A new day, some more comments. Not that disagree with your intent, or what I perceive to be your intent. Or what is your intent, by the way?
1 - Interesting.
2 - I think other people have addressed this in posts. It is an interesting subject, how life expectancy at birth is one measured rate but life expectancy at older ages is different. The US is not great with infant mortality, so I expect that it won't look great for life expectancy at birth. But life expectancy at older adult ages is likely quite good for the US.
My wife was born in a third world Asian country and we have been there for a number of extended visits. It is very disconcerting to see the level of medical care there, the doctors' offices and their poor equipment, the hospitals (oh, very woeful indeed). Some research on the web just now gives me this comment "The average male in the Philippines lives until he attains 66.2 years of age. ... In the United States, where the greatest number of Filipinos permanently relocate, the average male lives to be 10.7 years older than in the Philippines." well, that's not quite what I first interpreted, I thought that Filipino male expatriates lived that extra 10.7 years, but it sounds like the statistic for the "average US male" (of what age? etc?) Anyway, it sounds like the US has better longevity than this third world country.
3 - I won't quibble with that. I wonder if discrimination based on other criteria may not still exist in hiring practices? Probably some, somewhere. I wouldn't have any idea how big a problem that is (except to its recipients). And that's a topic for an entirely different location than this SS forum.
I believe I myself was a victim of age discrimination at the last job of my working career: a very small tech company, I was there for 22 years, worked hard, helped the company develop itself, got paid quite well after the very early lean years of the company, and later shared in very large bonuses. But the last few years: no raises, no bonuses, management barely said "boo" to me. In the past I'd been told they were so pleased with me I could work there as long as I wanted to! Due to my personal situation I somewhat planned to work beyond my FRA, maybe even to 70. But I bailed out at my FRA plus one month. Haven't looked back.
Thank Heavens I wasn't treated like some guys I had worked with previously (professionals with degrees and certifications) who were laid off or terminated at ages 58-60 or so. Horrible for them. (Their experiences certainly were object lessons for me to plan accordingly.)
4 - Interesting. I don't doubt this. It would be interesting to see some statistics about this.
I do recall around 1992 that I began to see more and more elderly people working in stores, shop clerks, and all. I'd seen some in the past but around then there was a noticeable large increase. And I began to see more and more elderly people out on the street holding cardboard signs, "hungry, please help". Golly, that was frightening (need I explain). I really had never seen this before then.
5 - I wonder how this would boost the economy? It could have the benefit of clearing out the deadwood in the job market so that younger people would have more opportunity to advance. Some major firms even had unofficial official policy to hire only young people and to try to clear out the dead wood any way possible. Major lawsuits resulted. But if the system is set up have people retire at 55 then it might work out. Anyway, perhaps companies would become generally more productive.
Oddly enough, where I live now, my dentist is well north of 70. He had retired once to this retirement town, got bored and started a new practice. Same thing with my rheumatologist; he recently retired again at age 82.
6 - What you describe is true. In the "olden days" Social Security retirement benefits were to be one leg of a three-legged stool, with the others being employer's pension and personal savings. These are no longer the olden days and most people do not spend their working careers at a single employer (was that ever the case? after recently reading a publication by the SSA of their history I have reason to doubt this necessarily so true). The switch from pensions to 401K certainly increases the likelihood of a working collecting on these retirement benefits.
But I don't see how this is cause and effect to the conclusion of your bullet point. I would agree that many working people are financially vulnerable and would be in bad shape if they lost their paycheck.
7 - I addressed that in my previous post.
8 - Public employees often get a great retirement plan. Often this was in exchange for getting lower pay than the private sector. My own observation is that many of these public entities may not have set up plans based on good acturial and funding principles, because so many of these have experienced severe financial crises. That's my own casual observation having been an avid reader of news for many years.
9 - Here's my own opinion: Congress has long seemed to be eligible for overly generous benefits. I guess that's what happens when you can vote your own retirement. Admittedly, I haven't done much research on this but that's been my impression over many, many years of reading the news.
I think in the end it comes down to a larger discussion, as I mentioned in another post. The divvying up of the entire economic pie may need to be reconsidered. No one area of the economy can be considered in isolation, certainly not one as major as Social Security. Unfortunately, the "pie" is limited in size, benefits cannot be given away without distorting something else. But the pie can be grown certainly. Will this consideration of the whole pie ever happen? I doubt it.
In conclusion: We all gotta remember "there's no such thing as a free lunch"