Social Security Cuts Devastate Older Women!

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

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

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?

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

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

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

(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!

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

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

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

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?

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

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!

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

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?

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