An argument FOR raising Medicare eligibility age

[thesquanderer]

You want tax brackets to be indexed to inflation to avoid "bracket creep."

Social Security gets adjusted upward based on cost of living (maybe not as well as it should, but that's another discussion.)

It does make some sense for government provided health assistance to the elderly to be similarly indexed to life span.

When Medicare was begun in 1966, average life expectancy for a newborn was about 70. Today, it's about 79. Clearly it is more expensive to provide health care for an average of 14 years rather than for 5 years (and futurists are predicting that average life spans approaching or even exceeding 100 may not be all that far off, but let's even leave that out for now).

Medicare is currently expected to become insolvent in 2024.

An entirely new single payer system for all would be better. But we don't have that. Until we do, to the extent that we need the current system to work at all, some kind of age-eligibility adjustment based on changing demographics does not seem so unreasonable.

If, for example, they raised the eligibility eligibility age by 2 months each year for the next 12 years, that would change the eligibility age from the current 65 to 67 by the year 2023, and at least that would head off the 2024 crisis... and people would still be getting more years of medicare coverage than was anticipated when the program was begun in 1966.

[msongs]

1. it is more expensive = let the them die....to save money. nice idea nt

[HockeyMom]

2. That would mean they would have to keep working

at a place which gave health benefits. You can say that people can work longer, but what about people who work in dangerous and/or very physical jobs? Do you really want a 68 year old cop on the beat, or a 70 year old construction worker?

[CTyankee]

12. There would have to be a "hardship" exception for those cases.

I think some exist already...

[former9thward]

26. No they don't exist and should not.

Who is going to determine what are "hard" jobs and what aren't. Everyone would argue their job is hard. What about mental stress? Does that not count? No way you could carve out exceptions.

[CTyankee]

27. Look, I'm not in FAVOR of this whole scheme. I'm just saying there would have to then be

some accommodations made. And you are probably right, that it would be unfair in the long run.
But we don't live in a country where that wouldn't happen. We live here.

We should also have universal health care, like the rest of the civilized world. But we don't live there. We live in the U.S.A. where that doesn't exist and won't until things radically change. At this point, things ain't gonna do any such thing...

[dsc]

3. that is a zombie lie

the fact is that life expectancy at age 65, which is the relevant statistic, has actually started to go down and is pretty much unchanged since 1966. In fact, passing this proposal will mean that the typical male will get less Medicare than his 1966 cohort. In addition, it will actually add cost to Medicare since people will enter Medicare sicker.

[thesquanderer]

8. Good point, but still...

Thanks for the interesting post, dsc, and you're right, life expectancy at 65 would indeed be the more relevant figure to work with, thanks for pointing me in that direction.

Still, based on life expectancy at 65, already, people are probably living nearly 3 years longer than they were when Medicare was established. So even a (phased in) increase of 2 years in the eligibility age results in more benefit-time than when the program began.

FYI, here's what I found for average life expectancy at 65...

Year 1960: 15.3 *
Year 1970: 16.2 *
Year 1980: 16.85 *
Year 1990: 17.45 *
Year 2000: 17.6
Year 2007: 18.6

* - approximation, based on averaging men and women

sources:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf#022
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

[dsc]

9. not for low income and minorities

who would be most impacted.

[pscot]

16. But since those people are being systematically disenfranchised

by GOP voter supression at the state level, there's no political cost to screwing them.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. You mean averaging white men and women

nt

[thesquanderer]

15. No, those figures were averaging all, not just white

but it's true that whites would be above the average figures posted

I provided source links, if you want to check...

[Enthusiast]

35. You don't have any recommendations

for this because it is right wing misinformation filth. We don't appreciate Republican talking points on DU.

[Hawkowl]

38. Yes, we should strive for shorter life spans

And your proposal would do that. Denial of care means a lot of things that had they been treated earlier could be managed, will now be fatal. This will result in the further decline in expected lifespan back to 1960 and before.

I don't know if you are intending to be cruel, heartless, or sociopathic.

[roxiejules]

48. NIH: 'Steady rise in life expectancy may soon come to end'

from 2005, an very inconvenient truth for the deficit hawks:


A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15784668


"Forecasts of life expectancy are an important component of public policy that influence age-based entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Although the Social Security Administration recently raised its estimates of how long Americans are going to live in the 21st century, current trends in obesity in the United States suggest that these estimates may not be accurate. From our analysis of the effect of obesity on longevity, we conclude that the steady rise in life expectancy during the past two centuries may soon come to an end."



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323124311.htm


Researchers also believe the life-shortening effect of obesity could rise so rapidly in the United States -- from two to five years in the next 50 years -- that it may eventually exceed the current life-shortening effects of cancer or ischemic heart disease.

The findings are contrary to what some scientists predict about human life expectancy, which assumes that past increases will continue indefinitely. Most forecasts of life expectancy are based on historical trends, but the authors conclude that such estimates fail to consider the obesity epidemic.

"One of the consequences of our prediction is that Social Security does not appear to be in nearly as bad a shape as we think," Olshansky said.

[emsimon33]

32. Excellent point

[Better Believe It]

4. So if we increase the Medicare eligibility age to 80 that would "save" Medicare until 2050!

Just following your logic.

So I suppose a single payer sytem, Medicare for All, is just an impossible utopian dream in the United States compared to the rest of the world.

Must be American exceptionalism.

[iamjoy]

5. What's Your Story?

Are you already eligible for Medicare? Or are you just so healthy and wealthy that you don't think you'll need it anyway?

They should lower the Medicare eligibility age, this could actually *lower* costs.

Right now, the Medicare system is supporting the (statistically) sickest people in our society, the elderly and the disabled. If you lower the age, you will have more healthy people paying into it. Oh, and those who qualify based on disability have to fight for it, often through our legal system. Raising the age would cause an increase in those cases.

Many seniors have a hard time getting health insurance coverage. That's the free market, insurance companies don't want to cover some one statistically likely to get sick. Not all employers offer health insurance, and some may be reluctant to hire seniors fearing higher costs. Sure, age discrimination is illegal, but *prove* it. And while it may be easy enough for people in their late 60s to work at a white collar or clerical job, that's not the case for some one who does more physical work. So, what do you propose to cover them? Even for seniors capable of working, if they otherwise have the savings to retire, do you want them competing in a tight job market?

The fact is, medical technology is wonderful. It's treating/curing what a generation ago was fatal and allowing us to live longer. The question is, should that technology be a luxury, a privilege only available for the wealthy? Or should we recognize that medical treatment costs more than it did 50 years ago and adjust our spending (and revenue source) accordingly?

[thesquanderer]

14. Why get personal

Most of your post was worthwhile, I don't know why you felt you had to start with a personal attack. But if you must know my story, I will be eligible for Medicare in 2023 if they don't change the retirement age, 2025 if they do, and I expect I will be very glad it's there. I hope we'll have a better single payer system by then, but I'm not optimistic about that. Short of that, I would rather have a functional medicare at 67 than a bankrupt one at 65.

Of course it's not ideal. But for all the people who rail against it, I'm not hearing much in the way of alternatives that will keep the system solvent AND are politically viable in todays climate. I guarantee we're not getting anything like single payer out of the Obama administration.

Right now, the Medicare system is supporting the (statistically) sickest people in our society, the elderly and the disabled. If you lower the age, you will have more healthy people paying into it.

Most of the people who benefit from Medicare do not pay into it... they paid into it in the past, while they were healthy workers. If you lower the eligibility age without making other structural changes, all you do is have more people getting the services for "free." (However I am in favor of letting people pay to opt into Medicare early.)

The question is, should that technology be a luxury, a privilege only available for the wealthy? Or should we recognize that medical treatment costs more than it did 50 years ago and adjust our spending (and revenue source) accordingly?

It's always been the case that the best health care goes to the rich. Even today, Rupert Murdoch will get the heart transplant that someone his age on Medicare will not. And as long as some medical technologies are expensive, there's no way to provide them to 100% of the population who can't afford them. It's an unfortunate fact of our system, and no tinkering with Medicare is going to change that. Saying we should adjust spending and revenue sources accordingly sounds easy until you actually try to do it.

[iamjoy]

23. I'm Sorry

You're right, I shouldn't have gotten personal. I was just so surprised to see such a view (raising Medicare age) put forward on DU. But, I shouldn't have made it assumptions about you.

While Medicare Part A is free, that's only hospitalization. Seniors pay for Medicare B, C and D. Senior who don't qualify (some may not if they didn't work enough in their lifetime) they can still get Part A, but have to pay for it.

While I don't believe we can change the medical system to make it completely "fair" and the wealthy will always have priveleges, we should still try to make access to life saving treatment as equitable as possible. There are no easy answers, including raising the eligibility age.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Life expectancy for 'a newborn'? That is convenient framing.

Current life expectancy for African American Males is 70.9 years. Far from 'about 79'. Far indeed.
And as most people know, life expectancy 'getting longer' is not so much about people living longer but about less infant and childhood mortality.

[Skink]

7. Why after less than a century would we weaken rather than bolster these wonderful programs?

Private enterprise is much more likely to cut cut costs and end up in bankruptcy. Some things we shouldn't mess with.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Noting the lack of response from the OP on the actual life

expectancy rates for various gender and racial groups. African American Males, 70.9 currently and the OP says 'raise it to 67'. It is striking, really.

[thesquanderer]

17. Yes the race disparity exists, but...

as someone else pointed out, life expectancy at 65 is the more relevant stat than life expectancy at birth, and while it is still lower for African Americans than whites (and men compared to women), it is not as bad as 70.9.

As of 2006, a 65 year old black male should expect on average to live until almost 80; a white man to almost 82; a black woman to almost 83; and a white woman should top 84.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5817a7.htm

There are issues to address in providing better health care to minorities, but that is not a de facto argument for not altering the current universal eligibility age.

[treestar]

13. When SS started

people died soon after retirement.

It was never expected to support people for years and years.

People now have "retirement plans" because they expect to live for years without having to work.

[totodeinhere]

22. The problem is that with today's economy few people can afford to set up are retirement plan

unless they are rich. And more and more employers are stopping their contributions to 401K plans, and there is a big assault on public employee's pensions. It doesn't look good.

[TheKentuckian]

41. Re-do your expectancy from 65 and reformulate your opinion. Improved child mortality

has little to do with the discussion.

Add to that a separation from trying to squeeze productivity from bones and you might flip on this bullshit.

Why the hell shouldn't people that have worked and contributed for fifty fucking years not have a few years to enjoy their grandchildren, friends, and the world?

What is the perverse pleasure some folks get from feeble folks standing at the doors of Walmart for a next to nothing, if they can get the gig?

What is the obsession with driving down wages by structurally adding millions to a labor pool with shrinking need for workers as far as ANYONE can project?

If people desire to work and have desirable abilities, I have no issue with making it easier for them to do what they like but there is no advantage to the greater society to force everyone that isn't comfortably well off to keep grinding away.
The additional years paying in will be offset by across the board reductions in wages. The only point is to pay out less and that also may be fool's gold because the cost of care will probably go up because of folks waiting on treatment which means the real goal is to increase mortality before payouts begin.

Talking about death panels.

[treestar]

45. You made most of that up

I was merely pointing out that the system as started by the great FDR was of a different mind set when it started.

People didn't think of retirement the way they do now.

Naturally the age would go up as life expectancy goes up. Who wants to retire when still reasonably healthy? Even the rich don't do that.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Who wouldn't want the option of retiring when they are reasonably healthy?

I have no desire to be rolled from my cubicle to the nursing home to await the grim reaper.

I suspect many folks wish to garden, do crafts, take long walks, go on trips, spend lots of time with their grandbabies, sleep as late as they wish, stay up as late as they'd like, wear old ratty clothes, or a million other things that you may or may not be interested in.

I have no doubt that many other folks may well love their jobs and wouldn't want to do another thing with their time and they are more than welcome to keep on rocking for as long as they have the desire and someone desires their skills, knowledge, and experience.

Certainly some wealthy folks keep working but they usually have a lot of flexibility and time for leisure throughout their careers and aren't performing some "job" they do to live but rather their occupation is their life. Nor are they out digging ditches or even doing data entry. Few rich folks are performing jobs that wear out the body, are tedious, or that place unwelcome stress on them. If it is stressful, it is a challenge they seek out rather than one they endure in order to keep food on the table.

There are also many and maybe even most of the wealthy that were born retired and have occupations for a hobby or none at all. Warren Buffet is not the average wealthy guy and he sure as hell isn't working his fingers to the bone or dragging himself in to do something so he will be able to survive and care for his family.

It is not in any way comparable to be a wage slave or in middle management. Sure as shooting, if he wants to go on a two week fishing adventure with his buddies it can be worked out. If his grandchild is graduating across the country he doesn't have to be sure he has enough vacation days and clearance from the boss.

Regardless, there is little need to retire if you are doing exactly what you want with your time anyway. If I give you the option to spend your life doing exactly what you want and you are already doing it then it is going to be tough for you to see from any other point of view.
Let us say you own an interior design business and your heart and soul is in it. Let us further say that you either don't really have other interests and hobbies that make life great or that your set up allows you the ability to pursue them as well then clearly you aren't even going to see the value of retirement, it would seem like punishment more than anything else.

The same would go for anything, let's say something much more physically demanding like operating the family farm or a diner. It is still the same deal, the day you can't make the best hash in the county or get up and milk the cows means you are worn out and scrap heap ready because what you have lived for has passed you by.

I get the feeling this is where you are coming from but try to keep in mind that most aren't in that position and even some that want to keep on keeping on want of the rat wheel, wanting to continue to contribute and be active on their own terms.

I used to hire retirees, usually from the military or police and occasionally from GE or other places where you earned a pension (most of em stacked them, 20 years military and 20 as a cop) but would still be pretty young like late 50's and early 60's. Great and dependable workers as long as I kept in mind they were going to play golf every week or follow their team in season, or go on trips, or whatever because they didn't need the money they needed to be occupied and have lots of extra money for a boat or to gamble at the boat a few times a week without dipping into their nest egg or expense money.

That is the way it should be for folks, not dragging into say hi when you pass by en route to purchase some Chinese garbage or trying to stand for eight hours in some store or cafe.

I still don't get why it is desirable to systemically force millions more into the labor pool or how that wouldn't diminish wages. Or where there is a forecast for some need for additional labor or even the percentage we have now can be maintained.

Where is the productivity shortfall? Where was one before the crash, which was propped up by extreme consumerism, "make work", and a bunch of low wage crap that most people aren't going to be able to do in old age anyway.

[roxiejules]

49. U.S. Life Expectancy About To Decline, Researchers Say

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050323124311.htm

from 2005:

"Forecasts of life expectancy are an important component of public policy that influence age-based entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Although the Researchers also believe the life-shortening effect of obesity could rise so rapidly in the United States -- from two to five years in the next 50 years -- that it may eventually exceed the current life-shortening effects of cancer or ischemic heart disease.

The findings are contrary to what some scientists predict about human life expectancy, which assumes that past increases will continue indefinitely. Most forecasts of life expectancy are based on historical trends, but the authors conclude that such estimates fail to consider the obesity epidemic.

"One of the consequences of our prediction is that Social Security does not appear to be in nearly as bad a shape as we think," Olshansky said.

By calculating years-of-life-lost due to obesity and combining that with estimates of the prevalence of obesity in younger generations, the authors were able to illustrate that in the coming decades the risk of death from obesity-related causes is about to rise. The hardest hit will be minorities, because of limited access to health care and because they have experienced the most rapid increases in obesity in recent years, according to the authors.

[CreekDog]

18. it's cheaper than regular insurance

if you want to save money overall --lower the age, don't raise it.

and WE'RE DEMOCRATS.

which used to mean we were against this sort of thing. (well, *most* of us) :wtf:

[thesquanderer]

19. You can do both

if you want to save money overall --lower the age, don't raise it.

That only works if you start charging people for it. The two proposals are not incompatible. They could gradually raise the age for "free" coverage from 65 to 67, while allowing people the option of buying into the system at earlier ages.

[bornskeptic]

31. Only fairly affluent people would benefit from a Medicare buy-in.

65-year-olds with low incomes would get insurance with 70% actuarial value, comparable to Medicare, for a fraction of the cost. For example,a single 65 year old with an income of about $45000 would pay about $350 with the subsidy, less than half the cost of a Medicare buy-in, and he wouldn't have to search through dozens of choices in Part D to get prescription drug coverage, and best of all he would have a limit on out-of-pocket expenses, without having to buy the Medigap policy he would need if he bought in to Medicare..

[Cosmocat]

20. Agreed ...

Points well made, and thank you for responding as patiently and reasonably as possible to some of the follow ups.

OBVIOUSLY, a single payer universal system is the ideal way to go.

But, it isn't what we have, and not what we are going to have in the near future.

We had a democratic president and big majorities in the Senate and House, and the president and party took a MAJOR hit getting mandated private coverage passed - the first president since LBJ to get any major health care reform done.

Agreed on points about how extending the age leaves those in that age group in a worst position.

With no single payer/universal system in place, there are going to be gaps no matter what.

Helping to keep the program viable KEEPS IT, and lessens the intensity of the right wing attempting to dismantle it.

Gotta hope that the gains made with the HCR can be built upon in future years IF we can get enough of a democratic majority in the House and Senate with a democratic president again.

[totodeinhere]

21. I agree with the part about a new single payer system for all. I think that most

of us are on board with that. But the rest of the OP I disagree with. Even though life expectancy may have gone up, and there seems to be disagreement on that in this thread, most people by age 65 are starting to have health issues and they need good care whether they end up living longer or not. I am opposed to raising the eligibility age.

[Telly Savalas]

24. Having Medicare no longer cover the medical expenses of 65-66 year olds

won't make these expenses go away. It just shifts the burden to the private sector. The cost of private insurance for individuals that age would be astronomical and overly burdensome for people on a fixed income. (Cause y'know....most people over the age of 65 have retired and won't have employer-based coverage. That was kind of the whole point behind Medicare in the first place.)

Medicare can easily be made solvent without resorting to such draconian measures. Implement provider payment reform, lower reimbursements to private insurers for Part C and Part D, use comparative effectiveness research to find savings, and increase the tax (in some sort of progressive fashion.)

And on a side note, to what degree is life expectancy impacted by an improvement in infant mortality rate? To measure the average number years of eligibility, you want to consider the life expectancy of 65 year olds, not of people from birth.

[thesquanderer]

25. see above...

To measure the average number years of eligibility, you want to consider the life expectancy of 65 year olds, not of people from birth.

Yes, that was covered earlier in this discussion, check reply #8 ("Good point, but still..."). I wanted to go back and add that reference to the OP but the editing period had expired.

[Enthusiast]

36. Very good post.

I don't understand why anyone would want to bring the OP in here promoting free market corporate solutions.

[elleng]

28. And/or adjust deductibles/co-pays, as suggested by POTUS,

according to wealth of recipient.
But wait for flaming here.
Thanks
:hi:

[CTyankee]

29. I hate it, but it is coming, we might as well get used to it and figure out ways to

get around it...

As long as we have a for profit heath insurance industry in this country, we will NEVER and I mean NEVER get public option or any kind of universal health care program. Period. The End.

Forget taking to the streets in protest. It's all done.

[Mimosa]

30. Sad but true.

ACA of 2010 institutionalised the for profit providers. We'll never be rid of them. There could have been another way.

[CTyankee]

33. I'm now thinking that there was, in reality, NEVER another way. Not possible.

Not in this country.

There was a time early in Obama's presidency when I thought that middle America had come to its senses and really wanted health care reform. That they were sick and tired of not being able to afford decent health care insurance, if they had it at all. That they truly were demanding change like single payer or if not that, then at least a public option. Then Joe Lieberman pulled his stunt and voila, middle America turned against health care reform and saying, in polls, how bad it was. Aside from our screams here at DU, most Americans just plodded on.

We here at DU talk ourselves blue in the face about how most Americans really, really want universal health care, want to keep or even improve Social Security and certainly don't want to give an inch on Medicare. But we have built a Titanic of our own thinking and are watching it sink. There is no outrage. Nobody is rioting in the streets.

I'm just beginning to think that most Americans are just too besotted by their electronic gadgets and entertainment diversions to care about politics. Rotting infrastructure means nothing, the insane political "discourse" means nothing, our seemingly daily dose of urban violence means nothing (except as another excuse to beat up on minorities).

I wish I could say we are making a difference. But I can't...

[Enthusiast]

37. "Not in this country."

This country has to change! We have to have a national single payer system. There are no viable alternatives.

[CTyankee]

40. Sure there is and we're looking at it now. The complete collapse of the U.S. economy.

If ever there was a "march of folly" we sure are in it now. The idealogues are out to destroy the country in the name of their insane ideology.

If we were a sane country we would have gotten single payer health care a long time ago. But insanity's grip has gotten stronger, not weaker, and the people don't know what to do and so do nothing.

I want to believe that we'll snap out of it but I don't see that happening...

[Enthusiast]

34. Unrecommended.

Americans shouldn't have to fear losing health care or having inadequate health care to start with.

Medicare should be extended to cover every single American from birth until death. Like in other single payer nationalized systems this would spread the costs over the entire population -not just on the sick and elderly. Then, if we could rein in the fraudsters, like serial medicare thief Florida Governor Rick Scott, we could further reduce costs. Removing the fraud alone would be a greater savings than raising the eligibility age. But just like their Wall Street fraudster counterparts, the health care delivery system has grown to rely on the massive medicare fraud windfall.

We could have the best health care system on earth if not for constant misinformation from people like the ones spreading the filth above.

If you think this attack on the elderly and the vulnerable is nearly over you are sadly mistaken, it is only getting started.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Seriously?

Do you have a clue what private insurance costs for somebody age 65? Do you know why those costs are so high?

There might be an honest argument for raising SS eligibility based on life expectancy, there is no such argument for medicare. Health care costs for people aged 55 and over are huge. This is not changing with increased life expectancy. Worse, by stripping people aged 65 and 66 of their health care benefits you are making their cost of employment higher to employers - so they will be even less competitive in the job market. Make it harder for people to stay in the work force and strip them of their health insurance at the same time. Excellent suggestion. A real foundation to run on for the 2012 campaign.

[Overseas]

42. Here's a link to the history of scaremongering about Medicare going broke

from Thom Hartmann's show. Quotes from Washington Post and NYT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnrGGJ69BbQ&feature=player_detailpage

[Overseas]

43. Longevity stats are kind of like Me and Warren Buffet having an average income

of billions of dollars.

Our legislators with their free healthcare for life and membership in exclusive health clubs are probably feeling pretty good in their old age.

How does the 60 year old moving crates in the shipping department feel?

There are lots of very exhausting and physically disabling jobs in the USA.

We should be talking about Medicare for All, not Medicare for fewer people.

Raise revenue from the top 1% and cutting from the ample waste in our military budget and give Medicare to All. It has much lower overhead than the intermediate Romney type plans.

[Marnie]

44. Firstly, you do not included statistics to show whether

people now are healthier from 70 to 79 than they were in 1966, nor show what the adjusted costs of health care from say 61 to 70 were then as compared to the 70 to 79 are now, much less what the disability and death rate during the 9 years from 61 to 70 were then or 70 to 79 are now. Nor how many, during those nine last years were/are still working and paying into SS and Medicare.

And most importantly the average age among middle class and poor is now declining pretty rapidly, two years in the last decade, I believe, average age for women had reached 82 and men 80. Average age is only increasing among the most wealthy who have the independent means to afford full health care services for the majority or entirety of their adult lives.

I didn't ask to be born a baby boomer and I am sick of hearing and very angry that the Republicans and many Democrats blame my generation for the current financial mess and want to take away the investment I have made for 40+ years in SS and Medicare just because they, not I and my generation, have mismanaged it.

After all we are already going to be paying the price by being the generation who will take the biggest chunk out of American live expectancy in the history of this country starting this year as the first wave of us hits 65 and counting down, not up.

Once the WWII baby boom generation started pouring money in SS and Medicare coffers from about 1960 and growing ever sense then, the wealth of those savings/investment accounts should have soared for over 40 years, not diminished.

We paid for it and we will fight to get what is due to us, since the largest part of the pot now is our money and the decades of interest it has earned.

[roxiejules]

47. Your argument is from Pete Peterson and the deficit hawks

and the spin goes on and on....



"Peterson and his supporters would shrink Medicare by raising premiums for Part B and Part D, lifting the age when seniors become eligible for the program and “making better decisions about end of life care.”




http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2010/06/dont-confuse-pete-petersons-desire-to-slash-medicare-with-the-goals-of-healthcare-reform-part-1.html

http://prorev.com/peterson.htm