That’s when his own serious financial troubles began. Realizing that the nursing home job was killing him, Eaker left and began selling long-term care insurance as a gap job. He now needed health coverage, and bought an individual health policy from Illinois Blue Cross Blue Shield. Six weeks later, he had his first heart attack. He thought the policy covered him, but it didn’t. The policy said Carle, the local hospital system, was in the network. It was, but the policy did not make clear that Carle Clinic doctors at the time were not. Eaker had assumed Carle was Carle and was covered. He was wrong, and found himself with $30,000 in medical bills to pay out of pocket. “I couldn’t make the payments the clinic demanded and keep paying for an insurance policy that was worthless,” he told me. So he dropped the coverage.
Two years later, Eaker had another heart attack, and his second wife suffered an aneurysm. Those bills drove them into medical bankruptcy. After the third heart attack three years later, the hospital wrote off the cost of his treatment as a charity case.
Even with health reform, there will still be people like Eaker who are deep in medical bankruptcy. More employers are pushing workers into high-deductible health plans that leave them with high out-of-pocket expenses when serious illness hits. Even with tax subsidies, people are likely to buy skimpy policies from the new state-based shopping services that will be up and running in four years. Medical bankruptcies won’t disappear, and catastrophic health expenses will continue to mess up even the best-laid retirement plans.
Eaker is luckier than most. He had a pension from the church—a rare source of income these days. Last year, when he turned sixty-two, he took that pension—reduced, of course, for early retirement—and he used one-third (a $40,000 lump sum) to pay off doctor bills, much of it incurred from his third heart attack. He is taking the rest as a life annuity, which gives a monthly income of $2112. The pension allows him to defer his full Social Security benefits and still build a small IRA, which now totals some $45,000. Annutizing that money right now would give him an additional $160 of monthly income.
Without that pension he’d be hard-pressed to make it financially even with his job, and would have to take his Social Security benefits early. That would give him around $300 a month less than he would have if he waits until age sxity-six. Eaker lives at the edge, as many do who have had medical problems that eat into their income. He told me that when he was employed by the church, he was considered self-employed and paid both the employee and employer portions of the Social Security payroll tax.
“This is something I have earned,” he said. “It is not welfare. It’s a means where the government can assist citizens in having a semi-secure retirement in older age. I’m not in favor of them messing with the system. If they start messing with it, I know who will get hurt—the poor and the middle class. The rich won’t be hurt at all. I wouldn’t trust where they are going with it.”
Click here for more from Trudy Lieberman on Social Security and entitlement reform.

i would enjoy a discussion of the american political and journalistic tradition of associating the "heartland" with "real people" and the "heartland" with the prarie states
what makes new york, california, maine, oregon, arizona, florida, pennsylvania, delaware, and others not part of the "heartland" and not "real people"
seems to me that what passes as the "heartland" is predominantly rural and the "real people" who live there are few in number compared to those who live outside the "heartland"
#1 Posted by jamzo, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 11:52 AM
All transfer payments benefit someone. And no one has ever denied that such payments encourage dependency. I'd like CJR to show some courage by sending Trudy out to interview a 'real' retiree who doesn't need Social Security but still collects, so that the entire picture of the debate is covered.
I forget, is this a 'journalism review' or a political advocacy site? This story, which features original reporting in the service of a pre-cooked political position, does not even pretend to be about 'journalism'.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 12:36 PM
She did, two weeks ago: http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/social_security_in_the_heartland_lonnie_judy.php
#3 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 01:15 PM
Jamzo,
I once heard a journalist say that “news is what happens to your editor’s friends”. Considering that nearly all media outlets of any note tend to congregate in large urban and mostly coastal areas (where the editors and their friends live) it tends to have this dominant perspective.
While I certainly don’t agree with much of Lieberman’s writings on entitlements, I certain do applaud her with attempting to step out of this bubble.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 01:32 PM
Mark,
You are a piece of work, but with a serious bent to all that you perceive. The CJR Mission Statement, FYI:
Columbia Journalism Review’s mission is to encourage and stimulate excellence in journalism in the service of a free society. It is both a watchdog and a friend of the press in all its forms, from newspapers to magazines to radio, television, and the Web. Founded in 1961 under the auspices of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, CJR examines day-to-day press performance as well as the forces that affect that performance. The magazine is published six times a year, and offers a deliberative mix of reporting, analysis, criticism, and commentary. CJR.org, our Web site, delivers real-time criticism and reporting, giving CJR a vital presence in the ongoing conversation about the media. Both online and in print, Columbia Journalism Review is in conversation with a community of people who share a commitment to high journalistic standards in the U.S. and the world.
That leaves plaenty of room for the good work that CJR does. Some times good journalism requires a proding of the MSM. Maybe you prefer the Fox News phenomenon of making up the news as they go along, or completely ignoring the facts of a story in deference to an ideological bent of mind, like your own.
And just how many American workers are still lucky enough to have a defined pension plan? Public plans have been steadily decreasing the value of their plans, and are continuing to do so as we speak. And private plans defined pensions have been disappearing steadily since the birth of the 401K (better known as YoYo planning; they go up and they go down). A recent articel from The Street:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10781834/dow-companies-are-holdouts-on-pension-plans.html
"Companies are increasingly finding pension plans too expensive, too complicated and too risky when compared with 401(k) plans. Dow-member companies dominate the list of those that offer conventional pensions. A survey by Towers Watson, the global consulting firm, found that only 17% of Fortune 100 companies still offer a direct-benefit plan, down from 67% in 1998. Those that offer direct-contribution plans, such as 401(k)'s, total 58%, up from 10%. Despite the decline, many of the country's best-known companies still offer pensions to at least some employees."
#5 Posted by Jack, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 02:01 PM
I scanned Jack's message with pulse racing, waiting, waiting . . . and there it was - I won the bet with myself - the utterly irrelevant but apparently mandatory reference to Fox News! Whew! I worried that Jack would trick me and manage to get through a long dissertation without mentioning the news channel whose greatest success appears to be in its mission statement of driving a certain small but vocal element of our political-media echo chamber out of its mind! Though, to give Jack his due, there were no additional references to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh.
I have questions, and apparently Jack has answers, so the question of the day is: what exactly is a 401(k) plan if it is not a private pension plan? Just an update old plans which were financed in-house - the sort of thing that bankrupted General Motors - but still a private pension plan under private auspices, since 401 (k) type plans are heavily invested in securities. The point is the degree to which private money takes care of retirees vs. public money. We actually have a form of pension-fund socialism in this country, wherein 'workers' have controlling interests in the big companies, which is a separate, but interesting development. I don't think Social Security, which was established in the older-pension plan days to which Jack refers, anticipated any such thing happening.
The press handout at the beginning of Jack's message makes me curious. Is 'Jack' a CJR staffer posting under a different name? Trudy Lieberman herself, perhaps?
#6 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 05:06 PM
No Mark, that's a verbvatim copy of CJR's Mission Statement which I thought it best to provide you with as it appears that you have your own unique idea of what purpose CJR serves.
Social Security is not public money. The revenue stream is from individual workers and their employers that provides the current benefits to former workers who paid into the same system inorder to provide the revenue to pay the beneficiaries at that earlier time. It is not benefits stemming from some charitable fund. I suspect that you know that as well as I do. I suspect, and your persistence to try to characterize it otherwise supports my suspiscion, that your intention is only to confuse others about this issue.
Currently there are defined benefits plans and defined contributions plans. The only similarity is that some amount of money is "defined" in each plan, but only in the benefits plan is there a statement of actual benefits that will be available to the retiree. In the defined contributions plan, like a 401K plan, only the money taken from a worker's paycheck is assured. What will be left for retirement after a work life is subject to market variability, and very variable the market has been. Talk to some who retired in 2008 and 2009 on such defined contribution plans and see how much less they have than they thought that they would. Their brokers told them so and people like Mark Richard helped to spread that gospel. When a worker invests his or her retirement savings in the private investment market he can end up on the short end of the stick. Those who have are certainly happy to have what benefits their Social Security contributions over the years have earned them. That's their only guaranteed income.
#7 Posted by Jack, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 06:09 PM
CJR is not living up to its mission statement, which is to be a watchdog of the press, not a watchdog of public figures, or to become itself part of that mission.
Social Security is public money. The general fund borrowed from it in fat years, and will borrow from the general fund when it starts running shortfalls.
You confirm my point that it is a pay-as-you-go system. Not a controversial assertion. It isn't so much that we disagree on the 'facts' per se. It's that you think Social Security is fine as it is, and I don't.
The market has been variable, but over a lifetiime seems to out-perform the returns on Social Security - which is why FICA, whose withholding started at 1% of income back in the day, has now had to be ratcheted up to almost 800% higher by percentage of income.
If Social Security is fine and dandy, why do public workers resist having their PERS fund rolled into it? And I'd add that despite 'market variability', the movement is still toward 401-K accounts, rather than increased Social Security taxes, that consumers have moved. Our politicians have also exempted themselves from Social Security contributions. I wonder why. It might be that for most people - not all, nothing is 'all' - their money might be better invested elsewhere. Social Security is a valuable political tool every couple of years for the Democratic Party to use - create a dependent constituency, then pose as its savior. In this case, FDR's genius was to make everyone dependent. That's the political attraction of those 'universal' programs. Kids today weren't around when Social Security was enacted, but they have had the obligations to present retirees handed to them. And you still don't disagree that Social Security is a brutally regressive tax.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 08:31 PM
What I want to know is who the hell is going to hire/keep a 65-70 year old employee??
#9 Posted by TotallyDaft, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 09:21 PM
To TotallyDaft, the unemployment rate is highest among young people, 18-25, so you might re-direct your question. This is part of the problem with Social Security.
#10 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 12:24 PM
With so much being said about social security, I find it interesting that no one is talking about social security disability. It has been a struggle for me to obtain my disability, as a 57 year old male. It's frustrating to keep getting denied by the government.
#11 Posted by Jack Simpson, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 10:29 AM