"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 May 2015 22:48:31 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 17 May 2015 14:39:06 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On 5/16/2015 11:36 AM, Gary wrote:
>> >> >> jmcquown wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> You think 54 is "elderly"?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jill....100 years ago, a girl over age 17 was considered a spinster
>> >> >> and an old maid. hahahahaa
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes....even these days, for men AND women, 54 is elderly!
>> >> >> Only us "elderly" are in denial to think that it's not. ;-D
>> >> >>
>> >> > Yeah, but this isn't 100 years ago. Just because AARP tries to grab
>> >> > you
>> >> > at age 50 doesn't mean a thing. I'll be "elderly" when I'm old
>> >> > enough
>> >> > for
>> >> > Medicare. LOL
>> >>
>> >> I'm 55. I've been on it for a few years.
>> >
>> > That's because you're on SSDI, not SSI.
>>
>> Yes. But you don't need to be elderly to get it.
>
> SSDI is not SSI, which is the topic of discussion.
>
> You're sounding like the old immigrants who came here and didn't work
> here a day in their life but got supplemental social security and sat
> around claiming it was social security. NOPE. The two programs are
> completely different. Children can be on SSDI, but the waiting period
> to qualify for medicare disability insurance benefits for people under
> age 65 is 24 months unless the disability is from end stage renal
> disease or Lou Gehrig's Disease.

The topic was Medicare. Pay attention.