<p>
</p>
<p>I am not so sure about that. My 81 y/o mother does not have diabetes and she told me that she can go to a podiatrist to have her toenails cut and medicare will cover it. She told me that with her arthritis she can no longer cut them for herself. There is a limit to how frequently she can go for this service, but I don’t know the details.</p>
<p>As shellfell says, medicare only pays for a podiatrist if there is a medical reason for it. For diabetics, this is because diabetics are at a very high risk of foot amputation because of circulation problems. A podiatrist cutting your toe nails is in no way like having a pedicure. </p>
<p>The diabetic shoes are for the same reason. They are not regular shoes but are specially made with padded molds that are made to fit individual feet of diabetics. The special padding reduces the risk of sores which diabetics are prone to and therefore reduce the risk of amputation. They are also pretty ugly. People who have them aren’t getting them for fun or for appearance - they get them because a doctor prescribes them to reduce the risk of amputation. And yes everyone needs shoes, but most people I know don’t pay the sort of price for shoes that diabetic shoes cost.</p>
<p>Medicare will pay for one pair of diabetic shoes a year and a podiatrist about once every 4 months. Much cheaper than the cost of daily abrasion when a diabetic gets ulceration on his /her feet, or of foot amputation and the ongoing related care.</p>
<p>FWIW, my husband was a diabetic for several years and still took care of his own nails and bought his own shoes. it was only when his neuropathy became very severe and he had had a couple of episodes of ulcers that did not heal and required debrasion that his doctor prescribed the diabetic shoes and wanted the foot doc to cut his nails.</p>
<p>From the article that I just found, not sure if it is 100% accurate, but it makes sense to me:</p>
<p>Medicare’s policy regarding toe nail care. Medicare is very willing to cover nail care when such care, if provided by someone outside of a physician’s office, would possibly lead to harm of that patient. For example, a person who is diabetic or has circulation disease has a greater chance of developing significant wounds and infections from minor skin nicks than someone who is generally healthy. For this reason, if an untrained individual cut their toenails and caused a small skin wound, the patient in question could be significantly harmed. Medicare wants to prevent this, and has set up a list of conditions in which they feel warrant toenail attention by a physician. This list includes the following conditions:</p>
<p>diabetes, arteriosclerosis (confirmed), rheumatoid arthritis, peripheral neuropathy, multiple sclerosis, arteritis, chronic kidney disease, ALS, leprosy, syphilis related nerve disease, beriberi, pellagra, lipidoses, amyloidosis, pernicious anemia, Freidreich’s ataxia, quadriplegia or paraplegia, Refsum’s disease, polyneuritis, toxic myoneural disease, Raynaud’s disease(not phenomenon), erythromelalgia, phlebitis (active), celiac disease, tropical sprue, blind loop syndrome, pancreatic steatorrhea</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the situation is not as simple as strictly having one of these conditions. Certain combinations of symptoms or findings on a medical exam need to be also present in order to justify this greater risk. These include things like thin skin, swelling, poor pulses, poor sensation, a history of amputation, and other various findings that need to be noted by the doctor and categorized into one of three classes. Together, these are known as ‘class findings’. Without their presence, Medicare will not cover some types of nail care, and also will not cover callus care. </p>
<p>Article Source: [Can’t</a> Trim Your Own Toenails? Medicare MAY Have You Covered](<a href=“http://EzineArticles.com/4189873]Can’t”>http://EzineArticles.com/4189873)</p>
<p>I was being slightly ‘flip’ calling the podiatrist trimming a pedicure. Like northeastmom, my mother also does not have diabetes and Medicare covers her toenail trimming. I am sure the doctor could go through the list northeastmom posted and come up with a condition that fits my mother. She lives in an assisted living community of 24 residents - all 24 line up on the same day and have their toenails trimmed. Prior to moving into the community, she had a lady who came to her home do it and paid her out of pocket. When she moved in the staff told her the podiatrist came and Medicare paid for it.</p>
<p>The point I was making is if the government is concerned with the high cost of Social Security and Medicare, there are plenty of places where things could be cut and loop holes could be closed. It would be a tedious job to look through each item line by line, but it could be done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its not linear. There are some years where the increase is larger than others, and it seems not to make much sense. </p>
<p>You can log onto the SS site and set up your own inquiry account and get your exact numbers, based on a couple of assumptions. </p>
<p>The rules are jaw-locking complicated. I try to read every article that I see about the subject because I always learn something new.</p>
<p>But back to the original topic, I am still really shocked that my wife and I (both the same age) could follow the rational strategy of waiting until age 70 to start taking SS benefits at X per month, or I could do this file and suspend thing at age 66 and let my wife collect around $50,000 in payments and we would still both get the same X monthly check starting at age 70. That is whack! Somehow I think they might close that loophole before I get to age 66.</p>
<p>NJres, Your wife is entitled to half what your SS would be at age 66?</p>
<p>Why is that whacked?</p>
<p>When you worked in SF did you have dealings with the institutional desks at Merrill, or Goldman?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/money/budgeting_savings/2012-02/How-to-Maximize-Your-Social-Security-Benefits-AARP.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/money/budgeting_savings/2012-02/How-to-Maximize-Your-Social-Security-Benefits-AARP.pdf</a></p>
<p>I am just pasting this so I know what you are talking about NJres.</p>
<p>HIMom,
If your friend’s H was covered by a defined benefit (traditional) pension plan, she would have to sign off on not collecting a spousal benefit. Normal form of payment to a married EE in most DB plans is 50% J&S. If she didn’t waive, she should pursue with her H’s employer.</p>
<p>As I understand it, the “file at 66, suspend, and spouses receives half your benefit until you file for your full benefit” only works when the couple are both at retirement age - is that correct? </p>
<p>Being 8 1/2 years younger than DH, I don’t think we will be eligible for that ‘loophole’. </p>
<p>The article dstark posted mentions being able to file for benefits at age 62. I thought that age was raised and the youngest you could file (unless you are disabled) is 66 - is that not correct?</p>
<p>MidwestParent, I am not an expert, but I do know that it is possible to file “early” for SS benefits if you are retired, but your monthly benefit will be reduced for life. The earliest age is 62, I believe. If you are working, it doesn’t make sense to do it because they take back something like one dollar for every two dollars you earn (not sure of the formula off the top of my head).</p>
<p>If you are at full retirement age, which depends on when you were born, it’s about 66 for people at that age now, then you can file for your full retirement benefit. It doesn’t matter whether or not you are still working, they don’t reduce the benefit. </p>
<p>If you wait to file, then your benefit is increased for every year you wait, up to age 70.</p>
<p>The reason I find "file and suspend’’ strange (whack) is I did not think the strategy was widely known. It seems too easy for a same-age couple to patiently wait until age 70 to file because they want to maximize their monthly payments and not realize that with a file-and-suspend at age 66 they could get that same payment at age 70 but also receive a monthly check for 4 years prior. </p>
<p>I am just learning this. We are 59 and my thought on SS (exactly what GladGradDad wrote back on page 1) is to wait until age 70 to file in order to mazimize monthly payments and reduce the risk of running out of money if we live forever. It is shocking to learn that we might not have to wait until 70 to collect a check, while still maximizing our payments at age 70. I can’t get too worked up about this now, there is still plenty of time to live, die, change the system, whatever, but it is good to be aware. </p>
<p>(When I worked in SF the only dealer that covered us with a salesman was Salomon Brothers)</p>
<p>SS just boggles my mind. I think of myself as intelligent until I try to wrap my head around this stuff.</p>
<p>So someone, please help me: I am 51 and make a lot more than my husband. He is 55. His full retirement age is 66.5 and mine is 67. </p>
<p>Can he do the file and suspend thing at 66.5 even though I’m the main earner?</p>
<p>Can he do the file and suspend thing any younger than full retirement age?</p>
<p>As someone else said, this wouldn’t work unless both spouses were retired, correct? Because otherwise, I’d still be working and getting heavily taxed on my SS?</p>
<p>Is there anything I can do, as the younger main earner, to maximize benefits?</p>
<p>I still believe that Medicare is more concern than SS. I do not plan to retire for many reaons, but one is to have insurance or couple in addition to Medicare. The biggest consideration though is how to fill the time with entertaining activities.</p>
<p>I’d have no problem filling my time with activities. If it was financially feasible, I’d retire today. Very happily. </p>
<p>It’s very possible that I may not ever be able to retire. Or at least, I may reach the age where it is very difficult for me to work full-time, and not have enough money to stop working. Yes, I’ve saved money, but both 2000 and 2008 killed my investments and they haven’t really recovered. Also some unemployment slowed my savings. So I’m looking for any advantage I can get when it comes to SS.</p>
<p>From what I read, both can file and suspend, while continuing working and collecting each other’s half. Then you can start collecting your own max amount at 70 and still continue working. More so, min. distribution from your current 401k is NOT required while you are working. In addition, you can roll other 401K’s to your current one. I might be wrong, but this would be the paln to maximize.</p>
<p>SanSerif,
I envy you in regard to ability to entertain yourself. Everything is getting progessively boring for me. Some shows that I just recently watch while doing something else in front of TV, I cannot watch anymore. Movies are getting worse with every single movie release, I have not enjoyed reading for about last 25 years. I do have very nice hobby, but it would be boring to do it for 10 hrs every day. 2 is plenty.
Anyway, I know that I will be kicked out sooner or later. Financillay, I need 3 more years, from entertainment point, I need my job forever. Definitely holding on as much as I can until I am 70.</p>
<p>Yea, I told her that. Also told her to have insurer send her a copy of any form she signed waiving her benefits. Don’t know what she’s done about that. She IS grateful that she’s getting her spousal SS benefits because that’s a major supplement to her income & she continues to work and likely will keep doing so. Any pension SHE will get from her job will be very low, as her income is low & she was a SAHM for the majority of their marriage.</p>
<p>So … if my husband, now 55, retires somewhere between 62 and 66.5 and I’m still working, he can file and suspend and I’d receive a percentage of his benefits? Or would it be heavily penalized since I’d still have an income? </p>
<p>And MiamiDAP - if I were retired, I’d create my own schedule. But the difference is it would be something I created, not an employer. I’d garden, exercise, read, take care of the house, take some vacations (doesn’t have to be extravagant - I can think of dozens of places within driving distance I’d love to visit or re-visit.) I might volunteer at the SPCA or use Rosetta Stone to learn a language. Or take a course through Coursera. Not every moment has to be filled up, like it is at work. I think just sleeping late would be one of the most fun things about retirement. lol</p>
<p>I already said this is all news to me, so I only know what I have just read on the internet, but MimiDAP, I am reading:
</p>
<p>so it doesn’t look like both can file and suspend while both collect the spouse benefit. Only 1 spouse can collect spouse benefit after the other has filed and suspended.</p>
<p>Also, from what I have read I believe BOTH should be at retirement age before one files and suspends. It is after you reach full retirement age that you can continue to increase your monthly benefit until age 70. The spouse can receive spouse benefits and still increase his (or her) own monthly benefit up until age 70 at which point the person receiving spousal benefits can switch to their own social security.</p>