News
-
Congress Moving Immigration Amnesty 2
This week, two new cosponsors signed on to the Strengthening Social Security Act (S. 567 and H.R. 3118), bringing the total up to three in the Senate and thirty-nine in the House. The new cosponsors are Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH) and Mark Pocan (WI-2). If signed into law, the bill would reform the Social Security program in three ways: it would adjust the benefit formula, resulting in more generous benefits; it would adopt the Consumer Price Index for Elderly Consumers (CPI-E), resulting in more accurate cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), and it would lift the cap on income subject to the payroll tax. The Strengthening Social Security Act would extend the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund responsibly, without cutting benefits for seniors. .Is The Government Manipulating COLAs? .The Senate was back in Washington this week, holding hearings and confirming judicial and executive branch nominees. And while those are official duties of the Senate, no new legislation was passed. … Continued
-
Are You Spending Too Much On Your Medicare Coverage
How much are you spending on prescriptions? Be sure to take TSCL's 2019 Senior Survey and let us know. TSCL is working with Members of Congress to enact legislation that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and supports bills that would cap or reduce out-of-pocket spending. .Alexandria, VA (June 17, 2013) Seniors are closely following the debate over Social Security, and a new survey indicates strong support for two major changes that could restore Social Security's long-term solvency. The survey, conducted by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups, found that 52% of seniors strongly favor, and another 30% somewhat favor, raising the Social Security maximum taxable wage base. In addition, 87% support banning the use of earnings from jobs worked under invalid and fraudulent Social Security numbers by unauthorized immigrant workers to determine entitlement to Social Security and other federal benefits. .With respect to security: When The Senior Citizens League transfers and receives certain types of sensitive information such as financial or health information, we redirect visitors to a secure server and will notify visitors through a pop-up screen on our site. … Continued
Fixing this problem seems to be more complicated than passing a continuing resolution to temporarily fund the government. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has made it known that no Republican Senators will support raising the debt ceiling and without Republican support Democrats will have to resort to a special procedure called "reconciliation" in order to pass it because of the Senate filibuster rule. In the past there has been partisan squabbling over raising the debt ceiling but when it came right down to it both sides ended up voting to raise it. We'll find out very soon whether that will happen this time. .Reducing Medicare costs remains a top piece of unfinished business for TSCL. While Congress was successful in restraining a double-digit Medicare Part B increase in 2021, capping the increase at .90 per month rather than .60 more per month — I was particularly troubled to learn that .00 of the .90 Part B increase is a "repayment" charge. While TSCL congratulates Congress for passing legislation to hold the monthly Part B increase down, at least temporarily, the Part B increase wasn't "forgiven". The balance that won't be paid in 2021 will be recovered through a .00 per month repayment which will be tacked onto future Part B increases. That could take years. .As we begin a new year, we hope you had the best holiday season possible under the conditions we all continue to face because of the coronavirus pandemic. We know the past ten months have been extremely hard for many Americans, especially for senior citizens and their families. .Medicare pays for a wide range of services including many preventive benefits, but routine eye care is not one of them. Medicare-eligible adults with diabetes can, however, get a dilated eye exam to check for diabetic eye disease. The patient's primary care doctor is responsible for determining how often this exam is needed. Medicare also covers an annual eye exam to check for glaucoma if the patient is diabetic or there is a family history of glaucoma. .It's up to us to see that they do. We must hold our elected lawmakers accountable. TSCL, our members and their families, friends, and supporters will not allow the Notch Issue to quietly die away, but continue to press for enactment of Notch Reform legislation. .Many Members of the Subcommittee focused on raising the retirement age, though Mr. Blahous assured them that this action could not fix the shortfall on its own, or seniors would be working well into their late seventies. .Insurers make major changes in their plans every year, like increasing premiums, co-pays, dropping coverage and even closing plans altogether. But according to a survey conducted by TSCL earlier this year, less than 18 percent of respondents said they switched their Part D or Medicare Advantage health plan for 201Medicare's annual Open Enrollment period starts earlier this year -- on October 15th -- and ends December 7th. Medicare beneficiaries should start the process now to find out what their choices are and how much they could save with a new Part D or Medicare Advantage plan. .It sounds as though either your mother, or her acquaintance, received some incorrect information. "The Notch Fairness Act," legislation that would provide Notch Babies born 1917 through 1926 with a settlement of ,000, or a higher monthly benefit, has not yet passed. No doubt that's why the Social Security Administration did not respond to your mother's request. It is correct that widows or widowers receiving benefits on the account of a Notch Baby would be entitled to the ,000, or the higher monthly benefit if the legislation is enacted. .According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), for an age 65 retiree with average wages, a maximum benefit disparity of 10% would have arisen between the highest benefit under the old rules and the lowest benefit under the new rules if the 1977 assumptions had materialized. Under the economic conditions that actually arose, the disparity was 25%-two and one half times greater.
