Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Social Security Act Amendments of 1965

July 30 marks the 50th anniversary of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the bill into law during a ceremony held at the Truman Presidential Library with Harry S. Truman at his side. Johnson requested Truman to accompany him at the ceremony in recognition of the former president's earlier, but failed attempts to pass similar legislation in the 1950s.
The amendments, Public Law 89-87, established government health insurance programs for people 65 and older (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid). Funded by a tax on employee earnings with matching employer contributions, the new programs proved so popular that within a year, 20 million Americans were receiving Medicare- or Medicaid-funded health care. Today, the programs assist more than 130 million poor, disabled, and senior Americans meet their health care needs.
  • When President Harry S. Truman proposed adding health insurance for the elderly and poor to Social Security in the 1950s, the U.S. population was 151,325,798 and the population 65 and older was 12,239,537. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments Act of 1965 into law, the U.S. population was estimated to have been 193,818,000 and the population 65 and older had grown to 18,156,000. In 2013, 14.1 percent of the nation's population (approximately 44.6 million) was 65 or older.
  • One year after President Johnson signed the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965, 19,082,454 people, 65 or older, had enrolled in Medicare. In 1973, the program expanded to include disabled beneficiaries. By 2013, 42,471,527 people, 65 and older, and 9,783,635 people with disabilities were enrolled in Medicare.
  • In 1966, approximately 4 million people were enrolled in Medicaid. In May 2015, the Department for Health and Human Services reported that as of February, 70,515,716 individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
  • In 1965, there were 7,123 hospitals, 305,115 physicians, 1,200,000 nurses, and 109,301 dentists in the United States. Although the number of hospitals decreased to 5,795 by 2009, the number of medical professionals had grown to included 838,453 physicians, 2,583,770 nurses, and 164,000 dentists.
  • In 2009, 15.6 percent of the U.S. population (approximately 47,469,000 people) received Medicaid benefits. Of these, 45.7 percent had household incomes below the poverty level. Nearly 73 percent of Medicaid recipients living below the poverty level were children younger than 18 years of age.
  • In 1940, health-related federal spending totaled $48 million. One year after the passage of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1965, health spending grew to $2.5 billion. As of March 2015, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will spend approximately $870 billion on Medicare and Medicaid.

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Weird & True Story of America’s Most Popular Social Security Number

It’s a bad idea to keep your Social Security card in your wallet (despite the fact that the card says you should), but it used to be common practice. In 1938, before identity theft was the problem it is today, a wallet manufacturer wanted to show potential buyers how well their Social Security cards would fit in their wallets, so they put fake ones in the ones they sold (similar to cardboard “credit cards” you may see in wallets today).

The cards in the wallets were fake, but the number on them wasn't.

More from Credit.com

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Social Security Retirement Estimator

The Retirement Estimator gives estimates based on your actual Social Security earnings record. Please keep in mind that these are just estimates. We can’t provide your actual benefit amount until you apply for benefits. And that amount may differ from the estimates provided because:

Your earnings may increase or decrease in the future.
After you start receiving benefits, they will be adjusted for cost-of-living increases.
Your estimated benefits are based on current law. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 75 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.
Your benefit amount may be affected by military service, railroad employment or pensions earned through work on which you did not pay Social Security tax.

Who Can Use the Retirement Estimator

You can use the Retirement Estimator if:

You have enough Social Security credits at this time to qualify for benefits and
You are not:
Currently receiving benefits on your own Social Security record;
Waiting for a decision about your application for benefits or Medicare;
Age 62 or older and receiving benefits on another Social Security record; or
Eligible for a Pension Based on Work Not Covered By Social Security.

Friday, May 7, 2010

Income of the Population 55 or Older



This recently released biennial report from the Social Security Administration reveals the dependence of America's older generations on Social Security benefits. The report details the type and amount of income received by people aged 55 or older in 2008, examining economic status by a variety of demographic characteristics. One of the findings: Social Security accounts for fully 58 percent of the income received by people aged 65 or older. Private pensions account for only 8 percent.

description from the American Consumers Newsletter.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Predicting Social Security numbers from public data

"Information about an individual’s place and date of birth can be exploited to predict his or her Social Security number (SSN). Using only publicly available information, we observed a correlation between individuals’ SSNs and their birth data and found that for younger cohorts the correlation allows statistical inference of private SSNs. The inferences are made possible by the public availability of the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and the widespread accessibility of personal information from multiple sources, such as data brokers or profiles on social networking sites. Our results highlight the unexpected privacy consequences of the complex interactions among multiple data sources in modern information economies and quantify privacy risks associated with information revelation in public forums."

Thursday, June 11, 2009

The Name Game

No doubt you saw the story a few weeks ago about how Emma supplanted Emily as the most popular name for a baby girl, while, on the boys' side, Jacob held steady.

There's much more at Social Security's Popular Baby Names site such as the names of twins born in 2008, by rank:
1 Jacob, Joshua 69
2 Daniel, David 59
3 Jayden, Jordan 56
4 Ethan, Evan 50
5 Taylor, Tyler 43
6 Gabriella, Isabella 42

Interesting stuff. The problem I have with most of the the stories is that it doesn't tell you the change in the nature of naming children.

For instance, below are percentages of boys, girls born with these names:
1880
1 John 8.1541%, Mary 7.2381%
2 William 8.0511%, Anna 2.6678%
3 James 5.0057%, Emma 2.0521%
4 Charles 4.5167%, Elizabeth 1.9865%
5 George 4.3292%, Minnie 1.7888%
6 Frank 2.7380%, Margaret 1.6167%
7 Joseph 2.2229%, Ida 1.5081%
8 Thomas 2.1401%, Alice 1.4487%
9 Henry 2.0641%, Bertha 1.3523%
10 Robert 2.0404%, Sarah 1.3196%

1930

1 Robert 5.5021%, Mary 5.4969%
2 James 4.7781%, Betty 3.2794%
3 John 4.6417%, Dorothy 2.6064%
4 William 4.1855%, Helen 1.7076%
5 Richard 2.8491%, Margaret 1.5743%
6 Charles 2.8197%, Barbara 1.5683%
7 Donald 2.5723%, Patricia 1.3507%
8 George 2.0155%, Joan 1.3280%
9 Joseph 1.8579%, Doris 1.3250%
10 Edward 1.5346%, Ruth 1.2804%

1980
1 Michael 3.7039%, Jennifer 3.2811%
2 Christopher 2.6531%, Amanda 2.0132%
3 Jason 2.5994%, Jessica 1.9064%
4 David 2.2600%, Melissa 1.7776%
5 James 2.1205%, Sarah 1.4464%
6 Matthew 2.0417%, Heather 1.1223%
7 Joshua 1.9454%, Nicole 1.1189%
8 John 1.9018%, Amy 1.1148%
9 Robert 1.8475%, Elizabeth 1.0972%
10 Joseph 1.6285%, Michelle 1.0743%

2008
1 Jacob 1.0355%, Emma 0.9043%
2 Michael 0.9437%. Isabella 0.8941%
3 Ethan 0.9301%, Emily 0.8377%
4 Joshua 0.8799%, Madison 0.8199%
5 Daniel 0.8702%, Ava 0.8198%
6 Alexander 0.8566%, Olivia 0.8196%
7 Anthony 0.8442%, Sophia 0.7729%
8 William 0.8438%, Abigail 0.7250%
9 Christopher 0.8268%, Elizabeth 0.5748%
10 Matthew 0.8061%, Chloe 0.5692%

In 1880, two boy names were used by almost one-sixth of the population, while Mary was nearly thrice as popular as the next most popular girl's name. By 2008, the #1 names was considerably less dominant than the #10 names in 1980.

I decided to pick out some boys' and girls' names not entirely at random to note their trends.

Male

Roger
1880-349
1930-57
1980-134
2008-463
highest year-22 in 1945 (unsurprisingly)

Darrin
not in top 1000 until 1959
1980-505
not in top 1000 since 2004
highest year-102 in 1965

Gordon
1880-233
1930-77
1980-345
2008-946
highest year-70 in 1935

Rex
1880-519
1930-233
1980-488
2008-799
not in top 1000 in 1999-2002
highest year-171 in 1951

Arthur
1880-14
1930-23
1980-147
2008-363
highest year-14 in 1880-1884, 1886-1899, 1901

Norman
1880-133
1930-40
1980-286
not in top 1000 since 2005
highest year-36 in 1931

Leslie
1880-167
1930-139
1980-354
not in top 1000 since 1997
highest year-81 in 1895

Female

Carol
1880-685
1930-54
1980-232
not in top 1000 in 1883
not in top 1000 since 2006
highest year-4 in 1941

Lydia
1880-77
1930-233
1980-287
2008-120
highest year-75 in 1883

Gertrude
1880-25
1930-96
not in top 1000 since 1965
highest year-22 in 1906

Marcia
1880-614
1930-231
1980-414
not in top 1000 in 1992
not in top 1000 since 1994
highest year-74 in 1951

Gladys
1880-370
1930-48
1980-628
not in top 1000 in 1998
not in top 1000 since 1999
highest year-11 in 1901

Karen
1880-not in top 1000 until 1881
1930-687
1980-54
2008-183
not in top 1000 in 1882-1884, 1888, 1891, 1895-1905, 1907-1911, 1913-1917, 1919-1923, 1925, 1925, 1927
highest year-3 in 1965

Leslie
1880-655
1930-601
1980-61
2008-147
highest year-56 in 1981

Note that the specific spelling matters. For instance, on the boys' side in 2008, Arthur is #363, but, separately, Arturo is #352. Similarly, on the girls' 2008 list, Leslie is #147 and Lesly, #447; Lesley fell off the chart in 2008.

Having spent all this time on FIRST names, you may want to check out this database which allows you to search a last name and see how it ranks nationally, with racial demographic breakdowns (provided by U.S. Census Bureau).

Finally, I'm in the mood for a little Shirley Ellis:

Just don't try Chuck.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009