There is probably no single policy being seriously discussed right now that is more idiotic than raising the Medicare retirement age. Not only would this benefit cut produce only modest savings for the federal government, but it would also do it in the most inefficient way possible. It would save the government money but by causing an ever greater increase in private spending on health care.
Medicare currently is significantly more cost effective than private insurance. Raising the Medicare retirement age would mean shifting many older people from a more cost effective government program to a less efficient private insurance system. This would not just force those near retirement to pay the full cost of their insurance, but since private insurance is a worse bargain these seniors would need to pay even more to get the same level of coverage Medicare would have provided.
Having these older people still in the private market would raise premiums for everyone who gets private insurance. Removing these young seniors from Medicare risk pool would also require increasing premiums for everyone else in the program.
Basically any other mechanism to impose austerity on people between the ages of 65-67 would produce a less bad outcome. Even raising taxes on this group or making them pay higher Medicare premiums instead would at least result in roughly a one dollar reduction in the deficit for every one dollar this group lost.
The fact that this idea has so much traction, despite it being such a radically inefficient way to reduce the deficit, shows how this debate is more about just forcing suffering on regular people than actuarial projections.
Photo by Mattes under Creative Commons license.





27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Hey…I have an even better idea. How about medicare patients not dying because they got health care.
even the insurance industry says this is a lousy idea…
I guess Alan Grayson was correct when he presented the R’s health plan. People who can’t work, due to age or illness, are of no use, as they are not participating in the workforce. If you can’t help the wealthy make even more money, you are indeed worthless, and nothing more than a drag on the economy.
Seniors suck up all those “Entitlements”, which at one time “covers(d) all those cases where the law creates a formula of some kind that entitles individuals or, in a few cases, state and local governments, to qualify for federal payments”. During the administration of he great republican Gerald Ford, the term was redefined as the “Entitlements”, as in “the belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit”, the greedy swine.
But no problem, the Federal Government has obviously decided to default on all those T Bonds held by the SS Trust Fund, so they’re right-all we have is a bunch of “worthless IOUs”, backed by the unconditional “Full faith and credit” of the US Government, as spelled out in the sacred Constitution. Why aren’t all of those “Strict Constitutionalists” raising holy hell?
You must be listening in on the conference calls of the PTB. That is how they think and they have almost total control of our Government to “fix” their biggest problem…poor and middle class people who are smiling and enjoying life.
Yeah, but from the insurance industry’s point of view, it’s great!/s
:(
Here’s the CBO report from January 2012 evaluating a proposal to raise the Medicare & Social Security eligibility age. It is a 12 page pdf. file.
I found it humorous, as a member of the long-term unemployed, to read about how this move would force someone like me, or someone my age, to work longer!
Agreed, raising the medicare age is a very bad idea!
In fact I’d like to see a study of the effect that lowering the Medicare age to 62 would have?
I think if we lowered the medicare age to 62 it would encourage people to retire at age 62, and also receive Social security at age 62. This could actually save money for Social Security, because of the 80% value at age 62,
and that money might offset any increased costs in medicare.
One other benefit is that it would open up a job for a younger worker, there by adding another taxpayer to the rolls, and removing a person from the unemployment line.
Nit-pickin’ —
There is no connection between Medicare and retirement. There is a Medicare qualification age (65), with exceptions possible.
The net government savings for raising the eligibility age is (over 10? years): 113 billion dollars. Why not just institute price controls for government based health care? Just because healthcare costs and the medical system are over-priced, should we restrict healthcare to seniors?
Found a Kaiser Foundation Report (14 pages)
http://www.kff.org/medicare/8169.cfm
That is the common sense human argument for universal healthcare instead of the for profit sicknesscare currently offered by for profit vulture capitalists who decend upon you as soon as you are diagnosed with a serious (money making) illness.
LINK
Of course, changing the eligibility age to zero would be the most effective, particularly if this were Medicare for All, not a buy-in.
It’s a stupid move, indeed.
In fact, there is every reason to believe that moving *more* and *younger* people into Medicare would help its finances, as you would be getting money in from these in premiums and yet paying commensurately less money out, as younger people tend to be less sick.
-stewartm, and if you continue to extrapolate…
You said terrible idea. I couldn’t agree more. Is Obama really serious about this? This will tank his second term. And it should.
“Having these older people still in the private market would raise premiums for everyone who gets private insurance.”
Just in time for the mandated purchase of privated insurance.
BTW:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/05/obamacare-fowler-lobbyist-industry1/
“…Fowler is once again passing through the deeply corrupting revolving door as she leaves the Obama administration to return to the loving and lucrative arms of the private health care industry:
“Elizabeth Fowler is leaving the White House for a senior-level position leading ‘global health policy’ at Johnson & Johnson’s government affairs and policy group.”
The pharmaceutical giant that just hired Fowler actively supported the passage of Obamacare through its membership in the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobby. Indeed, PhRMA was one of the most aggressive supporters – and most lavish beneficiaries – of the health care bill drafted by Fowler.
Obama put it “on the table” in 2011. Currently Durbin (D-#Durbinville) says he just wants to postpone it a few years till they can throw seniors
under the busonto the exchages. YMMV as to how much Durbin is floatig ideas for Obama.LINK
Smart money says it will happen since United, Blue Cross, Aetna, etc. want the next crop of baby boomers to stay on their plans instead of signing up for “free” medicare (that you paid for and are entitled to).
Maybe this is push-back against single-payer “Medicare for all” advocates?
You know I didn’t vote him this last time. Glad I didn’t.
I won’t vote for him next time either.
Well……….not literally.
I think that is sufficient reason to summarily dismiss that idea. /s
Or a straw man, “look over here target” while those interested in taking a ‘side plate’ of Medicare funds “reform Medicare” delivery and reduce medical services. ACOs rake off the profit. Only it doesn’t work out well for the patients:
Here’s an example of what I am getting at.
I’m 52 – THE PROBLEM is this domination of left-ie politics of the diaper pissing pinky waving dilettante set who are afeard of going 24*7*365 after these fucking liars – let’s all go to the public square and have Big Speeches By Big People On Big Ideas, and hug and sob and weep, and go back to our glass of port and our fireplace at the Kennedy School of Blowhards and have Big Discussions On The Big Ideas – instead of going to the front of the homes of the bastards ripping us off.
Minus the diaper pissers, this kind of bullshit would never even be considered, nevermind on the table. thank gawd I didn’t vote for 0bummer this time – I’ve NEVER voted fascist, but, at least they’re honest – they’re f’king lying thieves who lie to steal … DUH!
rmm
How about a compromise? If the GOP insists on raising the Medicare eligibility age, we should insist on a a buy in option for those seniors affected, plus anyone that wants in. Say 55? That would get more young seniors into the program at no cost, which would force private insurers to compete.
I’d have been content to see them expand it slowly. It’s so odd to be hearing that we have a system that they know has been the most effective and efficient in controlling costs and is fairly popular with people who utilize it and instead of expanding it (even if it meant asking workers to kick in another percentage point or two) they want to make it smaller.
Even if you were to raise Medicare to 2-2.5% you’d still be getting a pretty good deal to have a guaranteed system when you hit your 50s. My spouse pays around 4-5% of his monthly income for health care WITHOUT the company’s share or co pays(mind you we’d have over a decade before we’d be eligible under a program expanded to 55.)
If you think about it, raising the retirement age is simply incremental privatization. These people will have to spend two more years at the mercy of the private for-profit insurance companies.
But it’s worse than that. Many people in that age group are out of work through no fault of their own and thus are no longer eligible for group rates. Instead, they have to pay much higher individual rates, if they are allowed to get insurance at all. My brother, for example, retired before 65, went on a health kick, and was denied insurance because he had lost too much weight.
“Raising the Medicare Age Is a Uniquely Terrible Idea”
Nah! Just one of many Republicans have for damaging American lives and the economy in order to see that those who do not need more have more. :-P
One thing I don’t understand: If Medicare is a more cost-effective way for people to get healthcare than through private insurance coverage, why are insurance companies knocking down my door and filling my mailbox with offers to give me more benefits than Medicare at a $0 increase in premiums (i.e. I continue to pay my Part B premium to Medicare and they pay the insurance company some amount for my care/insurance.) Is the government paying the insurance company more than my Part B premium?
Yeah, the government subsidizes private insurers involved with Medicare (I think that’s the ‘Medicare Advantage’ marketing). It comes from the prior administration’s BFD most-important-healthcare-legislation-evah, 2003′s Medicare Modernization Act.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act)
More generally, I’m finding this ‘retirement’ age discussion funnier and funnier in an absurdest theater kind of sense. In some ways, people advocating to raise the ‘retirement’ age are actually the most honest people – they want to abolish government social insurance programs.
What I don’t get are Democrats who won’t actually advocate the opposite philosophy – universal social insurance programs.