View Single Post
Old 03-04-2010, 06:03 PM
plgerrard's Avatar
plgerrard plgerrard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 192
15 yr Member
plgerrard plgerrard is offline
Member
plgerrard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 192
15 yr Member
Default Insane, Ridiculous - Absolutely

Dejibo & Wkikta. Thanks for clearing that up. I took my info from someone I talked to at Social Security, but am slowly learning it is better to find the answers myself. It’s most likely I was so angry to find out that I qualified as Disabled, but did not qualify for Medicare I may not have understood the person at the other end of the phone.

So angry, in fact, I did research the 24-month waiting period (when I probably should have researched the ‘choice’ of Medicare). I could not believe some of things I discovered.

For one thing, while SSDI recipients must wait 24 months for Medicare, SSI recipients qualify immediately for Medicaid. SSI recipients are one of the federal ‘Mandatory Eligibility Groups’ for Medicaid, but SSDI is not.

The "Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009", sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman (S700) and Rep. Gene Green (HR1708) would phase out the 24-month waiting period over a span of ten years, but both bills seem to be in limbo, until something is decided on health care reform.

Even the Act would span 10 years. Why not, just add SSDI as one of the ‘Mandatory Eligibility Groups’ now.

I found a great website and fact sheet about the Act, and wish I had enough posts to include links, but I assure you the quotes below are legit, and I will post links when I finally can.

Quote:
When Medicare expanded in 1972 to include individuals with significant disabilities, Congress stipulated that people with disabilities must first receive Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) for 24 months before gaining Medicare eligibility. This legislation was created to keep costs down and to avoid replacing coverage for a disabled worker still receiving benefits under a private group health plan.
I added the emphasis to ‘keep costs down’, because it ties in to the following from Social Security’s website. This can be found on a page titled “Full Retirement Age is Increasing”.

Quote:
Congress cited improvements in the health of older people and increases in average life expectancy as primary reasons for increasing the normal retirement age.
So, you would think that with the full retirement age increasing, so would the age for Medicare Eligibility. At least that is what I thought. I was wrong. This from Social Security’s Medicare FAQs.

Quote:
Will I get Medicare at age 65 if I am not yet eligible for Social Security?
Although the retirement age is now 67, 65 remains as the starting date for Medicare eligibility.
What am I missing? Could they not afford Medicare for all of us with Disabilities if they raised the Medicare eligibility age to 67 as well? And, the 1972 legislation referenced 'still receiving benefits under a private group plan'. I don't know if it was true then, but it certainly isn't true now. Yet, people still employed past 65 are most likely still insured under a private group plan, but if you look at the Medicare FAQs, they actually encourage them to apply when they turn 65. I just don't get it.

I really have to wonder if our legislators might be in violation of their own ADA Act.

Please forgive the rant. This has been one of my hot buttons.
plgerrard is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote