society made by women, the Debt Reduction Commission is expected to try to cut back on the program that enables women, particularly, to survive.

Women reach Social Security age with fewer resources than men. There are a number of reasons this is true. First, they make less than men for comparable work . It is estimated that over a lifetime, the wage disparity adds up to approximately $400,000. Second, they have often taken time out of the workforce to raise families and to care for parents and other relatives. Women are usually the ones that provide unpaid supports for families, and this time out of the workforce has consequences in terms of pay, advancement, and even the kinds of jobs they can get. Third, they more frequently than men do not have pensions, because of the positions they’re in, in working years.

So women enter “retirement” with fewer resources. As OWL says, “you can’t save what you didn’t earn”. Women have fewer other resources, and, thus, are more dependent on Social Security. The three-legged stool concept of retirement income (Social Security, pensions, savings.) is particularly unrealistic for women. As they age (and women live longer than men), meager resources, such as savings, are depleted. At 62, women are 57% of social security beneficiaries. By 85, they make up 69% of beneficiaries.

Even though women have fewer other resources, they receive less social security than men. On average, women get $2000 less annually than men. The average annual payout for men is somewhere around $13,500; the average payout for women is around $11,500. Women have fewer other financial supports, and lower social security payments at the same time.

It is imperative for women that social security be continued and strengthened. Women over 65 depend on social security for almost half their income. Over 85, that figure increases substantially. Half of women recipients are kept out of poverty by social security.

We MUST keep hammering this point home. Women need social security. The social security program may not compensate for years of unequal pay or years out of the workforce for caregiving, but it enables most women to survive. Social Security is some small recognition of the value women have contributed. A just society needs to look more at how the system can be strengthened in light of women’s circumstances. Women need progress, not regression.

(I got to talk about some of these issues last week, on the radio: HYPERLINK http://kpfa.org/archive/id/63157 - about 10 minutes into the program. Check it out!)

RAISING SOCIAL SECURITY RETIREMENT AGE: A BIG BROTHER “REFORM” THAT REDUCES BENEFITS, WHILE INCREASING RISKS – QUITE UNECESSARILY

2010-07-29T10:33:00.002-04:00

By Joan and Merton Bernstein

It takes colossal gall to propose, during a period of near-record unemployment, forcing older people to work longer by cutting their Social Security benefits and calling that “reform.” Yet that is precisely what Alice Rivlin, one of President Obama’s appointees to his Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and others propose. Their mantra is: we are all living longer and so should work longer. Advocates of this “reform” don’t also urges measures to assure job availabilioty. Nor do they proposes like limitations on private plans subsidized with employer tax breaks. Nor do they advocate banning employer offers to induce employees to retire early, offers often accompanied by threat of layoffs if “voluntary” acceptances prove insufficient.

“Reformers” attempt to neutralize senior opposition to these and other proposals to cut Social Security benefits with assurances that such changes will exempt those already retired or those aged 55, sometimes 57, on other occasions age 60, the different numbers used by former Senator Alan Simpson, President Obama’s appointee commission co-chair. Mr. Simpson at a commission meeting shrugged off his imprecision by explaining, “I’m not a numbers man.” The promised exemption cannot survive once the tens of millions marked for the benefit reductions realize they would be bilked.

But an accomplished numbers man, Jeffrey Liebman, President Obama’s Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) collaborated on a 2005 “Nonpartisan Social Security Reform Plan” that advocated “Benefit cuts” through [rejiggering the benefit formula and]….”an increase in retirement age.” Raising the age at which full benefits become payable also reduces benefits that become payable thereafter at any other age.

In addition, they proposed raising the earliest eligibility age [EEA] from current age 62 to age 65. Liebman and his colleagues asserted that raising the EEA does not reduce overall program payout because a deferred benefit increment boosts benefits for each year of delay. But, the three omitted years are lost to those who die before age 65. It is no answer that surviving family members spouse would draw benefits – because they would be lower than the husband/wife combined benefit and for people dying at ages 62-64 surviving children would be uncommon. Shorter-lived program participants, disproportionately low earners, would get a lower return for their long-term work and program payroll tax contributions than under current arrangements.

Liebman and collaborators assert that boosting the early eligibility age “is likely to have positive labor market effects…encouraging people to work longer…because we want to protect individuals who might shortsightedly retire too early if given access to their Social Security benefits at too young an age.” They also refer to “myopic individuals who claim benefits too soon.” In other words, big brother knows best.

Such advocates mistakenly assume that personal choice determines the timing of applications for Social Security benefits. In the real world, technological change, surging imports or other competition, plant, office or store shutdowns, layoffs, an individual’s health, the health of one’s partner or parent, the absence of local or regional job prospects often force that determination.

In the real world, labor force participation by older people has steadily increased since 1994. Past age 65, a major determinant is extensive education. That argues for improving opportunities for education and training.

Beyond that, the presence of a pension plan than Social Security, more often available to high-earning white men, can be a major factor facilitating retirement. Some employers seeking to trim their work force provide extra benefits from retirement as early as age 55 to the onset of Social Security payments. In yet other circumstance, applicants have been out of work prior to the age of earliest eligibility.

Plans like the self-styled non-Partisan proposal offer no amelioration of dire circumstances. Rather, as Candidate Obama noted, the ownership society really means “you’re on your own.”

Advocates of delayed retirement assert that they seek to provide incentives for people to choose continued employment over Social Security. But it is cruel to “induce” such a choice when realistically many cannot choose work. Further, Social Security is already chock full of such incentives for those who can choose. Continued work produces higher benefits by virtue of a deferred retirement credit for each year of delay. Moreover, Medicare is unavailable until age 65. Yet the great majority of program participants commence Social Security before age 65, most do so by age 62 ½. We should pay attention to that conduct and not, as Jeffery Liebman and his cohorts urge, adopt a policy that eliminate options that fit personal circumstances best known by those living them.

The proposal would divert substantial funds now used to pay for assured benefits and place them in private accounts – the very device President Bush proposed for privatizing Social Security. Such accounts incur additional administrative costs and risks that the investments will fail, as they did so disastrously in the recent past.

Indeed, we should improve Social Security’s protections and benefits. We can afford Social Security and assure long-term solvency with only slight changes, for example the very revenue improvement that Candidate Obama urged – raising the upper limit on Social Security taxable earnings. And we should extend the Medicare’s coverage below age 65, thereby providing both necessary protections and achieving savings through the efficiencies and economies that Medicare constantly produces.

SOCIAL SECURITY “REFORM” DOESN’T PROTECT THE YOUNG, HURTS US ALL

2010-05-28T10:16:00.002-04:00

By Joan and Merton Bernstein

Social Security “reform” advocates like former Senator Alan Simpson claim they will shield young people from future tax burdens. Simultaneously they assure seniors that they would be exempt from benefit reductions. If that were true, only benefits to those below age 55 or 57 or 60 (Simpson uses all three) would be cut. But then, the rules of the game under which most people have been working and contributing for decades would change. The budget hawks are whispering bogus sweet nothings.

The most touted “reforms” would: reduce benefits outright, raise retirement age (also lowering benefits) and trim COLA (ditto). In other words, “reform” would protect against future tax increases by reducing most participants’ benefits. Once people realize that, the promised exemption for seniors will most likely evaporate. So far, the media, diverted by Senator Simpson’s cornpone expostulations, do not report these underlying realities. Senator Simpson is not a Tea Party loudmouth; he’s President Obama’s pick to co-chair the new Committee on Fiscal Responsibility. Co-chair Erskine Bowles’ assurance to a banker’s convention that “We’ll mess with Social Security”, drew sparse media attention. Corn pone or boring prose, their plans will hurt – everyone.

Recently on 60 Minutes, Senator Simpson described Social Security recipients as “people who live in gated communities and drive their Lexus to” dine out. In the real world, after the meltdown of stock market, pension plans, 401(k) s, IRAs, and home value, program beneficiaries, including over 3 million children, will depend more heavily than ever on Social Security’s modest benefits. This year retiree benefits average $1,168 a month (many get less); $13,016 a year is not Lexusland, its penny pinching territory. On average, women earn less, draw lower benefits and less frequently receive pensions than men, making their Social Security benefits especially crucial.

Raising normal retirement age would reduce benefits for those retiring thereafter. No one can justify moving the goal posts that way for millions who have already contributed to the program for decades.

The “reformers” argue that because we live longer, we should work longer. That ignores people worked out by hard jobs. And the “reformers” offer no measures to assure available jobs, nor measures to curb the inducement for employers to minimize employing older people because their health insurance costs more. Indeed, many employers seeking to reduce costs offer early retirement inducements to employees, often spiced with warnings that, if too few “voluntarily” elect retirement, layoffs will ensue. While some “experts” favor raising retirement age, the prospects of job loss and lifetime benefit reductions chill most everyone else.

Some urge reducing COLA, claiming that it overstates inflation. In reality, the current formula catches up to past prices, not current ones, and so chronically trails rising prices. And, its formula averages medical care costs, thereby understating the higher health care costs of older people.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke explained the budget hawks’ focus on Social Security “because, to quote bank robber Willy Sutton, that’s where the money is.” “The money” is already over $2.4 trillion of reserves, accumulated from payroll taxes and interest the U.S. Treasury owes for borrowing from Social Security to pay other government expenditures. The deficit causing so much alarm stems largely from the Bush Administration’s borrow-and-spend policies, the financial meltdown resulting from the burst real estate bubble, the stimulus measures they made necessary, the Bush tax cuts, two major foreign wars and long-term tax breaks that go mainly to the wealthy. In contrast, Social Security pays its way, causing not one dime of deficit.

Many believe that Social Security is unsustainable because, with Baby Boomers retiring, the beneficiary population will grow faster than the working population, resulting, they fear, in too few young people to support them. This oversimplification simply ignores that increasing the employee and employer FICA tax rate by one percentage of payroll each would generate 75-year actuarial balance. Living standards would rise because, same projections show, incomes will rise more than those modest contribution increases. That outcome results from improving productivity – the greater output of goods and services by each person working, generating more to share.

We don’t hear that message or the deficit-reducing potential of Candidate Obama’s popular proposal to raise the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. Rather the “reformers” and media warn that without benefit cuts and/or higher retirement age we face national bankruptcy, that we must cut benefits to persuade foreign investors to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. In reality, foreign investors are flocking to buy Treasury issues, the ones so often derided by “reformers” as worthless iou’s, despite the hawks’ cries of “wolf.”

Cutting Social Security beneficiary purchasing power by tens of billions would damage most of us, including the legions of merchants beneficiaries patronize. Those businesses employ countless others, whose wages go to purchase the goods and services of yet other employers. The famed Samuelson and Nordhaus describe this “multiplier effect,” as “an endless chain of secondary consumption respending.”

Cutting Social Security benefits is bad for beneficiaries, bad for business, bad for the economy.

When did “older” become a bad word?

2010-05-17T13:01:00.003-04:00

We at OWL are often told that we should get a new name. In 1980 when OWL was founded, it was called The Older Women’s League. As years passed, the name was changed to OWL, the voice of midlife and older women. But, even with that change, women objected to being called older – lots of women, and not only those in their 40s, but also those in their 50s, 60s, and 70s.

When did we decide we didn’t want to look good, we wanted to look young? Why would we spend money and risk infection to stretch a wrinkle off our faces? Why do we want to deny the years we have lived? Who has made us ashamed?

I am reminded of a society that convinced African-Americans that their hair should be straight and their skin should be lighter to be attractive. Or convinced gays and lesbians to be ashamed to come out of the closet.

It is time we pushed back. Older women need the equivalent of a “Black is Beautiful” campaign or a Gay Pride Day. It is time 50, 60, and 70 year-old women stood up and said, “Take a look. This is what “older” looks like and I like it!” No more pretending we are something we are not. No more trying to go back in time to the “good-young-days” which probably weren’t that great anyway.

Fifty is older! Face it. There is nothing wrong with being older. In fact there is a lot to say for it. You have probably accomplished quite a bit through your work, raising a family, helping your community, etc. You have collected experiences that have made you wiser, whether you acknowledge it or not. And you probably have a better sense of what is important to you. All this is because you are OLDER.

But changing our perceptions of being “older” is not something we can do alone nor is it just an individual decision. We are all affected by societal images and our culture. For older women to be free to say we are older we need to join together, stand up to the media, come out together, and show our pride in who we are.

You’ve got to have Guts

2010-03-25T10:17:00.006-04:00

By Ellen Bruce, President Emerita, OWL

On Tuesday, President Obama signed into law a bill which will extend coverage to 31 million uninsured people by 2014. It is far from perfect but there is much to like in this bill – the elimination of gender rating and pre-existing condition exclusions, the expansion of Medicaid to more low-income people, the eventual elimination of the prescription drug coverage “doughnut hole”, and some much needed cost-savings.

I find it particularly satisfying to note that the two leaders with the guts to push for the vote in the House were Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama. These two people were apparently driven more by the desire to provide health care coverage to more Americans than by the fear of failure.

After a year of dilly-dallying, our elected officials in Washington, DC finally got serious. I have no doubt that, had the bill not passed or at least been brought up for a vote, we would be waiting another twenty years before the topic of universal coverage would be brought up again.

The opponents of the bill are vowing to repeal it. The fight isn’t over. The public campaign to explain the bill to the voters has to continue. The opponents would have us believe we would be better off with the status quo, but there is no status quo. Costs are rising and the numbers of uninsured are rising. The suffering of people who lack health care coverage when they are sick and the burden of rising costs on businesses and individuals can’t be ignored.

Doing nothing would be putting our heads in the sand. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi showed us that they have the guts to shape an uncertain future. Now it is our turn to show that we have the guts to make it work.

Reflections on Gray Hair

2010-02-01T14:40:00.004-05:00

My very dark hair started turning gray when I was 16. The bright “silver” strains would pop-up and refuse to lie quietly. It didn’t bother me. By age 35 my hair was officially salt and pepper. People would tell me how beautiful it was. My face was still young enough to make my hair look startlingly and I loved it. But by the time I was 50 my hair was decidedly gray and it made my rapidly aging face look old. Now I am 60 and no one thinks my hair doesn’t match my face, body, or age. Indeed I look like someone who should have gray hair. I look like a grandmother. (By the way, I am not.)

Looking older doesn’t bother me at all as I never looked that great when I was young. What is interesting, however, is that people treat me differently. On the bright side men offer to put my bag in the overhead bin on airplanes and take it down. (I think they are afraid it will fall on them if I try to do it.) Sometimes someone will offer me a seat on a crowded subway. I used to refuse these gracious offers but now, more often than not, I will accept them. I actually don’t need the help (I always try to pack lightly) but I appreciate people’s understanding that life is better for everyone if we support each other.

I treasure my independence as much as the next woman, but I also like to help people and suspect that others do too. The person offering the seat probably does have stronger legs and sometimes the bag is a bit too heavy for me. Our society will work better if we all are used to giving and receiving help.

On my last flight we were stuck on the tarmac for 3 ½ hours. Everyone was getting a bit edgy with crying children and missed flights. I found myself sitting with 20-30 year olds who were understandable impatient, but I felt quite calm, talking about other flights with screaming kids (my own), missed connections, and a desire to be in a bar. At the end of the flight, the man in the next seat to me commented that it was a horrible flight but that I had made it bearable. We all help each other in the ways we can.

I am learning to except that I both look older and am older. That people see me in way that I don’t see myself. It startles me to look in the mirror but I am learning what is meant by aging gracefully – appreciating people’s help and offering help in return. As we get very old and frail, we may not see how we help other people -- but the unexpected smile, the decision not to complain when everyone knows you have so much to complain about -- those things are gifts to the people who care about us.

--Ellen Bruce, President Emerita, OWL

Mary Gardiner Jones

2010-01-06T16:14:00.003-05:00

(Mary Gardiner Jones died on December 23, 2009, she was on the OWL Board of Directors from 1988-1992)

Mary’s death is a great loss, but her life was an enormous gift to all who were touched by her. She was a brave advocate for justice who was stalwart in the face of injustice. She worked prodigiously to right wrongs, and to smooth the path for persons who were disadvantaged. She was generous, compassionate, brilliant and stubbornly determined.

It was my honor to encourage Mary to run for election to the Board of OWL (Older Women’s League) on which she served with conviction. Among her contributions was her dedication to promoting a more diversified membership. She initiated a survey to help the Board understand the unique problems of older women who were Black or Latino.

I admired Mary’s knowledge, breadth of experience and energy. I loved Mary for her warmth, her courage in the face of opposition, her insights on the need for change and her continuing push for self understanding. She was my friend.

-- Lou Glasse (Past President of OWL)

Her full obituary is here: http://charles-watkins.com/mary/obit.htm

Our Efforts Pay Off!

2009-12-02T19:47:00.002-05:00

OUR EFFORTS PAY OFF!!

My grandson, Nic is home for four weeks with his wife, Chrystal and Mylee Ann Harlan born September 20 as the result of the Family Leave Act. Nic was so happy to be with his baby and wife during this bonding time. I was thrilled to inform them how OWL championed and supported this ACT. We were invited when President Clinton signed the Bill. A hoot for the new baby and a HOOT for OWL.

Elder Abuse

I attended the Elder Financial Protection Network, Call to Action, Confronting Elder Abuse; Building Bridges-Sharing Best Practices, on September 16, 2009 in Long Beach, CA. It was well attended by bank representatives, police fraud investigators, and community outreach professionals for seniors.

OWL was one of the many sponsors prominently posted and acknowledged during the conference. Our Mother’s Day Report on Elder Abuse was in the handout material notebook and it received very favorable comment. Do consider a program on this subject and there is DVD available and handouts. This network is relatively new and I was impressed with the young people involved and the financial institution contribution and participation. Consider outreach to financial institution and Zonta. (See Display of material)

Legislation we can follow and support is the Elder Justice Act. To learn more about Elder Justice Now visit the following web sites:

www.elderjusticenow.org

www.ncoa.org and go the advocacy section

www.elderjusticecoalition.com

Single Payer

Healthcare has been a high visible activity and I participate in meetings and rallies in the Inland Empire. At this time with League of Women Voters in San Gabriel we are developing a performance street theater skit.

Communication/Membership

Contacting the members in the Southwest Region is still difficult. I communicate through our OWL/CA Newsletter. I have prepared a letter to send to members at large and I am checking the current list with those in the states of Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and California.

Older Women in Prison

I have with me the membership renewal and her check for $35 for Jane Benson, W28860, EB517L in CIW, 16756 Chino Corona Road, Corona, CA 92880-9508. Jane’s parole was denied again as were twelve out of 13 by the governor on the last list of women found suitable by the parole board. I encourage you to write Jane and let her know the activities we are doing. This helps to bridge the inside with the outside of those prison walls. Jane is innovative and will find ways to energize the older women on the inside.

With the holidays coming on your chapter with the Action Committee for Women in Prison and All Saints Church Episcopal Church can provide small gift bags for 2,900 women imprisoned at the California Institution for Women. These gift bags are the only Christmas gift that women in prison receive. Allowable items are small lotions, soaps, shampoo, conditioners, mini deodorants, toothpaste, toothbrushes, dental floss, lip balm, hair ties and scrunchies, stationery and greeting cards, small packets of instant coffee, tea, cocoa and candy. The deadline to receive these items is November 25, 2009. Chapters and member at large can send items to Gloria Killian, 1249 North Holliston Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91104.

I will be attending OWL National Board Meeting in Washington DC at the end of this month and will report our activities. Please contact me with your comments and concerns to represent you at this meeting.

Shirley Harlan,

vldy@aol.com

PO box 2276 San Bernardino, CA 92406, San Bernardino, CA 92406

909 882 4057

The Reality - Older Women

2009-11-15T21:55:00.001-05:00

Women often earned less than men doing the same job. We are less likely to have private pensions and when we do have them, our pensions are smaller because they are tied to our earnings stream and because of time outs caring for our families. Without Social Security most women over 65 would live in poverty. We face higher poverty rates than men the older we get. Because of horrific budget cuts in a weakened economy we have lost protections in nursing homes and elsewhere—even in our own homes.

Health care is now unaffordable for many boomers. Doctors sometimes refuse the Medicare of older seniors because reimbursements are so inadequate. Some seniors have to choose between eating and taking their medications. Yet insurance companies spend millions of dollars trying to insure the healthy, avoid the sick and deny payment for claims. Every year pharmaceutical companies take more than $350 billion for drugs that cost a small fraction of that sum to produce.

If you resonate with any of these issues, please join us. Join OWL.

Thank you,

Diane Latko
Oakland California

OWL is Important

2009-11-15T20:47:00.000-05:00

Two weeks ago I met three women who reminded me why OWL is so important. Each of the meetings was independent of the other. The first was a long time friend who had retired but announced that she was looking for work. When I asked why, she said that her adult son had become ill and she needed more money to help him out. I nodded knowing I would do the same in those circumstances. Once a mother, always a mother. The second woman was single and she had just received a pink slip, obviously worried about how she would manage if she couldn’t work – wondering who would hire a 60 year old woman in a recession. The third woman was disabled, in her 50s, and had lost her home to foreclosure. She couldn’t work even if someone was hiring (which they aren’t).

None of these women were complaining but they each had a drawn face and a worried look. I could feel their concern on the verge of panic and I thought to myself, there but for fortune I go also.

We each know stories of people who are suffering in this economy and of those who were suffering before the economy took a dive. It is for these women and others like them that OWL advocates for universal health care and against age and gender discrimination. It is for these women that we fight for a safety net that will protect people with dignity when a disabling illness takes their ability to make a living. And it is for these women that we demand that Congress pass protections against banks and investment companies from ruining our economy.

Ellen A. Bruce
President Emerita

Health Care Conversation with a Friend

2009-11-15T20:30:00.003-05:00

From my uninsured blog: http://www.gpcal.org/margblog.htm

An E-mail Conversation with a Friend

I heard from a friend I’ll call Rosemary. She is now 58, has two kids, was a single mother much of her life, and had a pretty good job (one that had health care benefits…) up until three or four years ago. Then she was laid off, was unemployed for a year or more, and then found another job, but without healthcare. Here is our e-mail exchange:

R: My regular doctor, who has turned into a jerk, fired me as his patient because I can't afford to pay $125 to visit him and then pay for blood work and such. He said I refuse (REFUSE??) to follow his instructions so I can no longer go to him or his cohorts.
I have been taking blood pressure medication and anti-depressants for about 10 years and I just need to get the rx renewed by someone as my old doctor won't do it.
Any ideas?

Me: I asked for a referral from Physicians for Social Responsibility and got a Dr. X. When I was uninsured he charged me what Medicare would have paid which was $60. Use my name, I just visited him and he will remember me most likely.

My old doctor in Yuba City turned into a jerk as well. First she didn't want to see me at all (doctors can refuse to see people who are uninsured, and many do), and then charged me $125, even though she accepted $87 when I was insured. And after the prescription ran out she insisted that I drive to Yuba City for another visit at $125. I originally got my prescriptions from Canada but then found a great deal at Costco, 3 months for $17, and it had been over $100 per month. Check with Costco re your meds, you can go to their website to check. And good luck!

Can I put your story on my uninsured blog? (www.gpcal.org and go to Margie's uninsured blog.) How long till 65 (Medicare)?

R: you can put my story anywhere you want. I get my rx's from Target and pay $16 a month for both so I'm ok there. I looked on line to see if I could get my blood pressure meds from maybe Canada but I needed an rx. That's the same I need in the US!
will be 58 in 12 days.

Next note from R: I called Sutter this morning and got an approval as a charity case. Lord, I was never a charity case before but I don't care what they call it, I get to see a doctor.

This last comment unexpectedly shook me to the core. Then I remembered something from years ago. I was unemployed, I was broke, and I had depression and bad toothaches. I went to the Social Services department to apply for MediCal and it was one of the most depressing and humiliating experiences of my life. I could picture that awful waiting room and the condescension on the faces of everyone I talked to. There was no compassion, no reassurance, no reflection of their humanity or mine. I think I made up my mind then that I would literally rather die than ever be a charity case again. I was wrong, and though I still bleed for my friend, I am glad that she got help. She is a valuable, lovely person and she deserves good healthcare. And so do I.

In the course of this year’s Congressional town halls, I heard both Congressman Lungren and McClintock respond to seriously distressed constituents with family members in serious medical trouble that they could “ask for charity.” Eric Cantor suggested to a woman with a 40 year old female relative with stomach tumors and no insurance that “there are charitable organizations who do provide charity care.”

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hqa30inu_A&feature=PlayList&p=EDCDC917AA75B2F7&playnext=
1&playnext_from=PL&index=23 ) And Senator Tom Coburn had a similar response. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3jwhLcW_c8) Is this a Republican talking point or just a coincidence? Do they even have any idea of what asking for charity means to people?

I also believe there are many more people in the 40 or 50 plus demographics who are disproportionally affected by this recession and our awful healthcare non-system. We are too young for Medicare, we are often laid off first, we experience age discrimination when we look for jobs, and many of us are overwhelmed with full time jobs, childcare and caring for aging parents. This cohort is probably less likely to demonstrate or otherwise make our voices heard. In many cases, we simply don’t have the time or energy.

--Margie Metzler, OWL California Member

SS/SSI Cost of Living Adjustment?

2009-10-14T17:43:00.001-04:00

My cousin asked me if it was true that we wouldn’t get a Social Security Cost of Living Allowance next year. And, I had to tell her that it was true. According to my sources and the way I think our SS COLA is computed, we probably won't get an increase for the next two years. At this time, the COLA is computed based on the Consumer Price Index. The CPI is based on a typical "market basket" of goods and services purchased by US consumers in mid- to late-summer.

Last year, the price of gasoline was so high when they did this computation that the cost of that market basket was really high. So, they gave us a good COLA to reflect that (and a stimulus payment, too). Now, however, the price of gasoline and a lot of the other goods and services have gone down, so to balance it out, we won't get a COLA next year, and maybe the year after that.

One of my friend in Massachusetts is working with several groups to come up with a more equitable way to compute the real expenses of older people. The CPI, for example, uses costs of things like new refrigerators and furniture, groceries for a family of 4 including teen agers, vacation expenses, clothes and school expenses and lots of other things--anything that young and mid-life families might be buying. But, my friend thinks that the prices that older people pay are different. We probably are not buying new furniture, but instead are buying new knees and hips. We aren't feeding teen-agers, but we are probably buying diabetes and blood pressure drugs and medicines. We might not be paying for school, but are probably paying for help around the house. See what I mean? It is time that a different index should be used for the SS COLA that more correctly reflects what we old people are all paying for. Several states are trying out the new index (I don't know the name or where, but know that there are some eastern states that are trying this new index to determine some of their assistant payments. (Not Medicare which is determined by the feds.)

And, Yes. Our Medicare premiums will go up, but I don't know the real numbers yet.

That is one of the reasons we have been working to get some changes in the health care system. Medicare cannot keep spending like it is at this time without costing us more money or limiting the services that we get. And, Social Security COLAs probably won't cover the costs. We have got to get something changed.

A public universal health care system, based on the idea of Social Security, where everyone pays in and everyone can take out as they need to, makes a lot of sense to me.

But it has been bogged down by the people who are afraid of government programs. I even heard a guy at one of the town hall meetings say he wanted the government to keep their hands off his Medicare! Excuse me! Who does he think runs the Medicare program now? One person even said they didn't want the government messing with Social Security! Who do they think runs SS now? These are not perfect programs, but where would you and I be without them? Neither my long-suffering spouse nor I were in the military, so we can't depend on the Veterans services to help us. With all the medical problems we have had in recent years as we get older, without Medicare we would be living in a tent in the woods somewhere digging for mushrooms!

A public health insurance program, combined with private programs for those that can afford them, might happen. They are talking about making some kind of insurance mandatory for everyone with some government support for those who can't afford it. That would give the insurance companies more customers, wouldn't it? Even if they have to lower premium prices to match the public program, they would have more customers, wouldn’t they?

The problem is that they are talking about so many changes and so many different pieces of legislation, we can't possibly know what is going to happen. But, this is sure. They have got to make some changes or Medicare is going to go broke. And if Medicare goes broke, so do most low-to moderate income older people.

And we don't live in a vacuum. What affects us is going to affect our families. Instead of taking care of ourselves, we may have to go back to living with our kids to take care of us. Doesn't sound as much fun, does it?

Sorry, if I got carried away, but this is something that I have been working on since I started a job giving community education programs about SS and Medicare back in 1994. And I haven't stopped worrying about it, or working for change, just because I retired and quit being paid for what I was doing!

Thanks for letting me write it all down.

Gladys - OWL National Board Member

The Longevity Factor

2009-09-19T11:31:00.001-04:00

The Longevity Factor

Donna L. Wagner

Every morning I do the NY Times crossword puzzle before I start my day. On Monday, typically the easiest puzzle of the week, I noticed that it was taking longer than my normal 10 minute completion time. Puzzled by this difficulty, I noticed an announcement by the puzzle editor’s by-line: Longevity Week. This week the puzzle was featuring puzzles written by people who had at least 50 years of experience writing crossword puzzles. Monday’s puzzle was prepared by Bernice Gordon, 95 years old of Philadelphia. The oldest person ever to have a puzzle published, her work gave all of us who normally can do the puzzle on Monday before coffee pause.

Longevity has obvious advantages when it comes to puzzles and other intellectual pursuits requiring experience and command of the language. To the insurance industry and their assistants, members of the US Senate Finance Committee, longevity is not an asset to be respected but something to be penalized. The Baucus plan includes age-rating – just what we need in a nation of aging people. Age rating is another form of discrimination that, until recently was also levied upon women. Ironically, while giving a nod to the feminist advocacy groups around the country who so rightly fought against gender rating in health care, the “policy” makers just shifted it from the young women to the old women. Women do age and frankly, they age better and more reliably than do men. Women are also the gender who is most likely to have to step in when the older men in their lives, unable to afford the health care coverage they need, need help.

This proposal and all those who think age-rating is acceptable are not only discriminating against those who have lost their employer-based insurance but the rest of the population as well who will pay the bill one way or another in order to protect an industry that needs no protection. Age rating is antithetical to sound public policy and particularly offensive in an aging society. It is discrimination and a step backwards in the goal that should be at the center of the health care debate we are currently having: health CARE as a right to all citizens of the US.

Good News for Single-Payer Health Care: Votes expected in both House and Senate this fall!

2009-09-09T15:30:00.002-04:00

Much work has gone into lobbying Congress to take up single-payer health care legislation and leave behind the compromise plans that will result in too many Americans still being uninsured or underinsured. The work has paid off, and we hear that votes are coming in both the House and Senate on single-payer amendments!

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has agreed to allow debate and a vote on two amendments to health care legislation brought to the floor. Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) will offer an amendment to replace proposed legislation with language from HR 676, and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will offer an amendment to allow states to implement state-run single payer plans, should they so choose. HR 676, as many of you know, is the Medicare For All single payer bill from Congressman John Conyers.

In the Senate, Senator Sanders has agreed to offer his state-based single-payer bill, S. 703, as an amendment to replace compromise legislation. S. 703 is similar to the language that Congressman Kucinich will offer in the House.

It is unlikely any of these amendments will pass, but it is a big step to have votes on the record regarding single-payer health care. Many Members of Congress that we meet with say something similar to what we hear from President Obama – Single-payer is of course the best, most cost-effective choice to provide affordable, high-quality coverage to all Americans, but it’s not politically feasible at this time. The time to ante up has come for those members, and we will see who really stands for single-payer when the votes are called.

Aging in France

2009-07-28T11:43:00.001-04:00

Earlier this month I was in Paris to attend the International Congress of Gerontology and Geriatrics. Before the meeting started my husband and I did a little touring in the beautiful countryside of Brittany and Normandy. Hiking through the country on rural paths by fields of cattle, horses and vegetables and old stone houses we encountered a few French elders, one of whom shared a hike with us. A fan of Obama, she warmed to us immediately when we told her we were Americans. She explained that she hiked through her hills on a daily basis to keep active and healthy. After we said our adieus and parted ways, my husband and I spent the remainder of our hike musing over what it might be like to grow old in such beautiful surroundings. It seemed like a wonderful idea – old traditions, great food, beauty and health care for all. What’s not to like? A few days later we discovered another wonderful reason to grow old in France.

We were in a post office in Paris. The post office was bustling with activity – many Parisians use the post office as their bank and there were several lines of people waiting to make financial transactions. We were in a retail line to buy stamps for our postcards. Directly in front of us stood an older woman in her late 80’s or 90’s. Through a combination of French and sign language she asked us to save her place in line – something we were happy to do – and she moved away to stand next to the wall, leaning into it to help keep herself on her feet. We watched her carefully to make sure she didn’t fall and smiled to reassure her that she was going to have a turn before us. It wasn’t long before the clerk helping our line of customers noticed her leaning on the wall and called her up to the front of the line to take her order. Everyone moved away to give her room at the counter and she completed her transaction. It seemed like a very nice thing to do and we noticed that the six customers in front of us seemed happy to accommodate the needs of their older neighbor. But it didn’t stop there.

The clerk asked her if she needed to have a taxi called and if she needed to sit down. “Oui, si’l vous plait” was the response. Immediately the clerk left her line of 10 or 15 customers to go to the back room to find a chair. She brought the chair out into the lobby and then helped the woman over to the chair. After she was comfortably seated, the clerk asked her name and began to address her as Madame Delauney. Her complete attention was directed at Madame Delauney – none of it on her line. Everyone in the line was watching the interaction between the postal clerk and the elder in silence and apparently with patience, with the exception of an American who was several people behind us who began to complain. He told us all that he could get this post office to run efficiently in two days if he was put in charge of things and made other comments that I am sure few people in line understood. No one commented on his comments and the postal clerk continued to see to the well-being of Madame Delauney. She asked one of her co-workers to call a taxi for her and told her to sit there until someone came for her.

Returning to her station, the clerk began to wait on the next customer, an older gentleman who was mailing skeins of wool to his sister and needed a box to put them in. She slowly and deliberately selected one of her mailing boxes and helped him put the wool into it only to discover that it was not large enough. Needless to say, this action further incited the unhappy American behind us who began to search for an alternative line that looked more promising than ours. We had plenty of time in line to see the taxi driver enter the post office and began to look for Madame Delauney. He didn’t sit outside the post office in his taxi honking his horn – he came in and asked where she was. Our clerk left her station yet again to personally escort him to Madame Delauney and to help her stand and take his arm. The cab driver was attentive and careful with her as he escorted her out of the building and into his waiting cab.

You might already figure out where I am going with this rather amazing story. I had seen Parisians treat young children with this type of kindness and disregard for their own activities before but never had seen it with elders. Back to our original fantasy of growing old in France we could now add to the benefits of beauty, tradition and health care, kindness and concern for people of all ages who needed a little help with their daily transactions. It was a remarkable experience and one I am not likely to forget as I watch the scorn and impatience on the faces of those who are standing in line in my local grocery store, post office or bank here in the nation’s capital. Who needs assisted living when a society assumes it is their duty and privilege to make sure everyone is okay?

--Donna Wagner, President OWL National Board of Directors

I scream on the corner for nothing?

2009-07-27T10:33:00.002-04:00

When I was a kid, a family ice cream joke was, “ I scream on the corner for nothing”. Now as an elder, I find myself screaming on the corner of 2^nd and E Street for something! There I was Thursday for Single Payer Healthcare along with 40 or more Move-On persons from every walk of life screaming out “Healthcare Not Warfare” to Senator Barbara Boxer to encourage her to take a strong stand in the current debate.

Support a Public Option!

Support Affordable Healthcare!

Choice UP and Cost DOWN!

SAVE $$$$!

The current healthcare system is not working when America is 37^th rated with other countries, when 47% of our population is not insured and cannot afford healthcare. Those who are insured risk if covered in the event of a medical occurrence and whether their policy will be renewed and at what increase cost? There are so many personal stories confirming this.

Yes, I am old enough to qualify for Medicare. Why should I care about others? Because I strongly believe that preserving the present market-based approach does not serve us well. Healthcare is not a commodity for sale but is a right; that my health depends on my neighbor being healthy; that this is an area that government does better when all of us are in the risk pool for access to quality care.

I urge support of a strong public option as part of healthcare reform that is available to ALL Americans on Day One. No “trigger” and No delay, No gimmicks.

Get out and scream! What do we want? Healthcare! When do we want it? NOW!

Shirley Harlan, PO Box 2276, San Bernardino 92406, 909 882 4057

Stop Age Rating

2009-07-22T13:12:00.000-04:00

As the health care reform debate has heated up in Washington, the issue of age rating insurance policies has been raised. The question is “will people be charged more for their health insurance because they are older?” OWL has come out strongly with a clear “NO”! To do that would be to discriminate against older people just because they are older. We have long stood against age and gender discrimination.

Here is how the debate is unfolding. Insurance companies now charge people more as they get older because they see that older people use (need) more health care services and therefore the company must pay out more. The companies charge a 55 to 65 year-old up to five times as much as a younger person just because of age. Logical? Maybe if you are an insurance company, but let’s look deeper.

The whole point of insurance is to spread the risk of needing to pay for medical care among people who will need it and people who won’t. That is what makes it insurance. If you lump all high users together you are not spreading the risk but putting it all on those who need the care.

Putting 55 to 65 year-olds in one risk pool increases the cost for that age group and essentially means that healthy 55 to 65 year olds support the ill 55 to 65 year-olds. All healthy people should help pay for those who need care because at anytime we might be the ones who need the care.

We, as a society, recognized that putting all people 65 and older into one pool would make insurance unaffordable for those over 65 so we created Medicare and a funding mechanism that spread the cost over the whole population. As we expand health insurance to all, we need to maintain that principle. Discriminating on gender or age should be a policy of the past.

Ellen A. Bruce
Immediate Past President, OWL Board of Directors

Older?

2009-07-05T10:55:00.004-04:00

Those of us who have been around OWL for some time have heard endless arguments about the use of the word “older” in Older Women’s League, the original name the founders gave the organization. A lot of members and potential members don’t want to be considered “old”, “older”-- or anything that suggests this. On the other hand, some embrace the term and would like to see “older” given a good name.

On some reflection, I’ve decided that when the founders used “Older” Women’s League, the word was used intentionally. It was a political embrace of feminism -- older women were not simply kindly, docile grandmotherly types. They had the intelligence and strength of women in general -- and feminism was about recognizing these attributes. And, in addition, they had experience and wisdom, not to mention the often-recognized trait of becoming more forthright in the “second half of life”.

There was pride in the term, when older women were a recognizable political force, advocating for issues that affected them. They were recognized as an “in your face” but wise group who stood up to issues, popular or not. They were leaders in rights for “displaced homemakers”, women returning to the workforce after a lot of caretaking. They were leaders in the movement for universal health care in the ‘90’s. And they have continually been leaders in advocating for women’s economic security (such as social security and pensions). These are only a few of the many areas in which active, involved older women, are a recognized as a significant political force.

Not wanting to use the term “older” is somewhat understandable, in our youth obsessed society. (In fact, in my OWL chapter we seldom use the term.) On the other hand, older women have some unique attributes. I’d really like to see us take positions of power and leadership again -- by any name.

--Kathie Piccagli
OWL San Francisco and National Board Member

Health vs. Medical

2009-06-09T12:45:00.003-04:00

Up for debate nationally is the matter of insurance coverage for “health care.” I think we do not need to debate among ourselves the merits of a single payer, universal coverage system as opposed to what we have now. Our chances for achieving that goal this time around seem slim to me. That does not mean we should stop trying. But I think we need to pay great attention to the language and rhetoric used by all interests in the debate, regardless of the proposal.

What we are hearing is the need to “reform our current system of provision for health care.” Let’s take that apart. In the Random House Dictionary of English Usage I found the following definitions:

Health: the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor; freedom from disease or ailment;

Reform: the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory; to change to a better form; to put an end to abuses, disorders, etc.;

Medical: of or pertaining to the science or practice of medicine;

System: an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or whole; an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, methods, etc. in a particular field.

Given these definitions of words commonly used relative to provision of care for “health” matters, I contend that we have no system, but a mish mash of various approaches and programs, most of which are related to medical care rather than health care. If a diagnosis is required for payment to a provider, it is medical. This could happen with a single payer plan as well.

I suggest that we pay close attention to the language of the discussions as they progress. Yes, I think we need to continue to push for a single payer plan , but even for that we need to be aware of the differences between “health” and “medical”. Let’s not call it health if it is really medical.

-Cleo Berkun, Ohlone OWL

The Cost of Health Care

2009-05-18T17:07:00.001-04:00

The ARA (Alliance for Retired Americans) will focus on health care this Older Americans Month. OWL has advocated for single payer for decades. Why are people over 65 interested in single payer? Almost everywhere I go younger people seem to think it is only for altruistic reasons---once you reach 65 and get Medicare, you’ve got it made, so why should you care about a single payer system.

I do think fairness is a component of the interest of older Americans in single payer health care. We have seen far too much suffering caused by a health care system that is not universal. Too many people don’t receive health care they need because they can’t get coverage or afford coverage ----or because insurance they have is inadequate. Too many “older Americans” have watched children, friends, and others struggle (or even die unnecessarily). The “system” isn’t fair and it hurts too many people.

However, there is also the issue of self interest. Conceptually, Medicare is a health safety net for those over 65; that’s the way it was originally intended. The current Medicare program has become increasingly “broken”. Between deductibles, co-pays, and increasing costs, Medicare is inadequate. A recent study said that a couple can expect to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on healthcare, assuming they have Medicare “benefits” to start with.

Most people don’t grow old with those extra resources. As the costs of basic Medicare increase (and they do regularly), we will see increasing numbers of people entitled to Medicare who don’t have all of the coverage they need. And we will see increasing numbers of people who can’t afford to use it, if they do have it----because of the steady increase in co-pays and deductibles.

The situation is, of course, worse for older women. Older women are poorer than older men. They have lower savings and a lower income, with a much higher proportion living on Social Security alone. And, of course, women live longer than men---generally, the older, the fewer resources. Increasingly your financial resources enable you to use the Medicare system.

Older Americans recognize the importance of an integrated system of health care for all, because they see that our society needs it and because they are members of that society.

--Kathie Piccagli, OWL National Board and OWL of California

Elder Economic Security

2009-05-04T13:56:00.001-04:00

I have been motivated to look at “Elder Economic Security”, both by things going on here in California and looking at the National picture. It appears that there is a national effort (at least in five or more states) to determine a more realistic economic standard for older people. As “Older Americans Month” gets underway, this is a totally appropriate emphasis. This is “where it’s at.” We need to pay attention to it. We need to update it.

Economic issues are the most important overarching issues facing us as we grow older. Your economic situation affects housing, health, nutrition, social interaction---the whole gamut of quality of life. If you don’t have enough resources to cover your basic needs, life is very difficult indeed. We often hear of retirement or getting older as “golden years” But are they? Not for many----most, in some areas of the country.

Poverty levels and cost of living standards used by most government agencies were based on conditions in the 1950’s. In addition, there are ordinarily not allowances for different geographic areas----housing costs a lot here in CA cities, for example. Extensive studies have been done, at least at the University of MA and in CA by the UCLA-Insight program.

According to these studies, many, many seniors are poor---they don’t have enough to cover necessities, much less extras. At the same time, many in dire economic straits don’t qualify for many government supports, because eligibility is based on outdated data.

As previous bloggers have said, I am one of the lucky ones, as are most of the people who’ll read this. It’s not going to matter to me right now, for example, that social security recipients are not getting a cost-of-living increase this year, as I read in the paper this morning. But it may matter to me someday.

Meanwhile it bothers me a lot that we aren’t working hard enough to put supports in place, that more and more older people are finding it difficult to survive. The problem of not living comfortably will only get worse as time goes on, and we live longer and longer.

It is important for us to realize that the income levels and poverty are worse for older WOMEN. We have fewer savings, we get less from social security and pensions, we live longer----and longer life and gender mean more health problems, care needs, and expenses.

(In CA, legislation supporting adoption of a fairer elder economic index, was introduced this spring---AB 324.)

-Kathie Piccagli, OWL San Francisco and OWL National Board of Directors

Older American's Month - Elder Economic Security Initiative

2009-05-02T09:29:00.003-04:00

I am kicking off Older American’s Month to spread the importance of the Elder Economic Security Initiative.

Even though I am better off than most of my friends, my economic security is undermined by the present economy. The market drop over the past year, double the Medicare amount removed from my social security to my HMO, increased costs of local utilities and on and on. But compared to my friends I am rich and not eligible to apply for support programs.

My elderly friends live on minimum social security that is due to their career lower pay rates and/or less years in the workforce. They are struggling to choose among the necessities for heating, prescription drugs and food. Over and over again I hear if it were not for the 99 cent stores I could not eat through the month.

It is critical to support the Elder Economic Security Initiative. We must be realistic about the costs of senior living expenses and raise the Federal Poverty Level so that programs that use this measure to approve assistance fill the gap more appropriately. Right now there is no safety net. Some programs play ping pong with eligibility differences that confuse and deny needed healthcare.

My friends find themselves in an awkward position to postpone serious health concerns or manipulate the system in ways that they feel morally wrong.

We help and network with each other but it is not enough to quell the anger, anxiety and stress that each day brings. We must do more for our elderly women. America’s goal is economic security for all our elders and removes the present threshold of poverty.

Shirley Harlan
San Bernardino, CA 92406

The Fight for Equal Pay!

2009-05-01T17:30:00.003-04:00

Tuesday, April 28 was Equal Pay Day, a day not to be celebrated, but rather observed. That date was designated because it marks the point in 2009 when the average woman’s wages finally catch up with those paid to the average man in 2008. Women overall still make only 78¢ for every dollar earned by men. Forty-six years after the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, the wage gap has closed only 19¢ - a rate of less than half a penny a year! And for women of color, the numbers are even worse. African-American women earn 62¢ and Latinas earn 53¢ for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men.

Here at OWL, we know that fair and equitable pay is the foundation for economic security later in life. After all, you can’t save what you don’t earn.

You may remember that President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law in January, ending a long lobbying effort by OWL and many other hard-working organizations. This was a great victory for equal pay, but it was only step one! The Paycheck Fairness Act, the next step of the fight for fair pay, has been passed in the House but still need to be passed by the Senate.

Why do we need both bills? They each play different roles in the fight for fair pay. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act corrected a Supreme Court decision and affirmed that each time a worker receives an inequitable paycheck it is an act of discrimination and a violation of the law. It ensures that victims of discrimination have the right to fight back and seek compensation. The Paycheck Fairness Act, on the other hand, would amend and fortify the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by prohibiting employer retaliation, strengthen penalties for discrimination, and closing loopholes that employers use to get out of paying penalties.

TAKE ACTION! Call your Senators and urge them to support The Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 182). Let them know that it is unacceptable that women are still earning only 78 for every dollar earned by men!

-Elizabeth Lamme, OWL Public Policy Assistant

Elder Economic Security Index

2009-05-01T16:16:00.003-04:00

This week, OWL and many women's organizations celebrated Equal Pay Day. This day marks the point in 2009 when women's earnings catch up to what men's earnings were in 2008. Our staff and members wore red clothing as a symbol of women's pay still being "in the red."

Today is "Blog about Elder Economic Security Day." A key concern is that we can't achieve economic security or change policy if we don't have an accurate measure of income adequacy. Our friends at Wider Opportunities for Women have developed a much better tool than what is currently used for figuring out the true costs are that we face in retirement. The Elder Economic Security Standard™ Index (Elder Index) is a much more precise and up-to-date measure of seniors’ income adequacy and economic well-being.

The Elder Index provides a complete picture of what it takes for an individual 65 years or older to age in place with dignity. The Elder Index uses cost data from federal and state sources to assemble a realistic household budget, which includes expenses such as housing, transportation, food, and health care. The Elder Index will show that household expenses can vary significantly due to variables such as health status, geographic location, housing status, and marital status. The Elder Index can help us to figure out what women need to truly be able to retire free from poverty

Women still earn fewer cents on the dollar than men 44 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act. Fewer dollars earned means fewer dollars to save. I am expected to live on average six years longer than my male counterpart. I am also projected to spend up to twelve years caregiving for children, grandchildren, spouse, parents or grandparents. These twelve years of labor are of course unpaid.

We need a better measure of economic security and the Elder Economic Security Index is a major leap forward in helping policy makers to see what women need.

Ashley B. Carson

Executive Director, OWL

Washington, DC

2009-05-01T16:07:00.002-04:00

I love going to Washington DC. As a member of the OWL National Board, I come to Washington three times a year. Each time I come, I plan something different to do in the city. As I come from New York City, I have the opportunity to travel inexpensively, by bus, to DC. The bus leaves me about six blocks from my hotel- Hosteling International-Washington, DC. This centrally located hostel is a safe, clean and cheap place to stay in the city. I always request a bottom bunk.

I have seen the Vietnam Memorial on a cold damp January morning. I was a college student during the war and protested against it. I now wonder what kind of memorial will be built for all those lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The summer trip down the Potomac River to Mount Vernon was a lot of fun. I usually travel around the city by myself but on the last trip, Shirley Harlan, another member of the OWL National Board, went with me. We had a great time and learned that it was a group of women that saved Mount Vernon from destruction. Shirley introduced me to the Kennedy Center’s free evening concert events. The night we went it was a children’s author reading his book. It was very enjoyable, even for an adult.

Other places I visited are the National Archives, the National Zoological Park, and the National Museum of the American Indian. At the National Archives, I saw the Declaration of Independence as well as documents signed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony who pushed for a woman’s right to vote. The National Zoo has an outstanding giant panda habitat as well as Komodo dragons. The Museum of the American Indian tells the stories of many Native American tribes. Also, the food at the museum makes it “the place” for lunch. The selection is planned around regional foods that different tribes would have eaten. For example, items could be Indian fry bread, tamales, buffalo burgers, or grilled salmon as well as different kinds of oysters and seasonal vegetables. The prices are reasonable and not a hot dog in sight. The best thing is that all of these places have no admission fees.

What are my plans for my next trip? Well, I have not been to Arlington Cemetery or seen the monuments of DC by night. By the way, I always make the OWL Board meetings.

-Lowell Green, NE Regional Representative to the OWL National Board

OWL and Health Care

2009-04-15T14:36:00.001-04:00

Dear OWL Members,

Last week we began a monthly national call-in on our nation’s struggle for universal health care. OWL has a very large stake in this debate as we have advocated for over twenty years for a single system of health insurance, modeled in part on Medicare, which would cover everyone. Why is this so important to us when so many of our members are already covered by Medicare?

First, as OWL members we understand the inter-connectedness of everyone in our society. As caregivers of children and the disabled it affects us when they cannot see a doctor. As workers, we know the suffering when a co-worker struggles through a pain she can’t afford to diagnose. And of course, many of us are not eligible for Medicare and struggle ourselves to find health insurance.

Second, we understand the economic consequences of concentrating the cost of health insurance on only some industries, the wasteful administrative burden of determining who is covered for what, and the lost opportunity to control costs when coverage is haphazard and dispersed.

Why a Medicare-for-All model? Two main reasons should convince anyone; it is simpler and it would eliminate a lot of unnecessary paperwork and by doing so reduce costs.

Health care coverage is possible and OWL will continue to present the voices of midlife and older women. Thank you all for being a part of the most important policy push of the American 21^st century. Let’s see if we can make it happen.

It's Your Attitude

2009-03-21T14:07:00.001-04:00

It’s your attitude

Recently I was in Las Vegas at an American Society on Aging conference presenting a workshop for OWL with our President, Donna Wagner, and the co-chair of our board’s field services committee, Gladys Considine. Las Vegas is a strange place for me because I don’t gamble and I prefer the quiet of the woods or mountains to large crowds and flashing lights. When I first got there I couldn’t help railing against the place. “What were all these people doing here? Gambling is a waste of money. This place charges you for everything. ” And so on.

My brother, a gambler, told me to lighten up and try enjoying Vegas for what it had to offer, not what it didn’t have. As he put it, my asking what historical or cultural museums there were to see in Vegas, was like going to Florence, Italy and asking where the waterslide was. He was right. There was a warm sun (which I could use after a very cold winter in the northeast), good shows, and as it turned out, the roulette wheel can be fun if you are playing with friendly people and don’t mind loosing a little money. They even give you free drinks.

This experience reminded me that, although I believe in trying to “change the world for the better," that sometimes we should accept what we find. I think about growing older and knowing the difficulty of deciding what I should try to change and what should be accepted. I am not going to accept injustice nor older women living in poverty or lonely and alone, but I am willing to accept winkles and flabby arms. I will also accept (but not like) the loss of close friends and loved ones.

As I struggle to sort out what I should try to change and what I should accept, I know that I will be happier if I am working for positive change and not complaining about everything that is bad. There is a lot to complain about – big banks doing “lord only knows what” with taxpayer money, corporate bonuses for bad behavior, and a stock market that has sucked the retirement savings out of our 401(k)s. But there is also good. Women coming together in OWL chapters or small groups to work for paid sick leave, universal health care, equal pay, guaranteed pensions, better housing, etc. Taking time to help a sick friend or a young child. Let’s think what each of us can do in a positive way to deal with the suffering people are experiencing. As women working together, smiling and laughing, we might be able to have fun while making lemonade of lemons. It certainly will be more fun than complaining about how horrible the banks are.

Ellen A. Bruce
Immediate Past President

Equal Pay and Fair Pensions

2009-02-19T17:50:00.002-05:00

Equal Pay and Fair Pensions

Women have known for years that they often receive less pay than their male counterparts. What has been less obvious is that because of pay discrimination, they also receive lower pensions. A number of changes have occurred in the last few weeks that could help women remedy both problems.

The story starts with a woman named Lily Ledbetter who sued her employer for violation of the equal pay requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She was a supervisor in a Goodyear plant in Alabama for almost 20 years and discovered at the end of her career at Goodyear that she had been paid substantially less than men working in the same position that she worked. She sued under Title VII and a jury in the lower court found that she had indeed been paid less because of her gender, but in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to throw the case out because she had not filed her complaint within 180 days of the first discriminatory decision to pay her less. Essentially the court decided that a woman had to sue when the employer gave her a lower raise because of her sex and that the on-going affect of discrimination was not grounds to sue. Such a rule made it very difficult for women to pursue wage discrimination cases.

The first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which reversed the decision of the Supreme Court. Members of OWL had worked hard to push the passage of this act. The act makes it clear that every time a woman receives a pay check that is lower than a man’s because of a discriminatory decision on the part of the employer, a discriminatory act has occurred and the women may sue under Title VII.

The first application of this law may well be a case currently before the Supreme Court that highlights how employment discrimination affects women not only during their working years but well into retirement as well.

Four women who worked for AT&T took maternity leaves when AT&T didn’t credit maternity leave time toward their pension. AT&T did count other leave time, however. That practice has been outlawed by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 but the company is maintaining that their pension plan should not have to include the maternity leave which will lower the amount of money these women, and thousands like them, will have in retirement. It is just one of many examples of how women end up with lower pensions in retirement than men.

How the Supreme Court decides this case will tell us how much progress we have made with the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It was an important step but we know from experience that no single bill will solve the problem of fair pay or adequate retirement income. We must keep working to ensure economic security for all women, young and old.

Ellen A. Bruce, JD

OWL, President Emeritus

Entitlements - Fit Lincoln's View of Government's Proper Role

2009-02-18T14:59:00.002-05:00

February 17, 2009

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE – ENTITLEMENTS –
FIT LINCOLN’S VIEW OF GOVERNMENT’S PROPER ROLE

By Merton C. Bernstein, Coles Professor of Law Emeritus, Washington University;
served as the principal consultant to the National Commission on Social Security Reform;
a founding board member of the National Academy of Social Insurance

Lincoln declared that “The legitimate object of government is to do for people what needs to be done but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or cannot do so well for themselves.” President Obama reminded us on Lincoln’s birthday. Social Security and Medicare fulfill this role. But groups like the Heritage Foundation [MCB1] distort what entitlement means, implying, among other things, that benefits are unearned, foolishly designed and unduly favor the elderly who, surprise, surprise, are really wealthy.

“Entitlements” means that claims must be determined by law rather than an official’s discretion. In an earlier day, private charity or public relief focused on the “deserving poor.” Who got help all too often turned on the race, religion, politics or “character” of the applicant. That sometimes led to abusive and exploitative actions by the deciders.

Eligibility for Social Security benefits and Medicare protections are “earned rights” enforceable at law. Nonetheless some disparage “entitlements” by assigning a quite different meaning to the term, as if program participants regard benefits as their due, that the world owes them a living. In sober fact, most economists regard the required payroll contributions, required equally of the employee and the employer, as part of employee compensation. Absent those contributions, employee wages would be commensurately higher.

Social Security and Medicare have another key protection – they are automatically funded. In contrast, Medicaid and other means-tested federal/state program benefits are payable only to the extent that each state legislatures decides annually how much to appropriate. Unfortunately, Medicaid is often the first target for cuts when budget problems arise.

The Earned Income Tax Credit Offsets the Double Whammy of the Payroll Tax and the Income Tax on the Low Paid

Some sneer that more people pay FICA (the Federal Income Contributions Act) than pay income tax, as if that were some loony federal government mistake. But that results purposefully from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Decades ago, policy makers understood the double burden that the income tax and FICA placed on low and moderate earners.. EITC was the answer. It rewards earned income by reducing or eliminating income tax for low earners but continues the FICA contributions; that preserves the “earned benefit” connection that FICA gives to Social Security. And by lessening the tax burden for low and modest earnings, EITC makes Social Security funding more progressive than FICA’s impact considered alone. Weighting the Social Security benefit formula so that low and moderate pay produce higher proportional benefits than high pay serves the same purpose. Even so, the higher one’s average lifetime pay, the higher are one’s benefits.

Entitlements Do Not Favor the Wealthy Elderly at the Expense of the Young ; Cuts Hit the Young Hardest

Some Social Security critics complain that the old people get more federal goodies than youngsters. This overlooks how much Social Security benefits young people, while the states address their traditional responsibility, education, with assists from the feds.

Some are hoodwinked into believing that the elderly are richer than everyone else.
Recently, Time columnist Michael Kinsley reported that in 2004 the “average” couple 65-74 had accumulated wealth of $691,000, a figure vastly inflated by a small number of extremely wealthy people; couples at the “median” (half had less) had accumulated $190,000. Singles did not do half so well. For most people, an owned home is the most valuable property. Since 2004, home values have gone the way of the glaciers.

Indeed, any reductions in benefits, and raising normal retirement age cuts benefits for all thereafter, bears most heavily on the young; the younger one is, the bigger the total benefit reductions.

Social Security – Our Best Anti-Poverty Program, Especially for Women
With Social Security, about 10% of the elderly are in poverty; without Social Security that figure would be over 50% - the majority of them women.

In sum, entitlements are just what Lincoln ordered.

Retirement?

2009-02-12T14:34:00.000-05:00

I have a problem with retirement—not doing it—naming it. Why?

After I retired three years ago, after 40 years and with a secure post-employment income, some well meaning people asked me how I was filling up all of my free time now. I felt vaguely uncomfortable with these questions, so I decided to seek out why I felt this way. It seemed to me that the noun "retirement" carries a negative valence to me, and in the larger western society, so I decided to look for various reasons and definitions. I learned that, until the mid-20th century, people died within two years of formal retirement, and many people worked until the day they died. It seems then, say the historians, that retirement simply became synonymous with old age, frailty and impending death. Well, where are we now? I first looked at present definitions of the word "retirement."

The dictionary defines "retirement" as… to withdraw from action or danger; to retreat; to withdraw especially for privacy; to fall back: recede; withdraw from one's position or occupation. A thesaurus search came up with … to sleep, depart, leave, and give up work. Some retired academics use the term emerita or emeritus professor (however, some people outside of the academic setting don’t know what this means), though this word does not necessarily put a negative valence on retirement, I believe in general perception, it is. Today, the word "retirement" conjures up a negative rather than positive impression. Presently, retirement seems to conjure up loss, or moving away from society. The mainstream mind’s eye image of a “retired person” seems to be generally old, frail, and unproductive.

However, there is a glimmer of positive movement away from this image. For example, what is your mind’s eye image of baby boomers? Vital? Engaged? Powerful? Of course, the oldest of this population is now only 62; however as they age, it is possible that the "look" of the retired person will continue to be vital, engaged and powerful. Another positive turn is the term "early retirement." The Beatles immediately come to mind—so do people who made millions in the computer industry in the '80s and '90s, cashed in their stock and left. They also project: vital; engaged; powerful. And magazine ads for “retirement living” homes usually show active, attractive, over-50 men and women playing tennis or golf

(the other extreme?).

So, I believe that there is the beginning of a shift in societal perceptions of what retirement means in our larger society. Perhaps some day soon, dictionaries will add "moving on" to its list of definitions of retirement.

I just wish people will stop asking me, "Now that you are retired, what do you do to keep busy?"

Amy Hittner

In Praise of Style

2009-01-26T10:44:00.000-05:00

In Praise of Style

When Aretha Franklin came up to the podium to sing our national anthem at Barak Obama's inauguration, the crowd that I was watching the proceedings with gave out a loud cheer. In part it was because so many of us appreciate her music (RESPECT says it all) but in part it was because of the hat she wore. It was a large gray hat with an enormous bow in the front. It was reminiscent of the fabulous hats many African-American women wore to churches throughout the 20th century. If you are not familiar with the style, look at "Crowns: Portraits of Black Women in Church Hats" by Cunningham and Marberry which is a wonderful collection of pictures of women and their hats.

Michelle Obama also had a fashion statement that inauguration day in her yellow dress with a yellow long jacket. Regardless of what you thought about either the hat or the dress, both women were dressing in a way that stood out and said I am here to please my own sense of style. I am not wearing a dark pant suit and looking like a man with curves.

Don't get me wrong. If you like dark pant suits, wear them; and in fact I do. But I do love to see women in showy clothes that they feel comfortable in. I hope Michele Obama does not become known for only fashion statements and protecting her children -- traditional roles for the first lady. On inauguration day, both of these women were acting in traditional female roles, one as a wife and one as an entertainer. But hopefully their lively sense of style will also free political and professional women to express their own sense of style. Hillary Clinton wore colorful pant suits which broke a little with tradition and for which the press never tired of commenting on.

I am ready for America to accept that a stylish women can also be a serious women. Let's have some fun with our clothes while we get serious about our politics.

Perception and Discrimination

2009-01-21T16:07:00.000-05:00

Perception and Discrimination

As thousands of people gather in Washington, DC to witness the swearing in of the United States’ first African-American President and millions more make plans to watch the ceremony on television, I am moved by the symbolic meaning of this day. Like many Americans, I have lived through the overt separation of the races in the fifties, the often violent struggle for equality in the sixties, and the continuing struggles to make equality a reality in the seventies, eighties, and nineties.

I am moved that such an important barrier has been broken. I am also intrigued by the difference of the meaning of this event for my generation and for other generations. Both The Boston Globe and the New York Times have run articles making the point that seeing an African-American President was not strange to the younger generation because they had seen it so often in the movies and on television.

Often what we have seen or read in novels allows us to accept it in reality. Familiarity, whether it is real or made up, can go along way toward acceptance of change. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. It can allow us to let go of prejudices but it can also make us immune to violence and more subtlety the cruelty of rudeness and loss of privacy.

Using the power of the familiar to combat discrimination is a lesson we can use when we see sexism and ageism. I remember as a child that there were no women news anchors or radio D Js. The first time I heard a women’s voice on the radio it sounded shrill to me. It was unfamiliar in that setting. Today women on the radio and TV news seem as natural as men.

Those of you who have seen the movie “Milk” about Harvey Milk, the gay rights activist, were reminded about the role of grassroots organizing to change laws and perceptions. The popular television sitcom “Will and Grace” which provided a fictionalized picture of the gay community came twenty years after Harvey Milk’s advocacy for gay’s civil rights. It is the interplay of advocacy and our imaginations that can become a powerful tool for change.

What are our perceptions of race, gender, or old age that hold us back? What perceptions are real and which ones are built on bias? The media can often help us sort that through by allowing us to confront our prejudices. The media and fiction, however, can go just so far. It is up to us to push in our communities and through changes in the media and law to eliminate the discrimination that relegates us to less than our potential.

Ellen A. Bruce
President, OWL Board of Directors

Health Care Reform

2009-01-12T11:18:00.001-05:00

There’s energy in the air in DC. People are excited. There’s a sense that change really is coming, and here in DC, many are trying to bridge partisan divides to have real conversations about how to rebuild a better, stronger, healthier America. What’s exciting about this is that it seems you can replace “DC” in those sentences with any city, from Portland, Maine to Portland, Oregon. Health care reform is on the table, and the time for careful action is now.

Health Care Reform is like a Candy Store

There are probably about as many ways to make changes to our health care system are there are flavors of Jelly-Belly. There are about 15 different plans from Congress, and you can bet every industry, consumer, and provider group could tweak their own best plan as well. President-elect Obama made numerous statements throughout his campaign, ranging from full support for single-payer health care to a promise that health care reform would allow anyone who is happy with the insurance they currently have to keep it. His nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle, has some other ideas too, but acknowledges that a single-payer system would be the most cost effective way to provide good care to all.

OWL has advocated for single-payer health care since its inception, and is absolutely maintaining its single-payer voice. We are working in several coalitions with other groups to make sure that the consumer voice is heard loud and clear in the reform negotiations, and in fact, in discussions with Health Care for America Now! (HCAN), we have been asked to maintain that position so it doesn't disappear from the table. To be frank, I don’t think there’s the political will to go all the way on a single-payer plan. The question then becomes, does the bumper sticker on the back of our vehicle read ‘Single-payer or Bust” or “Single-payer or Other Plan that is Far Better than the Status Quo?” OWL is without question making the case for single-payer repeatedly, loudly, and clearly, and having our voice will contribute to a plan that is closer to single-payer than not if we can’t go all the way.

Single-payer, Universal Health Care, and Medicare-for-All (Or, Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!)

These terms get thrown around, but it would do us some good to know what we mean when we use them. They are related, but not interchangeable.

A single-payer plan means that the federal government would be writing the checks to pay for health care for everyone. Instead of Sue having Insurance A, Joe having Insurance B, etc., and each insurance company being a separate payer, all claims would ultimately be paid by the government (like traditional Medicare payments).

Universal health care simply means that everyone has access to care. This phrase is a bit of a misnomer to me, because, technically, one could argue we already have this. Anyone who is in need of care can get it, either from their primary doctor, an urgent care center, or an emergency room. I don’t mean to suggest it’s good or affordable, or that it’s used appropriately, but it’s there. Universal coverage is a different goose. This refers to everyone having some form of health insurance, public or private. This includes high-deductible plans, which we know leave people effectively underinsured, with very high out of pocket costs, but which is considered insurance for the purposes of a universal coverage system. This comes with other problems too – namely an individual mandate that requires people to have health insurance or pay a fine. Both of these situations result in too many people still going with out coverage, care, or both, because they truly cannot afford it.

Medicare for All (MFA) is also a broad term to be used carefully, but generally means expanding the existing Medicare program and infrastructure to cover everyone. We have to recognize that Medicare is increasingly complex, currently includes options that allow private insurance companies to administer Medicare plans, and largely does not cover preventive care like annual physicals, dental, and vision services. MFA isn’t quite as simple as it sounds, since major changes would have to be made to cover appropriate services for all ages, but the basic infrastructure is already in place, and starting there would put us leaps and bounds ahead of starting from scratch. There is a strong grassroots movement supporting Congressman Conyers' HR 676 MFA legislation. Support in the Senate is a different story, and it would take a great deal of communications from home states to get the ball moving there (hint, hint).

Health Care Reform, Generally Speaking

There seems to be support and momentum building for large-scale reform, and in the right direction. You may be aware that Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, recently released a white paper on health care reform. It was intended as a discussion starter, and people certainly are talking. It largely reflects the public/private compromise President-elect Obama campaigned on during the general election. While it represents a commitment to reform, it's incredibly moderate, too moderate as a place to start discussions, I think, and certainly the left wants to view it as a floor, while the right is hoping it is a ceiling. Nonetheless, it makes rational, focused support for MFA very important. In addition, Congressman Waxman has taken over control of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which will bring new energy and a more liberal agenda to that committee. Waxman has been great on health care and women's issues (and a long list of other issues), so this is a good omen for health care reform.

I know some are opposed to OWL working with HCAN. It is important to know that there is no HCAN "model" for reform. What HCAN is working on is a set of principles about what "universal" coverage and "affordable health care" mean, and plans that fit those fundamentals could come in all shapes and sizes, single-payer included. HCAN does propose a way for private insurers to coexist with a public plan, but it doesn’t necessarily mean a single-payer plan wouldn’t fit. I know some think working with this group is compromising our position, but I believe the opposite is true. Our goal is to have everyone covered, receiving high quality care in the most cost-effective manner. We think MFA is the best way to do this, but any step forward is a step forward, and working with other groups who want to walk in the same direction lends more weight, and more frequent forums, to our position.

Owls to the Skies
A year ago, comprehensive health care reform sounded good on the campaign trail, but probably wasn’t a bucket filled with much water. Now, with the economy in trouble, bailouts going around like holiday cards, the bucket is quite full. The silver lining to the economic downturn is that real health care reform has jumped to the top of the list of priorities, with a great tag line – we can’t afford not to. If a plan moves forward, people are talking about expanding Medicare to cover more people, eliminating the 2 year wait for Medicare disability, Medicaid eligibility based on income, without the categorical restrictions that currently exist, and a private but heavily regulated and subsidized plan for those in between without employer coverage. I think employer coverage will be protected heavily, and rather than taxing the benefit, it sounds like companies that don't provide a floor package could be penalized. It will be messier and more complicated than this, certainly, and it isn't a perfect fix, but it's astonishingly better than where we are. Throughout the negotiations, OWL will continue to be a voice for MFA.

OWLs across the country will have to decide if they want to shape the discussion from a seat at the table or from a bullhorn outside. There is merit to both positions. I would argue a compromise – bold and diplomatic. Make the case for MFA, but stay at the table. If we can’t get MFA, let’s get as close as we can. We need to keep our eyes on the prize – better, affordable health care for all.

Your U.S. Senators and Representatives need to hear from you. At their DC offices, at their district offices, at town hall meetings, everywhere. And they need to hear from your mothers, daughters, sons, sisters, husbands, neighbors, friends, bank tellers, schoolteachers, dental hygienists, and the dog walker. Be an advocate for comprehensive health care reform –talk to everyone you can, and get them to reach out too. This effort depends on grassroots momentum. You are the voters. Tell your representatives in Congress you want Medicare-for-All!

-Natale Zimmer

Health Policy Director, OWL

A Holiday Perspective

2008-12-23T16:51:00.000-05:00

A Holiday Perspective

May I wish for you and your family a very happy holiday. Where I live the ground and trees have been covered with white snow, slowing down traffic and making us all a little frustrated or in the holiday mood – depending on your perspective. In honor of the holiday season, I want to talk a little about perspective. All of us with investments have lost a great deal of money in the past several months. For some who are retired, that may be what they are living on. For others of us, those investments were what we hoped to retire on.

But remember those who don’t have investments; those who didn’t lose anything because they had nothing to lose. Those are the people, young and old, who will be worse off in this economy because they will lose their job or because the government program they relied on is now cutting benefits. They were never fortunate enough to have something to fall back on.

Those of us who lost much of our savings are feeling much poorer and are probably a little afraid of what will happen next. But this is the time of year to look at the glass and ask if it is half empty or half full. For those of us with half full glasses, now is the time to look to the charities that we support, and continue to support them. Although we feel poorer, we must ask ourselves whether we really are poor, for there is a big difference between feeling poor and being poor.

In this holiday season, let us remember those who are really poor.

Ellen A. Bruce
President, OWL Board of Directors

Aging in Place?

2008-12-10T10:46:00.000-05:00

Aging in Place?

Many of us live in the house we raised a family or our parents still live in the house in which we were raised. The rooms that once held Legos are now guest rooms or dens. We may love the house for its memories or we may feel it is too big for the occasional visits of family and friends. Should we move?

I have often pondered the phrase “Aging in Place” which is so often held up as the goal for housing policy and long-term care policy for older persons. Does it make any sense?

As we get older our needs change and it seems that our housing should also change. We probably need less space and would appreciate less responsibility for the upkeep. The models of independent living that offer meals and relief from other burdens such as finding repair people have been very popular among those who have the financial means to afford them. They are also popular with the children who worry about their parents’ wellbeing.

For people whose houses were in the suburbs or rural areas, the independent living model can provide transportation when driving becomes unsafe. But perhaps, most importantly, living in these communities can provide an easily accessible social network. As we age, we lose not only some of our strength and stamina but also our friends and often our spouse, leaving us much more socially isolated and often lonely.

Aging in place sounds good but may not be the best choice of many of us. As we change and our lives change, it makes sense that our housing should also change. Certainly we do not want to be warehoused in an institution but there should be many other options between staying put and moving to an institution. The continuing care communities are a good start but they also pose problems. They are expensive and not available to most seniors. For those seniors who can afford them, they are viewed as a place you move to when you no longer want to cook or drive or your children are afraid of you alone in a big house. Why not make them more flexible so that you don’t have to have the meals if you still like to cook? Why not make them attractive to young seniors as well as older ones? Why not build affordable units with government support?

Some of these ideas are already in place but we need many more innovations which will encourage those in their sixties and seventies to downsize when they can do it themselves in a manner that they choose. Planning ahead is part of the puzzle but having the options is also an important piece.

Ellen A. Bruce

President

OWL Medicare-For-All Report Author releases an article...

2008-11-14T11:07:00.001-05:00

November 13, 2008

From the National Academy of Social Insurance: Ideas on Medical Care Reform

The Economical Way to Assure Medical Care for Children and Young People That Also Reduces Strains on Family, Business and State Budgets: Medicare

By Nancy J. Altman and Merton C. Bernstein. [Both have served as senior staff to the 1982-83 National Commission on Social Security Reform and in the United States Senate, and as board members of the National Academy of Social Insurance. They can be reached at Bernstein@wulaw.wustl.edu, and Njalt@aol.com.]

President-elect Obama’s proposed health care reform includes a requirement of mandatory, universal, and comprehensive health care coverage for all children. No reform is more urgent, offers greater returns, or is more readily achieved at such low cost.[i]

We suggest that Medicare offers the readiest and least expensive platform for this advance,[ii] one already familiar to the nation’s health care providers, insurers, and consumers. A straightforward, universal children’s health plan is extremely efficient. Social Security, which has low administrative costs (less than 1% of outgo), demonstrates how cost effective an objective test like age is. Using Medicare’s simple and low cost machinery, rather than the myriad private and public sector programs, like SCHIP[iii] and Medicaid,[iv] will assure universal coverage while eliminating a number of costly and time consuming steps, such as processing hundreds of thousands of billings using innumerable differing formulas. Massachusetts alone, for example, has used eight different eligibility/payment formulas for similar populations. Private plans vary in coverage and procedures. Using but one formula saves effort, time, and lots of money.

Funds now applied to SCHIP and Medicaid will go farther by eliminating the costly means testing that must be done repeatedly – every thirteen weeks in the case of Medicaid. Indeed, the Urban Institute has concluded that Medicare’s administrative costs are about 4 percentage points lower than Medicaid’s.

In addition to its efficiency, a unitary, comprehensive program for children will improve health outcomes. When medical attention is needed, no one need first ascertain which program, if any, will foot the bill; patients can proceed directly to the intake nurse, without first stopping at the financial office.

Reducing the per capita cost of children’s medical care and shifting those costs to Medicare will reduce the financial stress upon families and business. Employers will find the costs of employment-based insurance reduced, as will their employees. Inclusion of children in employment-based insurance has always been a matter of convenience; consequently, it can be modified without violating principle.

Such a program will increase the nation’s productivity. By assuring timely and adequate health care to all of our children, we reduce the disruptions to family life and employment that inevitably accompany child sickness, which can be especially disruptive for single parents. Fewer sick kids means fewer work absences by adults.

By assuming the cost of the state shares of SCHIP, Medicaid coverage for children, and similar state programs, the federal government can deliver effective assistance to state governments where they urgently need it. Expenditures for Medicaid and the health care costs of public employees have become the largest or second largest outlays by states.

We will all be better off by fully meeting the health needs of all the nation’s children in the most effective, least costly way. Providing health care to children is comparable to our national policy of providing education, free of cost, to all children. As a nation we debated and settled that policy in the 19^th century. We decided as a nation that we all have a stake in the education of everyone’s children.

We must recognize children’s health and child education are as much a part of the national infrastructure as our ports, roads and bridges. Medicare provides an efficient, time-tested platform for making this goal a reality.

[i] In 2006, Medicaid covered more children (29.5 million) than any other beneficiary category and with the lowest per capita cost - $1,070 as compared with $1,310 for adults, $6,630 for aged, and $7,360 for blind and disabled (Congressional Budget Office fact sheet, March 6, 2007). What we propose here would lower per capita cost even further.

[ii] Out-of-control costs are pervasive throughout both public and private health care programs. Controlling all such costs are essential to overall health care reform.

[iii] State Children’s Health Insurance Programs, enacted in 1997, have substantially decreased the numbers of children lacking assured health care. Together, SCHIP and Medicaid have improved coverage of poor children. However, the older the youngster, the less likely such coverage is. Further, both programs are limited by income caps – typically 200% of the federal poverty level. The most dramatic element of the Massachusetts plan is that it raised the cap for subsidized assured health care to 300%. SCHIP and Medicaid coverage keeps changing; a recent study of five states, all with generous standards, found temporary but substantial coverage gaps (How Stable Is Medicaid Coverage for Children?”, Fairbrother, Emerson and Partridge, Health Affairs, March 20, 2007).

[iv] Medicaid provides more extensive care than SCHIP. Both use federal and state funds with the federal share the larger. As with several other economic stimulus measures, this proposed shift of the state contributions would require deficit spending.

Obama wins the election! Now what?

2008-11-12T14:20:00.000-05:00

Obama wins the election! Now what?

In the last week, we have seen the incredible power of hope. The election of Barak Obama to the Presidency of the United States ignited celebration not only in this country but around the world.

Americans have reaffirmed the dream that you can succeed to the highest political office regardless of your race or ethnicity. At a time that our economy is failing and our reputation around the world is embarrassing, voters proved that our aspirations are most powerful when things seem most gloomy. As President-elect Obama encouraged us, we must believe in the “audacity of hope.”

Equally amazing in the last week has been the reaction of the world to Obama’s election. There literally has been dancing in the streets. People in all parts of the world care about what Americans do – with good reason. In the last eight years we have invaded two countries and started a global financial crisis. Can we also start a revolution of hope?

For individual citizens and members of OWL, we should learn from what has been accomplished. President-elect Obama is a man who believes in a vision of the country and has worked successfully to convince others to believe he can make a difference. If nothing else, he has shown us that he can convince thousands of volunteers to work for him, millions of people to contribute money, and tens of millions of people to vote for him regardless of race, party affiliation, or a funny name.

It is time for all of us to make the vision a reality. What are your hopes for which you would volunteer and contribute money?

For me, I can imagine a country where everyone has equal access to health care. Where women don’t pay more for health insurance or retirement annuities just because they are women. Where wage discrimination on the basis of gender is eliminated. Where elder abuse never happens.

Now is the time for us to hope, but hope is not enough. It must be followed by action. As Tish Sommers and Laurie Shields understood when they formed OWL – and Obama just demonstrated – “Organize, don’t Agonize”. Join with your neighbors & friends to support the change that is possible. Join with the women & men of OWL that are working to bring our vision of women in mid and later life to reality. Be the change you desire.

Health Insurance and Women, Why pay more?

2008-10-31T10:38:00.000-04:00

Health Insurance and Women, Why pay more?

If you didn't have enough reason to support universal health insurance, the New York Times' article on October 30, 2008 just gave you another one. Headlines read "Women Buying Health Policies Pay a Penalty."

The long and short of the article is that, in most states, insurance companies charge women more for an individual health insurance policy than they charge men. Up to 49% more! The justification is that women incur child bearing costs and that they use more health services than men. What is the problem with this logic? First, lets take the child-bearing argument. Biologically, having children is a project of a male and a female. Since women bear the responsibility for carrying the fetus prior to birth, maybe we should place the cost burden of the birth on the men? That makes more sense to me than putting all the burden on women.

I can hear the complaints -- why should all men bear the extra cost when many of them are not married or having children? But that same complaint goes for women who are paying the higher costs but aren't having children. This is insurance, which means there is a decision to spread the cost of having children to some group of people. The question is who should that group be. It makes more sense to spread it to all persons (i.e. universal health insurance) as both sexes are involved in incurring the costs. Also, having children benefits all of us even if they aren't our children.

But logical arguments aside, shouldn't health care be a right of all Americans regardless of your race, gender, or age? And if it is a right, shouldn't we all share in insuring that everyone has it. This isn’t about what is logical, it is about what is moral. What is right. As a society we don't want some people being able to get health care while others, for lack of money, can't get the care they need. Why should individual women bear more of that cost. Already women loose earnings to care for children and other family members. Women still are paid less than men. The result is that women as a group are poorer than men. So why would we allow insurance companies to divide their markets into men and women and make the women pay more? It just isn't right.

Ellen A. Bruce

President, OWL

Potholes on Elm Street

2008-10-18T17:12:00.005-04:00

We’ve heard a lot of talk about Wall Street and Main Street the past few weeks; most of it focused on how we can save them both. And we are putting our collective future at risk on schemes to save these economic engines. Only as an aside do we hear about what is happening on the street where we live – let’s call it Elm Street. We work on Main Street and a few of us work on Wall Street, but we don’t live there.

As we walk down Elm Street, at least every fifth house contains a family that is providing care for an elder or an adult – a spouse or adult child – with long term care needs. This family includes a couple who are working and hoping that they aren’t personally affected by the lay-offs they are seeing around the neighborhood. There might be young children, friends or various other family members in the house as well. The person they are helping might live with them, around the corner or across the country.

In the US, as in other industrialized countries, families provide 80% of the long term care services for an adult with care needs. Families do everything that is needed by the person they are caring for – from simple errands to more complex medical care tasks. It is estimated that these “free” services save the nation’s health care budget a whopping 20% of overall costs each year. One big difference between the family caregivers in the US and those in other developed countries is that, in the US, we don’t have universal health care. Even older Americans covered by Medicare who have the closest thing to universal health care we have, have large out-of-pocket costs. The US has employer-based private market health care which means the only thing standing between you and ongoing health care services is the relationship between you, employer and external market forces.

Last winter the findings of a study looking at the out-of-pocket costs of family caregivers were released by the National Alliance for Caregiving. The study, sponsored by Evercare, examined what families were spending on behalf of the person they were helping and how they managed that expense. In a survey of 1,000 family caregivers across the country only 178 respondents said they were spending nothing. The remaining 822 respondents were spending an average of $5,500 a year on services and products needed by the person they were caring for; the most common category being medical expenses. One out of five respondents reported spending their own money to pay for the medical costs of the person they were helping at an average annual expense of over $1,100. This means that not only are these families spending hours of their time each week – an average of 35 hours weekly; roughly equivalent to another full-time job--providing hands-on assistance, they are also purchasing goods and services with their own funds. When asked how they manage the extra costs, half reported they cut back on their own spending for leisure activities, a third reduced or stopped saving for their own future and one out of five borrowed or used a credit card to finance these unexpected expenses.

In the US, nearly half of personal bankruptcies continue to be due to medical expenses and, even more shocking, 75% of those who file for bankruptcy as a result of medical expenses had health insurance when they became ill. The costs of a market-based health care system have become unsustainable to Main Street as employers find their own global competitiveness diminished by the cost of covering their employees and to Elm Street as families find they can not continue to pay for their own health care or the health care costs of an elder, spouse or adult child. We have the most expensive health care in the world and the largest group of uninsured citizens in any developed nation… 47 million and counting.

A full recovery from the nation’s financial woes cannot be accomplished without addressing our out-dated and inefficient health care system. It is shortsighted to suggest that, because we are increasing our national debt to bail out failed banks and mortgage lenders, we can’t afford to take on the needed change in our antiquated and inadequate health care system. Addressing the problems of Wall Street and Main Street cannot overshadow the problems on Elm Street or a full recovery from our sick economy will not take place.

Donna L. Wagner, Ph.D.
dwagner@towson.edu
Professor of Gerontology, Health Science Department
Towson University, Towson, MD

Regulation and Our Future

2008-10-06T13:52:00.011-04:00

"Regulation and Our Future"

Last week Congress passed and the President signed a $700 billion financial package aimed at stabilizing the banks, restoring confidence, and loosening credit. A huge bailout that we hope will stop the failure of even more financial institutions.

All this taxpayer money isn’t expected to get us out of a recession, won’t provide universal health care, won’t improve our schools, won’t help young parents pay for childcare, nor will it build low-income housing.

Liberals and conservatives alike are mad because we are spending taxpayer money (which by the way is yet to be collected) to make up for the excesses of greed. We –the country—are like a family with an uncle who went out drinking and gambling, spent the family savings, mortgaged the house, and ran up a debt the family now must pay. One member of the family just sucked up all the dreams of the rest of the family.

Why did we let this happen? Yes, we let it happen. This financial crisis is not a natural disaster, it is man-made (and most of the actors are men).

The greed and “irrational exuberance” at the base of this disaster is troublesome, but what worries me the most is the rhetoric we have lived with for over 28 years that government is bad and that we need to trust in individual ingenuity. Individual ingenuity can create great companies but it also destroys great companies. Government isn’t bad—it is as good as the people who make it up. A government that is made up of people who don’t believe in the role of protecting its citizens will fail, and fail it has.

The New York Times reported on Friday that the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2004 changed a rule that limited the amount of debt a large investment bank could incur, thereby opening up the opportunity to make more money but at great risk – risk not only to the bank, but as it turns out, to our economy and consequently to the wellbeing of all of us.

The last two weeks have demonstrated in a very costly way why good government is important to all of us. Not since Katrina have we seen such disastrous results of government agencies that don’t function. I want a government that believes in its role of protector of its citizens, not only from foreign invaders but also from the excesses of individual citizens.

Because we, as a society and as world, are so interconnected we need to have a government that is not afraid to regulate individual behavior. Whether it is monetary risk-taking, pollution, the safety of our food, or a host of other dangers, we need a government that has the tools to protect and is run by people who believe in its role to regulate for the good of all of us, not the profit of a few.

Ellen A. Bruce
President, OWL National Board

"You can't save what you don't earn"

2008-09-25T15:01:00.002-04:00

"You can't save what you don't earn"

When you woke up today and listened to your morning news show, were you worried about your current or future Social Security check? I know I wasn't. I am however concerned about the length of time it will take for my private retirement accounts to recover from the worst economic downturn of my lifetime, and eventually grow into an amount which could possibly allow me to retire free from poverty. The odds are not in my favor. The reality is that women's retirement and men's retirement look vastly different.

Last year the Supreme Court slapped women in the face by saying that they need to file a pay discrimination case within 180 days of the first instance of pay discrimination. If this statute of limitations wasn't enforced, the flood gates of litigation could potentially spill open with an unconscionable and uncontrollable mob of women seeking a judicial remedy for discrimination. How tragic this could be for big business. Wait, will someone remind me why we have a court system -- I was under the impression that it was a way to remedy wrongs -- perhaps wrongs such as failing to follow the Equal Pay Act? Unless the Senate passes the House passed fair pay legislation and it survives a Presidential veto, it doesn't look like women can rely on being paid the same as men.

So, while I earn my $.77 on the dollar compared to men, I am happy to know that at a bare minimum, I am earning Social Security credits, even when I may not have additional money at the end of the month to place in a private retirement account. I know that my Social Security will be adjusted for inflation and is guaranteed by the government, which is a whole lot more secure than Wall Street. Additionally, I know that the trust fund is predicted to be solvent for at least 33 more years. And with some adjustments, the fund can be made to be solvent for many future generations

The Social Security system is an embodiment of the long-standing American principle of social insurance, providing nearly universal coverage for workers and their families through a pooling of resources, benefits, and risk.

Women are the majority of Social Security beneficiaries and rely more heavily on the benefit for retirement income. But I wanted to make sure you also knew that many young women depend on Social Security too. The disability and survivor benefits Social Security provides to families when a wage earner dies or becomes disabled is irreplaceable. Social Security needs to be maintained, strengthened and to take into consideration the value of caregiving to society.

If we ever moved to private accounts instead of Social Security, we would all have to rely on the risks of the stock market to make up the difference. Not a pleasant thought for Americans as we read the financial pages this week, but especially unappealing for women.

Ashley B. Carson

Executive Director, OWL

Social Security and the Economy

2008-09-22T17:35:00.001-04:00

Social Security and the Economy

Was your seatbelt fastened last week? This rollercoaster we have for an economy took us on quite a ride. Actually, the image of a rollercoaster is not exactly accurate. It presumes there is a track and there is clearly no track for this ride. It is wild, unpredictable, and not many of us are having fun. Also, we don’t know where it ends.

I’m not sure we know the lessons to be drawn yet, but one obvious observation is that the only hope for preventing a complete financial meltdown is the federal government. Ironic, isn’t? An administration that has spent seven years pushing deregulation and private market solutions now looks to government and taxpayers to save us from the consequences of those policies.

I’m not unhappy about this solution. I am hoping it will work. There will be many lessons to be learned but two are very relevant to women and to OWL. The first is that our whole economy is so global and so interrelated that “safe” investments aren’t so “safe” when the credit house of cards falls down. The second is that the approach to many problems must be collective, not individual. If you have read or listened to the columnists and commentators within the last week who make a living telling you how to have a comfortable retirement, you will have noticed that they have no advice in this market beyond “don’t retire now”. Little comfort for those already retired or about to be laid off.

The most secure solution for those retired or looking to retire is Social Security – a government-sponsored, guaranteed income program. Who would have predicted that!! Well, OWL for one. While the Bush Administration advocated for individual accounts and the advantages of passing on the account to your heirs if you died young, OWL was concerned about women and men out-living their retirement funds and advocated to keep Social Security a progressive, social insurance program. It is not polite to say “We told you so” but we did.

OWL has long advocated that an appropriate role for government is to provide universal retirement benefits through a social insurance program. Preserving, defending, and improving Social Security has been one of OWL’s major issues for the past twenty years. This past week demonstrates what OWL has maintained all along, that OWL’s agenda is not just good for women, it is good for everyone.

Ellen A. Bruce

President, OWL National Board

Sexism - Politics

2008-09-17T10:40:00.001-04:00

Women candidates have been in the forefront this election year – first with Hillary Clinton running for the Democratic Presidential nomination and now with Sarah Palin nominated as the Republican Vice-Presidential choice.

The visibility of women in the political process is very positive for women for two reasons. First, it raises the public debate about what is sexist, and second, it offers the potential of having women’s policy issues debated and addressed.

Let me talk about sexism first. Some statements are clearly sexists such as a heckler shouting “iron my shirts” to Senator Clinton as she was campaigning. And some statements are clearly not sexist such as any candidate using the expression “…putting lipstick on a pig” when referring to another candidate’s policies. Sexism is very prevalent in our political and business dealings and a serious issue that hurts women of all ages. Twisting it for political gain belittles the issue and at a minimum is a cynical attempt to manipulate the vote of women. Understanding what is sexist and what isn’t is important to us.

What about asking a women with young children how she will handle being Vice President when reporters don’t ask male candidates that question? What about accusing women candidates of being “strident” or “shrill” or fawning over them because they are “cute” or “perky”. How are women running for office supposed to be both likeable and tough? The beauty of Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket is that it has silenced the conservative commentators. All of a sudden being the mother of a pregnant unwed teenager is not a reflection of the mother. Perhaps now we can put families off limits for the petty, vicious snipping that television passes off as news.

But let’s talk about the real issues women care about. What does the candidate, male or female, stand for? What policies will he or she support? As a woman, I would like to see more women in political life because I hope they will bring a sensitivity to the job founded in their life experiences – that they will support policies that help people who raise children and care for elders, who cannot afford health care and who have no place to live. I am not so naïve as to think that just because you are a woman you will support the OWL agenda and hopefully women generally don’t believe or vote that way. The true test of a candidate is whether they care about the issues you care about and will support the solutions you believe in.

So in this year of “women rising” let our voices be heard for what we believe in: access to high-quality, affordable health care, economic security, and dignity and respect for people of all ages and abilities and of course regardless of your gender.

Ellen A. Bruce, President

OWL National Board of Directors