What Does the President’s Budget Mean for Seniors?
There’s encouraging news for seniors in President Biden’s FY2023 budget, even though it does not contain everything that advocates for older Americans had hoped. The budget, which now will be submitted to Congress, includes crucial funding for services that seniors rely upon – from the operation of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act.
“Like President Biden’s previous budget, this one presents a stark contrast with the spending priorities of the Trump administration, which demonstrated indifference, if not antipathy, to seniors’ needs. A budget is a moral document, and this one has at its moral core the protection of our nation’s most vulnerable groups at a perilous time in history.” – Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
The budget document addresses a major issue for seniors: the soaring price of prescription drugs. It says that the President “supports legislation that cuts costs for prescription drugs.” The budget includes a “reserve fund to account for future legislation, preserving the revenue from proposed tax and prescription drug reforms for the investments needed to bring down costs for American families.” The National Committee hopes that any meaningful prescription drug reform includes allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with Big Pharma.
There is good news for Social Security beneficiaries in the White House budget. The FY2023 spending proposal includes $14.8 billion (an increase of 14% above the 2021 enacted level) for SSA operations, which have been strained by the pandemic and more than a decade of GOP-forced spending cuts. Any increase in SSA funding is likely to help relieve customer service bottlenecks – including long wait times on hold when calling the 800 number and interminable waiting periods for disability hearings. A more robust operating budget should also help ease the reopening of SSA field offices shuttered during the pandemic.
Older Americans Act (OAA) nutrition programs fare well under the President’s budget, which proposes an increase of $306 million over FY2022 levels. (President Trump’s budgets consistently called for zeroing-out federal grants that support some critical OAA programs.)
The COVID pandemic has highlighted the importance of allowing people to stay in their own homes instead of a nursing home, where they are much safer from infections and where most people prefer to be. The National Committee supports the Biden budget’s investment in Home and Community-based Supportive Services (HCBS). The budget includes $500 million in funding to bolster HCBS under the Older Americans Act, an increase of $135 million. In addition, the budget provides $266 million (an increase of $61 million above FY 2022 enacted) for the Family Caregivers and Native American Caregiver Support programs.
The President’s budget would establish a 20 percent minimum tax rate on all American households worth more than $100 million, the first tax plan from Biden to target billionaires. The budget, however, did not address a similar proposal pending in the U.S. House that asks the wealthy to pay their fair share in Social Security payroll taxes. In fact, the budget did not address the overall issue of benefit adequacy or trust fund solvency for either Social Security or Medicare – two issues that are very important to American seniors.
“While we appreciate many aspects of the President’s FY2023 budget proposal, we had hoped that it would reflect efforts by Democrats in Congress to boost Social Security, including a much-needed increase in benefits and an adjustment of the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy pay their fair share into the system.” – Max Richtman
Overall, the National Committee applauds the Administration’s budget proposal and urges Congress to give it careful consideration in formulating its own appropriations legislation for FY 2023.
Federal Senior Nutrition Programs Turn 50. Let’s Keep Them Fortified.
The federal law providing seniors with nutritional services turns half a century old today. In 1972, the Congregate Meals program was added to the Older Americans Act (OAA) providing seniors in need with food in community settings. Six years later, Congress amended the OAA again to include home delivered meals for older Americans. Meals on Wheels is probably the best-known recipient of federal funding under this part of the law.
Though the nutrition provisions were added to the OAA during the Nixon administration, they represent a widening of President Lyndon Johnson’s original vision of a Great Society that takes care of its most vulnerable citizens, including and especially seniors. Nutrition was a natural bookend for a new era of health care for the elderly that began with Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act – all of which were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965.
“A Great Society doesn’t let its most vulnerable citizens live in poverty or go hungry. Adding a nutrition program to LBJ’s vision of the Older Americans Act was a compassionate step to make the program more fully serve the needs of seniors.” – Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
There are two types of nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act – congregate meals and home-delivered meals, both designed to supply lower-income seniors with hot, healthy food on a regular basis.
Congregate Meals
The Congregate Meals program encourages seniors to get out of the house, socialize with other people, and eat at least one nutritious meal a day in a community setting. Many congregate meal centers were forced to closed because of the pandemic. But they are slowly beginning to reopen.
Home-Delivered Meals often provide seniors who can’t easily leave their homes with nutrition and social contact they wouldn’t otherwise have. Since it wasn’t safe for many seniors to leave their homes during the pandemic, the need for home delivered meals became even more apparent. That’s why the home-delivered meals program needs to have the capacity to scale-up to handle future emergencies.
Social Interaction
Both nutrition programs present an opportunity for seniors who may otherwise be isolated to get some much-needed social interaction. Whether it’s a Meals on Wheels volunteer coming to the home and providing company or seniors sitting together enjoying a congregate meal, nutrition programs are a great antidote for lack of social stimulation.
Health Consequences
Seniors who eat regular, healthy meals are generally healthier than older people who don’t get proper nutrition. On the other hand, seniors face serious health consequences from not having proper access to nutritious meals – known as “food insecurity.”
“Malnutrition and unintentional weight loss contribute to progressive decline in health, reduced physical and cognitive functional status, increased utilization of health care services, premature institutionalization, and increased mortality.” – National Center for Biotechnology Information
More Work to Be Done
Despite fifty years of effort by governments and NGO’s, there is more work to be done in the area of senior nutrition. According to a 2019 study by Baylor University, 7% of Americans age 60 and over are food insecure, and 2.6% have very low food security. In fact, the number of seniors with very low food security has soared by over 200% since 2001. (The study was conducted before the pandemic, during which the numbers may have increased.)
Food insecurity among seniors, like many other metrics, is worse for the poor, racial minorities, younger seniors (60-69), and people who rent their homes.
Over the past 20 years or so, funding for OAA nutrition programs failed to keep pace with the growth of the senior population and other demographic changes. (10,000 Americans turn 65 every day.) Eligible seniors have faced waiting periods for many OAA services, including home delivered meals, in most states.
Fortunately, for Fiscal Year 2020, total OAA funding, including supplemental funding to respond to the needs of seniors during the COVID-19 pandemic, reached its highest level ($3.220 billion) in the Act’s five-decade history. This trend continued into Fiscal Year 2021 with an increase of $96 million. While it took a pandemic to finally provide adequate funding for the Older Americans Act, the National Committee and other seniors’ advocates hope that Congress will give senior nutrition programs the attention they need – and deserve.
Is Permanent Daylight Saving Time Healthy for Seniors?
Daylight Saving Time (DST) may soon become year-round. This week, the Senate passed a bill to make DST permanent – so that Americans wouldn’t have to change their clocks every spring and fall. “Standard Time” (ST) would become a thing of the past. The legislation – spurred by mounting concerns about the negative effects of lurching back and forth between DST and ST – has now moved over to the House for consideration.
“Some researchers blame the switch between Standard and Daylight Saving Time for a number of social ills, including lost productivity and increased health stress, as people’s bodies adjust to the time change.” – Fortune, 3/16/22
There has been significant discussion of how making Daylight Saving Time permanent might affect children and teens – but scant dialogue about the impact on seniors. Is permanent Daylight Saving Time good for older people? There’s no clear-cut answer. One thing is certain: switching back and forth from DST to ST isn’t healthy for anyone – seniors in particular. Here are some of the reasons why:
*Changes in sunrise and sunset times can cause sleep deprivation, which is linked to higher rates of obesity, diabetes, dementia, and other health issues. Seniors already are more susceptible to sleep problems than younger adults.
*Switching the clock twice a year can worsen the problem of “sundowning” in dementia — where cognitive issues in some seniors flare up when the sun sets.
*Disrupting normal sleeping and waking patterns can increase the risk of falls for older people.
*Changes in the clock also can compromise seniors’ ability to take medications on time and as directed.
The case against “springing ahead” and “falling backward” every year seems pretty solid. That leaves the question as to whether a permanent Daylight Saving Time is inherently unhealthy for seniors. The most serious objection to DST (relevant to older people) is that the sun rising and setting later in the day doesn’t align with most people’s biological rhythms or ‘body clocks.’
“Sleep scientists argue the choice of Daylight Saving Time over standard time would leave Americans permanently out of sync with their natural schedule and potentially lead to a range of health issues. – Fortune, 3/16/22
This means that seniors who naturally wake up and go to bed early may not be able to adjust to the darker mornings and brighter evenings of a permanent Daylight Saving Time. It could be especially problematic for older people in the Northernmost states, where the sun would not come up much earlier than 9 a.m. during the winter.
In addition to the health risks of seniors’ being physically out of sync with Daylight Savings Time, there are safety considerations, too. Seniors who venture out for groceries, medical appointments, and other priorities early in the morning before the sun rises may be more likely to injure themselves.
The winter sun would not rise until almost 9am in some Northern states if Daylight Savings Time is made permanent
“Seniors have the additional problems of not just decreased light, but the cold. People worry about icy sidewalks and slipping, falling and breaking a hip,” says Dr. Benjamin Liptzin, of Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, MA, who says that adjusting to the seasonal change may have negative consequences “if not managed properly.”
Nevertheless, public polling indicates that a majority of Americans support making DST permanent, which is probably one reason why the Senate rushed through the new legislation without even a roll call vote. Now that the bill is in the hands of the House of Representatives, seniors’ advocates can rightly insist that lawmakers consider all of the risks and benefits – not just to children and teenagers, but to older people – before altering something as fundamental as the way we keep time.
Seniors’ Programs in Jeopardy if Republicans Retake Majority
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Wikimedia Commons
Any older voters inclined to put the GOP back in control of the House and Senate in November’s elections might well remember what the Republicans have long wanted to do to their earned benefits. As if to provide that very reminder, Senator Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released a plan last week that could effectively terminate Social Security and Medicare.
“Scott’s agenda would require Congress to reauthorize every federal law after five years, a step that could imperil Social Security and Medicare should a future Congress choose not to renew the programs.” – Business Insider, 3/4/22
This plan comes from the man responsible for crafting the GOP’s messaging for re-taking the Senate in 2022. But it drew a quick rebuke from Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell.
“We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that… sunsets Social Security and Medicare after five years. That will not be part of the Republican Senate majority agenda.” – Sen. Mitch McConnell, 3/1/22
While it could be reassuring that Senator McConnell dismissed Scott’s plan so quickly, the GOP has always been fairly good at claiming to support Social Security and Medicare, while offering policies to undermine them. Just before President Trump took office, Rep. Sam Johnson (then the chair of the House Social Security Subcommittee) unveiled a plan that would cut benefits by 30% by raising the retirement age. Later, Republicans from both houses of Congress demanded “entitlement reform” after the Trump/GOP tax cuts added more than $1 trillion to the federal debt. President Trump himself played fast and loose with Social Security, suspending the payroll tax that funds the program despite promising “not to touch” the program.
With the 2022 mid-term elections fast approaching, older voters would be wise to remember that many in the Republican party opposed Social Security and Medicare from the beginning and have never wholly supported either program, despite rhetoric to the contrary. During the past four decades, plenty of Republicans have advocated shrinking federal programs that older and economically vulnerable Americans rely on, while cutting taxes for the wealthy and promoting ‘corporate welfare.’
“Thousands of big American corporations rake in billions each year in government subsidies, bailouts, and tax loopholes—all funded on the taxpayer dime, and all contributing to higher stock prices for the richest 1 percent who own half of the stock market.” – Fmr. U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, 9/18/21
In fact, Senator Scott’s plan for a new GOP majority would actually raise taxes on working people. The Washington Post reports that Scott’s proposal would affect more than 100 million Americans, including “the 32 million who (currently don’t) file returns, such as retirees.”
As if to re-emphasize the GOP’s hostility to programs that help everyday Americans, another prominent Republican Senator, Ron Johnson (WI) said he would like to see his party repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if they win back the majority in November. When they held majorities in both houses during the first two years of the Trump administration, Republicans belied no hesitation to strip away health coverage from some 30 million Americans holding ACA policies. Fortunately, they failed. But only because Sen. John McCain cast the deciding vote against a “skinny repeal” in 2017.
Republicans would have succeeded in stripping health coverage from 30 million Americans in 2017… but for Sen. John McCain’s “No” vote
The Affordable Care Act is important to ‘near seniors’ (aged 55-65), who are not yet eligible for Medicare but tend to require care for chronic and severe conditions. Before the ACA, insurers could charge older patients five times as much in premiums as younger customers. The ACA also enhanced Medicare, including annual wellness visits with no out-of-pocket costs.
Threatening the very existence of Social Security and Medicare – and vowing to repeal the ACA – should show voters who the GOP really are, and what their true agenda is. Many seniors voted in their own interest and migrated over to the Democrats in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Senators Scott and Johnson have just reminded older voters what’s at stake in 2022.
President Takes on Big Pharma, Nursing Homes in SOTU speech
In his first State of the Union speech, President Biden addressed the ever-rising prescription drug prices that continue to plague Americans — especially seniors — and called on Congress to pass legislation to provide relief. “Let’s cut the cost of prescription drugs. We pay more for the same drug produced by the same company than any other country in the world,” said the President Tuesday night. “And while we’re at it, let Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, like the VA already does.”
“President Biden was right to keep urging Congress to lower prescription drug prices during tonight’s address. Millions of seniors are suffering from sky high prescription prices. The President’s Build Back Better plan would have been a good start in taming drug costs. But with that legislation now stalled in the Senate, the President is correct that it’s incumbent on Congress to find another way to pass prescription drug reform legislation.” – Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare maintains that any meaningful reform must, at the very least, include Medicare price negotiation and caps on Americans’ out-of-pocket drug costs. But even those commonsense measures have confronted a wall of opposition from Big Pharma. The drug industry has unleashed a relentless lobbying campaign against even the most basic reforms — and has continued to shower Congress with hefty campaign contributions. Meanwhile, during the first month of 2022, drug-makers increased the prices of over 700 medications.
“Many seniors find themselves rationing vital medications or simply not filling prescriptions due to cost. The President is on the right track. Lawmakers must decide whether their allegiance is to the American people — who support prescription drug price reform by overwhelming majorities — or to torrents of drug industry dollars.” – Max Richtman
The President has made his priorities for America’s seniors clear. Now it is up to Congress to act, not only to lower prescription drugs, but to expand and strengthen seniors’ earned benefits. Congress must act soon to ensure that Social Security’s trust fund reserves do not become depleted as projected by 2034. At the same time, Social Security benefits must be boosted to meet the growing costs of growing old in America.
Rep. John Larson’s bill, the Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, would both protect and expand Social Security. It has 200 cosponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives and should be brought up for a vote this spring.
Meanwhile, Medicare must be expanded to include much-needed hearing, vision, and dental coverage. Last year, all three of these were under consideration as part of the President’s Build Back Better plan, though only hearing benefits survived in the final package.
“Roadblocks in the Senate prevented passage of the entire Build Back Better plan, killing Medicare expansion for now. Though the President did not include this in the State of the Union, seniors are counting on lawmakers to consider their most urgent needs moving forward. And they are counting on the President to keep the pressure on Congress to do the right thing.” – Max Richtman
The President also addressed shortcomings at U.S. nursing homes made glaringly evident during the COVID pandemic. He noted that “quality in those homes has gone down and costs have gone up,” adding, “That ends on my watch.” He promised that Medicare will set higher standards for nursing homes “and make sure your loved ones get the care they deserve and expect.”
What Does the President’s Budget Mean for Seniors?
There’s encouraging news for seniors in President Biden’s FY2023 budget, even though it does not contain everything that advocates for older Americans had hoped. The budget, which now will be submitted to Congress, includes crucial funding for services that seniors rely upon – from the operation of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act.
“Like President Biden’s previous budget, this one presents a stark contrast with the spending priorities of the Trump administration, which demonstrated indifference, if not antipathy, to seniors’ needs. A budget is a moral document, and this one has at its moral core the protection of our nation’s most vulnerable groups at a perilous time in history.” – Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
The budget document addresses a major issue for seniors: the soaring price of prescription drugs. It says that the President “supports legislation that cuts costs for prescription drugs.” The budget includes a “reserve fund to account for future legislation, preserving the revenue from proposed tax and prescription drug reforms for the investments needed to bring down costs for American families.” The National Committee hopes that any meaningful prescription drug reform includes allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with Big Pharma.
There is good news for Social Security beneficiaries in the White House budget. The FY2023 spending proposal includes $14.8 billion (an increase of 14% above the 2021 enacted level) for SSA operations, which have been strained by the pandemic and more than a decade of GOP-forced spending cuts. Any increase in SSA funding is likely to help relieve customer service bottlenecks – including long wait times on hold when calling the 800 number and interminable waiting periods for disability hearings. A more robust operating budget should also help ease the reopening of SSA field offices shuttered during the pandemic.
Older Americans Act (OAA) nutrition programs fare well under the President’s budget, which proposes an increase of $306 million over FY2022 levels. (President Trump’s budgets consistently called for zeroing-out federal grants that support some critical OAA programs.)
The COVID pandemic has highlighted the importance of allowing people to stay in their own homes instead of a nursing home, where they are much safer from infections and where most people prefer to be. The National Committee supports the Biden budget’s investment in Home and Community-based Supportive Services (HCBS). The budget includes $500 million in funding to bolster HCBS under the Older Americans Act, an increase of $135 million. In addition, the budget provides $266 million (an increase of $61 million above FY 2022 enacted) for the Family Caregivers and Native American Caregiver Support programs.
The President’s budget would establish a 20 percent minimum tax rate on all American households worth more than $100 million, the first tax plan from Biden to target billionaires. The budget, however, did not address a similar proposal pending in the U.S. House that asks the wealthy to pay their fair share in Social Security payroll taxes. In fact, the budget did not address the overall issue of benefit adequacy or trust fund solvency for either Social Security or Medicare – two issues that are very important to American seniors.
“While we appreciate many aspects of the President’s FY2023 budget proposal, we had hoped that it would reflect efforts by Democrats in Congress to boost Social Security, including a much-needed increase in benefits and an adjustment of the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy pay their fair share into the system.” – Max Richtman
Overall, the National Committee applauds the Administration’s budget proposal and urges Congress to give it careful consideration in formulating its own appropriations legislation for FY 2023.
Federal Senior Nutrition Programs Turn 50. Let’s Keep Them Fortified.
The federal law providing seniors with nutritional services turns half a century old today. In 1972, the Congregate Meals program was added to the Older Americans Act (OAA) providing seniors in need with food in community settings. Six years later, Congress amended the OAA again to include home delivered meals for older Americans. Meals on Wheels is probably the best-known recipient of federal funding under this part of the law.
Though the nutrition provisions were added to the OAA during the Nixon administration, they represent a widening of President Lyndon Johnson’s original vision of a Great Society that takes care of its most vulnerable citizens, including and especially seniors. Nutrition was a natural bookend for a new era of health care for the elderly that began with Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act – all of which were signed into law by President Johnson in 1965.
“A Great Society doesn’t let its most vulnerable citizens live in poverty or go hungry. Adding a nutrition program to LBJ’s vision of the Older Americans Act was a compassionate step to make the program more fully serve the needs of seniors.” – Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
There are two types of nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act – congregate meals and home-delivered meals, both designed to supply lower-income seniors with hot, healthy food on a regular basis.
Congregate Meals
The Congregate Meals program encourages seniors to get out of the house, socialize with other people, and eat at least one nutritious meal a day in a community setting. Many congregate meal centers were forced to closed because of the pandemic. But they are slowly beginning to reopen.
Home-Delivered Meals often provide seniors who can’t easily leave their homes with nutrition and social contact they wouldn’t otherwise have. Since it wasn’t safe for many seniors to leave their homes during the pandemic, the need for home delivered meals became even more apparent. That’s why the home-delivered meals program needs to have the capacity to scale-up to handle future emergencies.
Social Interaction
Both nutrition programs present an opportunity for seniors who may otherwise be isolated to get some much-needed social interaction. Whether it’s a Meals on Wheels volunteer coming to the home and providing company or seniors sitting together enjoying a congregate meal, nutrition programs are a great antidote for lack of social stimulation.
Health Consequences
Seniors who eat regular, healthy meals are generally healthier than older people who don’t get proper nutrition. On the other hand, seniors face serious health consequences from not having proper access to nutritious meals – known as “food insecurity.”
“Malnutrition and unintentional weight loss contribute to progressive decline in health, reduced physical and cognitive functional status, increased utilization of health care services, premature institutionalization, and increased mortality.” – National Center for Biotechnology Information
More Work to Be Done
Despite fifty years of effort by governments and NGO’s, there is more work to be done in the area of senior nutrition. According to a 2019 study by Baylor University, 7% of Americans age 60 and over are food insecure, and 2.6% have very low food security. In fact, the number of seniors with very low food security has soared by over 200% since 2001. (The study was conducted before the pandemic, during which the numbers may have increased.)
Food insecurity among seniors, like many other metrics, is worse for the poor, racial minorities, younger seniors (60-69), and people who rent their homes.
Over the past 20 years or so, funding for OAA nutrition programs failed to keep pace with the growth of the senior population and other demographic changes. (10,000 Americans turn 65 every day.) Eligible seniors have faced waiting periods for many OAA services, including home delivered meals, in most states.
Fortunately, for Fiscal Year 2020, total OAA funding, including supplemental funding to respond to the needs of seniors during the COVID-19 pandemic, reached its highest level ($3.220 billion) in the Act’s five-decade history. This trend continued into Fiscal Year 2021 with an increase of $96 million. While it took a pandemic to finally provide adequate funding for the Older Americans Act, the National Committee and other seniors’ advocates hope that Congress will give senior nutrition programs the attention they need – and deserve.
Is Permanent Daylight Saving Time Healthy for Seniors?
Daylight Saving Time (DST) may soon become year-round. This week, the Senate passed a bill to make DST permanent – so that Americans wouldn’t have to change their clocks every spring and fall. “Standard Time” (ST) would become a thing of the past. The legislation – spurred by mounting concerns about the negative effects of lurching back and forth between DST and ST – has now moved over to the House for consideration.
“Some researchers blame the switch between Standard and Daylight Saving Time for a number of social ills, including lost productivity and increased health stress, as people’s bodies adjust to the time change.” – Fortune, 3/16/22
There has been significant discussion of how making Daylight Saving Time permanent might affect children and teens – but scant dialogue about the impact on seniors. Is permanent Daylight Saving Time good for older people? There’s no clear-cut answer. One thing is certain: switching back and forth from DST to ST isn’t healthy for anyone – seniors in particular. Here are some of the reasons why:
*Changes in sunrise and sunset times can cause sleep deprivation, which is linked to higher rates of obesity, diabetes, dementia, and other health issues. Seniors already are more susceptible to sleep problems than younger adults.
*Switching the clock twice a year can worsen the problem of “sundowning” in dementia — where cognitive issues in some seniors flare up when the sun sets.
*Disrupting normal sleeping and waking patterns can increase the risk of falls for older people.
*Changes in the clock also can compromise seniors’ ability to take medications on time and as directed.
The case against “springing ahead” and “falling backward” every year seems pretty solid. That leaves the question as to whether a permanent Daylight Saving Time is inherently unhealthy for seniors. The most serious objection to DST (relevant to older people) is that the sun rising and setting later in the day doesn’t align with most people’s biological rhythms or ‘body clocks.’
“Sleep scientists argue the choice of Daylight Saving Time over standard time would leave Americans permanently out of sync with their natural schedule and potentially lead to a range of health issues. – Fortune, 3/16/22
This means that seniors who naturally wake up and go to bed early may not be able to adjust to the darker mornings and brighter evenings of a permanent Daylight Saving Time. It could be especially problematic for older people in the Northernmost states, where the sun would not come up much earlier than 9 a.m. during the winter.
In addition to the health risks of seniors’ being physically out of sync with Daylight Savings Time, there are safety considerations, too. Seniors who venture out for groceries, medical appointments, and other priorities early in the morning before the sun rises may be more likely to injure themselves.
The winter sun would not rise until almost 9am in some Northern states if Daylight Savings Time is made permanent
“Seniors have the additional problems of not just decreased light, but the cold. People worry about icy sidewalks and slipping, falling and breaking a hip,” says Dr. Benjamin Liptzin, of Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, MA, who says that adjusting to the seasonal change may have negative consequences “if not managed properly.”
Nevertheless, public polling indicates that a majority of Americans support making DST permanent, which is probably one reason why the Senate rushed through the new legislation without even a roll call vote. Now that the bill is in the hands of the House of Representatives, seniors’ advocates can rightly insist that lawmakers consider all of the risks and benefits – not just to children and teenagers, but to older people – before altering something as fundamental as the way we keep time.
Seniors’ Programs in Jeopardy if Republicans Retake Majority
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Wikimedia Commons
Any older voters inclined to put the GOP back in control of the House and Senate in November’s elections might well remember what the Republicans have long wanted to do to their earned benefits. As if to provide that very reminder, Senator Rick Scott, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, released a plan last week that could effectively terminate Social Security and Medicare.
“Scott’s agenda would require Congress to reauthorize every federal law after five years, a step that could imperil Social Security and Medicare should a future Congress choose not to renew the programs.” – Business Insider, 3/4/22
This plan comes from the man responsible for crafting the GOP’s messaging for re-taking the Senate in 2022. But it drew a quick rebuke from Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell.
“We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that… sunsets Social Security and Medicare after five years. That will not be part of the Republican Senate majority agenda.” – Sen. Mitch McConnell, 3/1/22
While it could be reassuring that Senator McConnell dismissed Scott’s plan so quickly, the GOP has always been fairly good at claiming to support Social Security and Medicare, while offering policies to undermine them. Just before President Trump took office, Rep. Sam Johnson (then the chair of the House Social Security Subcommittee) unveiled a plan that would cut benefits by 30% by raising the retirement age. Later, Republicans from both houses of Congress demanded “entitlement reform” after the Trump/GOP tax cuts added more than $1 trillion to the federal debt. President Trump himself played fast and loose with Social Security, suspending the payroll tax that funds the program despite promising “not to touch” the program.
With the 2022 mid-term elections fast approaching, older voters would be wise to remember that many in the Republican party opposed Social Security and Medicare from the beginning and have never wholly supported either program, despite rhetoric to the contrary. During the past four decades, plenty of Republicans have advocated shrinking federal programs that older and economically vulnerable Americans rely on, while cutting taxes for the wealthy and promoting ‘corporate welfare.’
“Thousands of big American corporations rake in billions each year in government subsidies, bailouts, and tax loopholes—all funded on the taxpayer dime, and all contributing to higher stock prices for the richest 1 percent who own half of the stock market.” – Fmr. U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, 9/18/21
In fact, Senator Scott’s plan for a new GOP majority would actually raise taxes on working people. The Washington Post reports that Scott’s proposal would affect more than 100 million Americans, including “the 32 million who (currently don’t) file returns, such as retirees.”
As if to re-emphasize the GOP’s hostility to programs that help everyday Americans, another prominent Republican Senator, Ron Johnson (WI) said he would like to see his party repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if they win back the majority in November. When they held majorities in both houses during the first two years of the Trump administration, Republicans belied no hesitation to strip away health coverage from some 30 million Americans holding ACA policies. Fortunately, they failed. But only because Sen. John McCain cast the deciding vote against a “skinny repeal” in 2017.
Republicans would have succeeded in stripping health coverage from 30 million Americans in 2017… but for Sen. John McCain’s “No” vote
The Affordable Care Act is important to ‘near seniors’ (aged 55-65), who are not yet eligible for Medicare but tend to require care for chronic and severe conditions. Before the ACA, insurers could charge older patients five times as much in premiums as younger customers. The ACA also enhanced Medicare, including annual wellness visits with no out-of-pocket costs.
Threatening the very existence of Social Security and Medicare – and vowing to repeal the ACA – should show voters who the GOP really are, and what their true agenda is. Many seniors voted in their own interest and migrated over to the Democrats in the 2018 and 2020 elections. Senators Scott and Johnson have just reminded older voters what’s at stake in 2022.
President Takes on Big Pharma, Nursing Homes in SOTU speech
In his first State of the Union speech, President Biden addressed the ever-rising prescription drug prices that continue to plague Americans — especially seniors — and called on Congress to pass legislation to provide relief. “Let’s cut the cost of prescription drugs. We pay more for the same drug produced by the same company than any other country in the world,” said the President Tuesday night. “And while we’re at it, let Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, like the VA already does.”
“President Biden was right to keep urging Congress to lower prescription drug prices during tonight’s address. Millions of seniors are suffering from sky high prescription prices. The President’s Build Back Better plan would have been a good start in taming drug costs. But with that legislation now stalled in the Senate, the President is correct that it’s incumbent on Congress to find another way to pass prescription drug reform legislation.” – Max Richtman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare maintains that any meaningful reform must, at the very least, include Medicare price negotiation and caps on Americans’ out-of-pocket drug costs. But even those commonsense measures have confronted a wall of opposition from Big Pharma. The drug industry has unleashed a relentless lobbying campaign against even the most basic reforms — and has continued to shower Congress with hefty campaign contributions. Meanwhile, during the first month of 2022, drug-makers increased the prices of over 700 medications.
“Many seniors find themselves rationing vital medications or simply not filling prescriptions due to cost. The President is on the right track. Lawmakers must decide whether their allegiance is to the American people — who support prescription drug price reform by overwhelming majorities — or to torrents of drug industry dollars.” – Max Richtman
The President has made his priorities for America’s seniors clear. Now it is up to Congress to act, not only to lower prescription drugs, but to expand and strengthen seniors’ earned benefits. Congress must act soon to ensure that Social Security’s trust fund reserves do not become depleted as projected by 2034. At the same time, Social Security benefits must be boosted to meet the growing costs of growing old in America.
Rep. John Larson’s bill, the Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust, would both protect and expand Social Security. It has 200 cosponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives and should be brought up for a vote this spring.
Meanwhile, Medicare must be expanded to include much-needed hearing, vision, and dental coverage. Last year, all three of these were under consideration as part of the President’s Build Back Better plan, though only hearing benefits survived in the final package.
“Roadblocks in the Senate prevented passage of the entire Build Back Better plan, killing Medicare expansion for now. Though the President did not include this in the State of the Union, seniors are counting on lawmakers to consider their most urgent needs moving forward. And they are counting on the President to keep the pressure on Congress to do the right thing.” – Max Richtman
The President also addressed shortcomings at U.S. nursing homes made glaringly evident during the COVID pandemic. He noted that “quality in those homes has gone down and costs have gone up,” adding, “That ends on my watch.” He promised that Medicare will set higher standards for nursing homes “and make sure your loved ones get the care they deserve and expect.”