Cutting Social Security Makes NO “Cents”
The President?s State of the Union is next week and we want to ensure he remembers his oft-expressed support for Social Security (made on the campaign trail), even though Washington?s fiscal hawks continue to beat the drums for benefit cuts.He was right about Social Security then?we hope he remembers that now as he prepares his State of the Union address and the Budget.You can help us remind President Obama that cutting Social Security, under the guise of ?fiscal responsibility?, makes no ?cents?. Join our campaign and send the White House a ?Makes No Cents? letter. It?s easy?
Download our letter here.1. Print out the second page with the message for President Obama.2. Tape a penny on the designated circle.3. Sign your name and write your address.4. Fold along the lines.5. Place in a standard envelope. Use a 44 cent stamp.6. Address envelope to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
National Committee Launches $1 Million Ad Campaign to Stop Social Security Cuts
Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Congresswoman and now President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, has announced her organization?s commitment to a new $1 million advertising campaign to stop Congressional or White House proposals that would cut Social Security benefits as part of any debt or deficit reduction plan.The first phase of the campaign continues this week in Washington, D.C. with a new radio ad by Social Security Coalition leaders Kennelly, Nancy Altman of Social Security Works and Roger Hickey from Campaign for America’s Future, urging lawmakers to keep their hands off Social Security. The National Committee?s ?Hands Off? campaign ads can be also heard on NCPSSM?s website.In addition to sponsoring advertising in DC and targeted districts around the country, NCPSSM will coordinate with other advocacy organizations to sponsor press conferences, letter and petition campaigns, social media strategies, internet ads, grassroots events and other public education activities to give Americans information and tools necessary to persuade Congress that Social Security should not foot the bill for the current economic crisis.With over 3 million members and supporters nationwide, the National Committee is regarded as one of the top seniors? advocacy organizations with a long history of mobilizing older adults and their families against any attempts to undermine the health and financial security of retirees. The National Committee was a leader in the successful fight to defeat President Bush?s proposals to privatize Social Security, engaging and informing America?s seniors through a similar strategy of print and broadcast ad campaigns, member mobilizations and grassroots efforts nationwide.?The American people, in poll after poll, have said they do not support cutting benefits in the name of deficit reduction. They understand Social Security has not contributed one dime to our current fiscal meltdown, yet it?s clear Washington?s fiscal hawks intend to ratchet up their attacks on the program in the new Congress.? Barbara B. Kennelly, President and CEOSeniors already suffering from the effects of this recession will face the second year of no COLA increase, and are now facing growing threats to cut their benefits. NCPSSM members are united in the view that Social Security benefits should not be traded away in another Washington version of ?Let?s Make a Deal?, jeopardizing the economic well-being of generations of working Americans.
Raising the Retirement Age=More Class Warfare
Kudos to Salon for a wonderful description of the true effects of raising the retirement age on millions of working Americans who will depend on Social Security in their retirement. Today’s piece is our selection for the National Committee’s Networthy Award.
A class warfare fix for Social Security
Raising the retirement age discriminates against the poor. The rich aren’t just richer — they live longer too By Andrew LeonardWith Republicans running the House and a knock-down drag-out fight over the federal budget looming, you can be sure that we’re going to be hearing a lot more about “fixing” Social Security during the months ahead. One clue as to what this might mean can be found in the Roadmap for America’s Future, a game plan outlining the Republican agenda cooked up by the powerful new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan.Most of the Roadmap’s prescriptions for Social Security cover the familiar conservative call for “personal accounts” in which workers invest their payroll taxes into funds managed by the U.S. government. George W. Bush’s failure to get a similar proposal to the floor of a Congress completely controlled by Republicans suggests that it is unlikely any progress will be made in that direction in this Congress. But then comes this:Modernizing the Retirement Age. When Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy for men in America was 60 years; for women it was 64. Today, average life expectancy has increased to 75 years for men and 80 years for women. Life expectancies are expected to continue lengthening throughout the century. Given these facts, and the choice among many Americans to work additional years, this proposal extends the gradual increase in the retirement age, from 65 to 67, occurring under existing policies, and speeds it up by 1 year. Once the current-law retirement age reaches 67 in 2026, this proposal continues its progression in line with expected increases in life expectancy. This will have the effect of increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years. The retirement age will gradually increase until it reaches 70 in the next century.A gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age is the kind of proposal that is just innocuous enough — and seemingly sensible — to get bipartisan support. Ryan is far from alone in pushing the notion. The Fiscal Commission co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson made a similar recommendation last fall, and some prominent Democrats, including former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and former Majority Whip James Clyburn, signaled support for higher retirement ages over this past summer. Life expectancies are rising, Americans are working additional years, and raising the retirement age would save money.But unless legislators take great care in exactly how they implement a higher retirement age, Ryan’s flat rate hike could be a very bad idea. At least, that is, if we care at all about social equity. Because not all life expectancies are alike. In the U.S., for example, women live longer than men, whites live longer than blacks, and the rich live longer than the poor. We don’t have access to terrific data when it comes to breaking down life span by occupation, but one comprehensive British study divided workers into five different socioeconomic groups and found that, in the lowest group, unskilled manual laborers had the lowest life-span expectancies, while doctors were at the top. (Journalists, if anyone cares, were in the second highest tier. Waiters and waitresses were in the second lowest. )When you crunch the numbers, the conclusions are stark. The average life expectancy of an African-American in the United States is 67 years. And that’s for all African-Americans, regardless of social class. The average life expectancy of an African-American unskilled manual laborer would undoubtedly be even lower — certainly low enough that a retirement age as high as 70 would discriminate profoundly.And it gets worse. Although life-span expectancies for all groups have been growing for the last century, the gains have been much stronger for the wealthier classes over the last few decades. Just as income inequality has grown, so has life-span inequality. A study published by the Congressional Budget Office in 2008 found that “there is a growing disparity in life expectancy between individuals with high and low income and between those with more and less education.”The implications of a continued widening of the gap in life expectancy by socioeconomic status are clear for Social Security … a widening gap would… reduce the program’s progressivity — the extent to which it redistributes resources from high-income to low-income beneficiaries on a lifetime basis.The numbers tell as brutal a story of the consequences of socioeconomic stratification as one could ask for. The British researchers found that for the cohort of men born between 1972 and 1976, the average life expectancy of a member of the highest socioeconomic class was 71.9 and for the lowest, 66.5. For the cohort born between 2002-2005, life expectancy for those at the top had risen by 8.1 years, to 80. For those at the bottom, only 6.2, to 72.7. In 30 years, the “life-span inequality gap” had risen from 5.4 years to 7.3. A study on U.S. life expectancy by researchers at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came up with similar evidence of “substantial and increasing disparities in US life expectancy over time”; between 1980 and 2000 “the gap between the least-deprived and most-deprived groups widening from 2.8 years in 1980-82 to 4.5 years in 1998-2000.”The CBO theorizes that “differences in the availability of high-quality health care before age 65 and in lifelong health habits might play an important role” in explaining the different life expectancies for different socioeconomic ages. So perhaps in a country where everyone had access to good healthcare, there wouldn’t be a growing disparity in expected life spans. But as long as that disparity does exist, and as long as it keeps getting worse, an across-the-board hike in the Social Security retirement age would be one of the most regressive ways we could “fix” the jewel in the American social welfare crown.
Will the Debt Ceiling Vote Take Social Security Hostage?
In a few short months, Congress will have to vote to raise the federal debt ceiling limit. This is a critical measure that must pass so the U.S. can borrow money to pay interest on what it already owes investors or to fund new spending. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter to Congress Thursday that even a short-term default could be “catastrophic.” It would drive up interest rates and cause stock market and housing prices to plummet making future government borrowing more expensive.
?Failure to increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible,? Mr. Geithner wrote, and added: ?It is important to emphasize that changing the debt limit does not alter or increase the obligations we have as a nation; it simply permits the Treasury to fund those obligations Congress has already established? ? under presidents and Congresses of both parties.
Although this vote should be a no-brainer, some Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, say they will not vote for this increase unless spending cuts are offered. To be specific, they want cuts in Social Security. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made his intentions clear on NBC?s Meet the Press:
This is an opportunity to make sure the government is changing its spending ways. I will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligations starting with Social Security, a real bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security stays solvent, adjusting the age, looking at means-tests for benefits.
Although some will frame their proposed changes to Social Security as necessary ?reform? to make Social Security solvent, one has to question why they are pushing for these changes now, when Social Security is $2.6 trillion in surplus. What?s even more concerning is the increasing bipartisan support so cut Social Security. Even Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), has signaled he would like to see deficit reduction and Social Security changes like the cuts offered in the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform co-chair proposal. These cuts include raising the retirement age, reducing COLA and means testing benefits for middle income Americans. Although these are harmful proposals that would undermine Social Security, Conrad recently wrote an OpEd for Politico, praising these ?reforms:?
Savings in Social Security were used only for extending the program?s solvency ? not for deficit reduction. And critical provisions were added to strengthen the safety net and protect the most vulnerable seniors and the disabled. The commission?s work demonstrates that it is possible to both bolster the Social Security safety net and restore the program?s trust funds to sustainable solvency over the long run, says Conrad.
This bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit with all spending on the table, including Social Security and Medicare, has also been picked up by a group of Senators who meet behind closed doors. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) have spearheaded this effort, reiterating no program is safe from cuts:
Both Chambliss and Warner say nothing is off-limits as they consider ways to fix the federal budget — including possible increases in the Social Security retirement age, cuts in Medicare benefits and a complete overhaul of the federal tax code.
With so much at stake, it?s important we make our voices loud and clear on this issue. Americans of all ages and political parties reject Social Security cuts. We need to remind our representatives in Congress and the Senate that Social Security is a promise to the American people that should not be broken. Send an E-card to leaders in the Senate and House, ?Hands off Social Security!? or send a letter ?Social Security Did Not Cause Our Budget Mess? through our legislative action center.
Turning Back the Clock on Medicare Improvements
The 112th Congress brought a lot of new faces to the Capitol along with some not- so-new ideas about taxes, spending and health care. House Speaker John Boehner intends to repeal the Affordable Care Act as his ?number one priority,? which would be a terrible blow for seniors on Medicare.Although House Republicans like Boehner claim our deficit is unsustainable, they have no problem supporting a repeal that would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.Not only is a repeal fiscally irresponsible, it takes away crucial Medicare improvements for seniors in the new law. These changes include:
- Improving Medicare?s fiscal health and extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.
- Closing Medicare?s ?doughnut hole? drug coverage gap for all beneficiaries.
- Eliminating wasteful subsidies to private insurers
- Eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services and adding coverage for a new annual wellness visit.
- Establishing new service delivery systems that focus on coordination of care, which studies show can reduce health care expenditures, improve quality of care and enhance health outcomes.
- Strengthening the fight against fraud, waste and abuse.
- Providing new Medicaid options to allow older people with chronic conditions to live at home rather than in institutions.
- Allowing all Americans to remain in their homes as they age by establishing the CLASS program to help pay for long-term services and supports.
The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), chaired by NCPSSM President and CEO Barbara Kennelly, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging Representatives to reject a repeal of health care reform:
Millions of Americans have already benefited from provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including millions of seniors who received $250 towards the cost of their prescription drugs when they entered the Part D doughnut hole. The economic and physical health of seniors and their families will continue to benefit as the law is implemented further. We urge you not to deprive them of the protections created by the Affordable Care Act, and to vote against repeal.
Learn more about the Affordable Care Act?s Medicare improvements in our video: Health Reform and Seniors
Cutting Social Security Makes NO “Cents”
The President?s State of the Union is next week and we want to ensure he remembers his oft-expressed support for Social Security (made on the campaign trail), even though Washington?s fiscal hawks continue to beat the drums for benefit cuts.He was right about Social Security then?we hope he remembers that now as he prepares his State of the Union address and the Budget.You can help us remind President Obama that cutting Social Security, under the guise of ?fiscal responsibility?, makes no ?cents?. Join our campaign and send the White House a ?Makes No Cents? letter. It?s easy?
Download our letter here.1. Print out the second page with the message for President Obama.2. Tape a penny on the designated circle.3. Sign your name and write your address.4. Fold along the lines.5. Place in a standard envelope. Use a 44 cent stamp.6. Address envelope to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
National Committee Launches $1 Million Ad Campaign to Stop Social Security Cuts
Barbara B. Kennelly, a former Congresswoman and now President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, has announced her organization?s commitment to a new $1 million advertising campaign to stop Congressional or White House proposals that would cut Social Security benefits as part of any debt or deficit reduction plan.The first phase of the campaign continues this week in Washington, D.C. with a new radio ad by Social Security Coalition leaders Kennelly, Nancy Altman of Social Security Works and Roger Hickey from Campaign for America’s Future, urging lawmakers to keep their hands off Social Security. The National Committee?s ?Hands Off? campaign ads can be also heard on NCPSSM?s website.In addition to sponsoring advertising in DC and targeted districts around the country, NCPSSM will coordinate with other advocacy organizations to sponsor press conferences, letter and petition campaigns, social media strategies, internet ads, grassroots events and other public education activities to give Americans information and tools necessary to persuade Congress that Social Security should not foot the bill for the current economic crisis.With over 3 million members and supporters nationwide, the National Committee is regarded as one of the top seniors? advocacy organizations with a long history of mobilizing older adults and their families against any attempts to undermine the health and financial security of retirees. The National Committee was a leader in the successful fight to defeat President Bush?s proposals to privatize Social Security, engaging and informing America?s seniors through a similar strategy of print and broadcast ad campaigns, member mobilizations and grassroots efforts nationwide.?The American people, in poll after poll, have said they do not support cutting benefits in the name of deficit reduction. They understand Social Security has not contributed one dime to our current fiscal meltdown, yet it?s clear Washington?s fiscal hawks intend to ratchet up their attacks on the program in the new Congress.? Barbara B. Kennelly, President and CEOSeniors already suffering from the effects of this recession will face the second year of no COLA increase, and are now facing growing threats to cut their benefits. NCPSSM members are united in the view that Social Security benefits should not be traded away in another Washington version of ?Let?s Make a Deal?, jeopardizing the economic well-being of generations of working Americans.
Raising the Retirement Age=More Class Warfare
Kudos to Salon for a wonderful description of the true effects of raising the retirement age on millions of working Americans who will depend on Social Security in their retirement. Today’s piece is our selection for the National Committee’s Networthy Award.
A class warfare fix for Social Security
Raising the retirement age discriminates against the poor. The rich aren’t just richer — they live longer too By Andrew LeonardWith Republicans running the House and a knock-down drag-out fight over the federal budget looming, you can be sure that we’re going to be hearing a lot more about “fixing” Social Security during the months ahead. One clue as to what this might mean can be found in the Roadmap for America’s Future, a game plan outlining the Republican agenda cooked up by the powerful new chairman of the House Budget Committee, Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan.Most of the Roadmap’s prescriptions for Social Security cover the familiar conservative call for “personal accounts” in which workers invest their payroll taxes into funds managed by the U.S. government. George W. Bush’s failure to get a similar proposal to the floor of a Congress completely controlled by Republicans suggests that it is unlikely any progress will be made in that direction in this Congress. But then comes this:Modernizing the Retirement Age. When Social Security was enacted, the average life expectancy for men in America was 60 years; for women it was 64. Today, average life expectancy has increased to 75 years for men and 80 years for women. Life expectancies are expected to continue lengthening throughout the century. Given these facts, and the choice among many Americans to work additional years, this proposal extends the gradual increase in the retirement age, from 65 to 67, occurring under existing policies, and speeds it up by 1 year. Once the current-law retirement age reaches 67 in 2026, this proposal continues its progression in line with expected increases in life expectancy. This will have the effect of increasing the retirement age by 1 month every 2 years. The retirement age will gradually increase until it reaches 70 in the next century.A gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age is the kind of proposal that is just innocuous enough — and seemingly sensible — to get bipartisan support. Ryan is far from alone in pushing the notion. The Fiscal Commission co-chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson made a similar recommendation last fall, and some prominent Democrats, including former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and former Majority Whip James Clyburn, signaled support for higher retirement ages over this past summer. Life expectancies are rising, Americans are working additional years, and raising the retirement age would save money.But unless legislators take great care in exactly how they implement a higher retirement age, Ryan’s flat rate hike could be a very bad idea. At least, that is, if we care at all about social equity. Because not all life expectancies are alike. In the U.S., for example, women live longer than men, whites live longer than blacks, and the rich live longer than the poor. We don’t have access to terrific data when it comes to breaking down life span by occupation, but one comprehensive British study divided workers into five different socioeconomic groups and found that, in the lowest group, unskilled manual laborers had the lowest life-span expectancies, while doctors were at the top. (Journalists, if anyone cares, were in the second highest tier. Waiters and waitresses were in the second lowest. )When you crunch the numbers, the conclusions are stark. The average life expectancy of an African-American in the United States is 67 years. And that’s for all African-Americans, regardless of social class. The average life expectancy of an African-American unskilled manual laborer would undoubtedly be even lower — certainly low enough that a retirement age as high as 70 would discriminate profoundly.And it gets worse. Although life-span expectancies for all groups have been growing for the last century, the gains have been much stronger for the wealthier classes over the last few decades. Just as income inequality has grown, so has life-span inequality. A study published by the Congressional Budget Office in 2008 found that “there is a growing disparity in life expectancy between individuals with high and low income and between those with more and less education.”The implications of a continued widening of the gap in life expectancy by socioeconomic status are clear for Social Security … a widening gap would… reduce the program’s progressivity — the extent to which it redistributes resources from high-income to low-income beneficiaries on a lifetime basis.The numbers tell as brutal a story of the consequences of socioeconomic stratification as one could ask for. The British researchers found that for the cohort of men born between 1972 and 1976, the average life expectancy of a member of the highest socioeconomic class was 71.9 and for the lowest, 66.5. For the cohort born between 2002-2005, life expectancy for those at the top had risen by 8.1 years, to 80. For those at the bottom, only 6.2, to 72.7. In 30 years, the “life-span inequality gap” had risen from 5.4 years to 7.3. A study on U.S. life expectancy by researchers at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services came up with similar evidence of “substantial and increasing disparities in US life expectancy over time”; between 1980 and 2000 “the gap between the least-deprived and most-deprived groups widening from 2.8 years in 1980-82 to 4.5 years in 1998-2000.”The CBO theorizes that “differences in the availability of high-quality health care before age 65 and in lifelong health habits might play an important role” in explaining the different life expectancies for different socioeconomic ages. So perhaps in a country where everyone had access to good healthcare, there wouldn’t be a growing disparity in expected life spans. But as long as that disparity does exist, and as long as it keeps getting worse, an across-the-board hike in the Social Security retirement age would be one of the most regressive ways we could “fix” the jewel in the American social welfare crown.
Will the Debt Ceiling Vote Take Social Security Hostage?
In a few short months, Congress will have to vote to raise the federal debt ceiling limit. This is a critical measure that must pass so the U.S. can borrow money to pay interest on what it already owes investors or to fund new spending. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter to Congress Thursday that even a short-term default could be “catastrophic.” It would drive up interest rates and cause stock market and housing prices to plummet making future government borrowing more expensive.
?Failure to increase the limit would be deeply irresponsible,? Mr. Geithner wrote, and added: ?It is important to emphasize that changing the debt limit does not alter or increase the obligations we have as a nation; it simply permits the Treasury to fund those obligations Congress has already established? ? under presidents and Congresses of both parties.
Although this vote should be a no-brainer, some Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate, say they will not vote for this increase unless spending cuts are offered. To be specific, they want cuts in Social Security. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made his intentions clear on NBC?s Meet the Press:
This is an opportunity to make sure the government is changing its spending ways. I will not vote for the debt ceiling increase until I see a plan in place that will deal with our long-term debt obligations starting with Social Security, a real bipartisan effort to make sure that Social Security stays solvent, adjusting the age, looking at means-tests for benefits.
Although some will frame their proposed changes to Social Security as necessary ?reform? to make Social Security solvent, one has to question why they are pushing for these changes now, when Social Security is $2.6 trillion in surplus. What?s even more concerning is the increasing bipartisan support so cut Social Security. Even Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), has signaled he would like to see deficit reduction and Social Security changes like the cuts offered in the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform co-chair proposal. These cuts include raising the retirement age, reducing COLA and means testing benefits for middle income Americans. Although these are harmful proposals that would undermine Social Security, Conrad recently wrote an OpEd for Politico, praising these ?reforms:?
Savings in Social Security were used only for extending the program?s solvency ? not for deficit reduction. And critical provisions were added to strengthen the safety net and protect the most vulnerable seniors and the disabled. The commission?s work demonstrates that it is possible to both bolster the Social Security safety net and restore the program?s trust funds to sustainable solvency over the long run, says Conrad.
This bipartisan effort to reduce the deficit with all spending on the table, including Social Security and Medicare, has also been picked up by a group of Senators who meet behind closed doors. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) have spearheaded this effort, reiterating no program is safe from cuts:
Both Chambliss and Warner say nothing is off-limits as they consider ways to fix the federal budget — including possible increases in the Social Security retirement age, cuts in Medicare benefits and a complete overhaul of the federal tax code.
With so much at stake, it?s important we make our voices loud and clear on this issue. Americans of all ages and political parties reject Social Security cuts. We need to remind our representatives in Congress and the Senate that Social Security is a promise to the American people that should not be broken. Send an E-card to leaders in the Senate and House, ?Hands off Social Security!? or send a letter ?Social Security Did Not Cause Our Budget Mess? through our legislative action center.
Turning Back the Clock on Medicare Improvements
The 112th Congress brought a lot of new faces to the Capitol along with some not- so-new ideas about taxes, spending and health care. House Speaker John Boehner intends to repeal the Affordable Care Act as his ?number one priority,? which would be a terrible blow for seniors on Medicare.Although House Republicans like Boehner claim our deficit is unsustainable, they have no problem supporting a repeal that would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years.Not only is a repeal fiscally irresponsible, it takes away crucial Medicare improvements for seniors in the new law. These changes include:
- Improving Medicare?s fiscal health and extending the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.
- Closing Medicare?s ?doughnut hole? drug coverage gap for all beneficiaries.
- Eliminating wasteful subsidies to private insurers
- Eliminating cost-sharing for preventive services and adding coverage for a new annual wellness visit.
- Establishing new service delivery systems that focus on coordination of care, which studies show can reduce health care expenditures, improve quality of care and enhance health outcomes.
- Strengthening the fight against fraud, waste and abuse.
- Providing new Medicaid options to allow older people with chronic conditions to live at home rather than in institutions.
- Allowing all Americans to remain in their homes as they age by establishing the CLASS program to help pay for long-term services and supports.
The Leadership Council of Aging Organizations (LCAO), chaired by NCPSSM President and CEO Barbara Kennelly, sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging Representatives to reject a repeal of health care reform:
Millions of Americans have already benefited from provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including millions of seniors who received $250 towards the cost of their prescription drugs when they entered the Part D doughnut hole. The economic and physical health of seniors and their families will continue to benefit as the law is implemented further. We urge you not to deprive them of the protections created by the Affordable Care Act, and to vote against repeal.
Learn more about the Affordable Care Act?s Medicare improvements in our video: Health Reform and Seniors