John Nichols: If Obama Hikes Medicare Eligibility Age, That Will Be A 12 Percent Benefit Cut

[Better Believe It]

If Obama Hikes Medicare Eligibility Age, That Will Be A Twelve Percent Benefit Cut
by John Nichols
July 12, 2011

The word in Washington is that President Obama has, in negotiations with congressional Republicans, offered to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

The president's proposal does not resemble a plan that mainstream Democrats would suggest, let alone support. In fact, it roughly resembles a plan advanced last month by Senators Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, and Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut.

That the White House appears to be peddling proposals that parallel those of conservative senators represents an exceptionally troubling development, as even considering a hike in the Medicare eligibility age represents the worst of Washington-insider thinking.

The problem with this play is four-fold:

1. Raising the eligibility age represents a huge benefit cut for older Americans.

2. Raising the eligibility age would not save the money that proponents of the cut suggest.

3. Raising the eligibility age harms the struggle with unemployment.

4. Raising the eligibility age undermines the argument that Democrats want to preserve Medicare and helps Republicans such as Paul Ryan to define the debate.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/161927/if-obama-hikes-medicare-eligbility-age-thatll-be-12-percent-benefit-cut


-----------------------------------------------

To Harm of Millions, Obama Wants to Raise Medicare Age Requirement
By: Jon Walker
July 11, 2011

It seems President Obama as expected grabbed hold of the Joe Lieberman’s trial balloon and is now also pushing to raise the Medicare retirement age to 67.

This would be an extremely horrible move from a policy perspective that would hurt tens of millions of Americans. It would not only increase the medical cost of for those individuals between 65-67 year of age and their employers. Such a move would also increase the Part B premiums for millions of people over 67 who are on Medicare and the increase the premiums for the millions of people under 65 who will be getting insurance on the new exchanges created by Obamacare.

In addition to being a horrible policy that would hurt tens of millions, while producing relatively little savings, agreeing to this bad idea would destroy Democrats current 2012 political advantage which was caused by Republicans embracing Paul Ryan’s plan to eliminate Medicare.

Approving this retirement increase just as Democrats were starting to repair the damage done with seniors as a result of voting for Obamacare would be political devastating to the party.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/11/obama-backs-raising-medicare-age-a-move-that-would-hurt-tens-of-millions/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[CrossChris]

2. K & R!

[Safetykitten]

3. And there will be more surprises.

[Hawkowl]

4. NO BENEFIT CUTS!!!

A decrease in eligibility or an increase in the minimum age to receive benefits IS a SLASH in benefits.

Any politician who supports a smaller pool of Medicare eligible people should be thrown out on his ass and have his own government healthcare revoked permanently.

[somone]

5. This is a must-read

[senseandsensibility]

6. K, R, and thanks for posting.

Good reporting by Nicholls. Sometimes the truth is very simple.

[DURHAM D]

7. Just raise the percentage amount collected on earned wages.

It has not been raised in 25 years. The solution is simple. It should have been raised slightly over the past two and a half decades to match rising costs. How the hell did we get to this day?

[indepat]

8. Thinking to the right of any previous president?

:shrug: :patriot:

[Turbineguy]

9. Raising the eligibility age

would force more people onto insurance companies who would empty their wallets. 66 year old's would be shooting republican politicians instead of voting for them.

[russspeakeasy]

10. "If"?

[DesertFlower]

11. K&R. it's bad enough that the full

retirment age for social security has been raised, but at least you can collect a lower amount at age 62. with medicare you don't have that option.

[radhika]

12. And what InsCo will cover us, at what price?

Most group and individual plans are priced by age. Same with retiree plans. There is an automatic provision that at age 65, the insured individual is supposed to sign up for Medicare. The monthly premium is calculated with reference to the contribution from Medicare. Same with any M-Supplement Plans.

Personal example: I recently lost my School District insurance when my hours were cut below the minimum. I had access to COBRA, but declined to take it since I'm not too far from Medicare, and cash is tight. (Why? I KNEW I would automatically be covered shortly, and decided to ride it out. If, however, I were a few years younger and Medicare would not BEGIN until 67, this option could not work. (Co-factor: I did not want to write a check to a reptilian corporation.)

I know from my post-55 YO friends, we are the least likely to be hired for a full-time job with benefits. Many of us are independent contractors who must obtain and pay for our own healthcare and we must pay market rates. Just think what those market rates will be if Obama makes good on his threat.

Single Payer, Public Option and negotiating Pharma prices? Yeah, right. Thanks Obama, thanks Congress. I raise my middle finger to you all.

[Mimosa]

14. Insurance at over 55 can cost an individual $1,000 a month

How many people can afford it who are on diminishing wages?

Rahika, my partner and I have long been self-employed 'independant contractors' so I sympathise and understand. I don't see how we'll be able to afford any supplement plans. :(

[SSDA]

17. True

I'm self employee too and the cost of insurance is frightening.

Adding insult to injury the idiotic mandate obama rammed down our throats without a public option is only going to make things drastically worse.

[Mimosa]

13. Inarguable fact.

Now who will show up to argue otherwise? Any blue link people? :7

[amborin]

15. terrible

[noiretextatique]

16. well...at least it's a not a "slash"

So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?

“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.

Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”

Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.

Q: So it means a significant …

Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.

Q: So it means a significant cut.

Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …

Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”

Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)

Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.

Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …

Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.

Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …

Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”

Carney: We have said that to address the long-term solvency of the problem – of the program, because this is not an issue that drives short- or medium-term deficits, that we would look – the president is interested in looking at ways to strengthen the program and enhance its long-term solvency that protects the integrity of the program and doesn’t slash benefits.

Q: Which is not the same thing as not cutting benefits.

Opponents of change to Social Security don’t seem reassured.