Hi Amy,

AARP's goal is that Social Security & Medicare will be there when you need them. The costs of nursing home care is a huge concern, however - neither SS nor Medicare can pay those costs. Although Medicaid is a safety net to cover nursing home costs if you exhaust your assets, we've got to work toward a system where there are better alternatives that than a nursing home that can keep you at home when you need help - it's what everyone wants & it's much less expensive than a nursing home.

But the key is to protect Medicare & SS - without Medicare older Americans won't have the medical care they need to remain active & healthy. The program works - we just need the collective will to make sure it remains in place. Thanks for listening to the program.

Ray Landis

Hi John,

Long-term care insurance is a product that has potential, but it isn't doing what it needs to do to help Americans with long-term care needs. We need laws that make it easier to get benefits from LTC insurance for care to keep you at home and out of a nursing home. And it makes sense from the cost perspective too - a LTC policy pays out a lot when nursing home care is required, but the costs of home and community based care is a lot less.

A provision of the health care legislation signed into law in 2010 proposes a LTC insurance program that is focused on providing insurance coverage of home and community based care. It's a great concept, but right now there are still a lot of details left to be figured out how to make it affordable and sustainable. That's the challenge about LTC insurance, and it's not something we've figured out yet.

Thanks for listening to the program.

Ray Landis

Hi Ben,

I'd like to think that I do "get it" when it comes to Social Security. Remember, Social Security is a social insurance program - not a retirement savings program. We've made a decision as a society that we don't want our older population to go without resources. SS is a program that provides the guarantee of a source of income for the lifetime of an individual. Like any insurance program, there will be those who pay more than they receive in benefits. And SS is not just for seniors. Millions of Americans have received SS survivor benefits or SS disability payments.

No one gets rich on SS - but it's a program that enables Americans to avoid an existance in poverty. Do we need to make changes in the program to guarantee it will be around for those working and paying into the system today? Yes - and that's the debate that needs to take place now. But that debate has to be about the future of SS - not whether SS can reduce the deficit. Thanks.

Hi Lee,

You're right - we need to look at how savings can be achieved in Medicare now in order to make the program sustainable in the future. One thing AARP endorsed was the end of subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans. Many seniors liked the "extras" in these plans - the gym memberships, the coverage for eye care, etc. But the average enrollee in Medicare Advantage was costing the Medicare system 14% more than those in standard Medicare. That's not sustainable.

We need an honest discussion about the costs to Medicare of expensive tests and procedures that aren't proven to be medically effective. And this discussion shouldn't include the words "death panels". No one would advocate for rationing care or denying medically necessary care. But some of the things Medicare currently pays for don't meet the definition of medically necessary care. It's a tough fight, because some people make a lot of money off these procedures. But we need to engage in this.

Mitchell,

This is an interesting idea which I'll pass along to the AARP National office. Perhaps this kind of catastrophic insurance plan could be incorporated into some of the insurance plans offered in the state insurance exchanges that will go into effect under the Affordable Care Act in 2014.

Thanks for listening.

Kathy,

Of course in this economy jobs can be difficult to find. But we at AARP think employers are intrigued by the life experience that workers over 50 can bring, especially individuals who have updated their skills as you're considering. Look at the demographics of the USA - we're going to need workers over the age of 50, especially people with the skills to operate in the changing economy.

One of AARP's slogans right now is "It's time for what's next" Going back to college to learn new skills and get new ideas is a great example of looking toward "what's next" for you. Good luck!

Lisa,

I haven't read this particular editorial (I'm sorry I missed it - I usually catch NYT editorials) but we do need to take a close look at how retirement functions in the USA right now. Demographics are certainly a huge factor - a higher percentage of Americans will be over 50 in the coming years than ever before - but expectations of what retirement will be are changing too.

Having said that, AARP believes that Medicare and Social Security have to be part of this new retirement equation. Different professions approach retirement in different ways. It's hard to imagine utility line workers, for instance, working until they're 70 or 75. But we do need to look at how SS & Medicare can be changed so they offer the benefits that people have earned while still remaining sustainable. It can't be done in a vacuum, however - these programs are parts of a larger, societal discussion about what retirement should look like.