Say They Raise Medicare to 67. What Difference Can Two Years Make?

[McCamy Taylor]

Two years ago, Sally noticed a breast lump. She told herself that it was “just hormones”---even though she went through menopause over a decade ago. She told herself it was “probably nothing”. Many times, she thought about seeing a doctor and getting a mammogram. But she knew what her physician would say. She needed a biopsy. And Sally had no insurance. The bank which had employed her for the last eighteen years had laid her off, just a couple of years before she would have qualified for retirement. They sent her job overseas---and sent her life in a downward spiral. Sally worked seventy hours a week in minimum wage jobs trying to keep up her house payments and cover her bills. Her jobs did not provide health insurance. She had no disability insurance, either. She was just barely getting by. And then she found the breast lump.

This year, Sally qualified for Medicare. She went to see a doctor immediately. She got that mammogram and the biopsy. Six out of ten lymph nodes were positive and she has metastases in her bones. The good news is breast cancer kills slowly. Chances are, with radiation and chemotherapy, she will still be around when her youngest child graduates from college. The bad news is she will die in pain. Excruciating pain that morphine will not even begin to control. And she will never see her grandkids.

Ask Sally what difference two years can make.

According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html

Two years ago, Ted’s wife, Jane died. Jane was a public school teacher, and she had good benefits including health insurance. The couple retired early---and then, Jane had a sudden massive heart attack and died, leaving Ted alone and uninsured. His Medicare would not kick in for two more years. Ted had high blood pressure and diabetes, both of which had been well controlled up until then. However, his family doctor insisted that he get regular lab work to follow his diabetes, and Ted could not afford the tests. Before retiring, he and his wife had carefully calculated what it would cost for the two of them to live---and now he was trying to get by on half that amount. Going back to work in order to get insurance was out of the question. No one would hire a 63 year old with hypertension and diabetes.

For two years, he made his medication “last” by taking a quarter of the dose he was prescribed. When he ran out and started getting headaches, he would go to the nearby Doc-in-a-Box for refills. Each time, he saw a different doctor. Each doctor advised him to see his regular doctor for check ups. Each time he agreed. He was not lying. He really did intend to get that check up---just as soon as he had insurance again.

Two days before his 65th birthday, Ted suffered a stroke. Now, he is paralyzed over the right side of his body and unable to speak. Doctors say his high blood pressure and uncontrolled diabetes did it. Ted will spend the rest of his life in a nursing home. The bills will be paid by Medicare and Medicaid. The church where Ted taught Sunday school classes will miss him. The neighbors will miss him, too. His grown kids wonder why he never came to them for money for his medical expenses. But Ted was brought up to believe that parents should look after their children, not the other way around. He was told that a man must be independent. Now, he has to ask a nurse for help each time he wants to use the bathroom.

Ask Ted was difference two years can make. But don't expect an answer. He still can't talk.

Most 65- and 66-year-olds would pay significantly more for their health care because they would not be in Medicare. If the Medicare age was raised to 67 in 2014, about three out of four people ages 65 to 66 would pay $2,400 more, on average. The rest would be eligible for various kinds of subsidies for low-to-moderate income people provided under the health care law.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/raising-medicare-age-67-would-shift-cost

[Ken Burch]

1. Let's just say it, McCamy(and you pretty much did)

The whole two year delay thing is about killing as many working people as possible before their pensions kick in. That's the only real reason the 'pugs and Pete Peterson are fighting for it. How DARE us peasants stay alive for even a minute once we've stopped being wage slaves?

[The Second Stone]

11. I damn near cried reading your post

but every word of it is true.

[Devil_Fish]

42. sadly I agree.NT

[awoke_in_2003]

46. I agree that it is killing americans...

but not too many have pensions anymore.

[JDPriestly]

52. Without Medicare and Social Security younger seniors would have nothing.

Pete Peterson and his buddies Geithner, Obama and Boehner could care less about Americans. It's only about their money and Wall Street stock values. That's all they and their banking friends care about.

I watched the movie The International which is based on the BCCI affair this evening. It puts the Pete Peterson type in an interesting light. Pete Peterson sees seniors as potential victims of the Wall Street scam, and he can't stand the fact that the Social Security money doesn't get spent by his hedge fund buddies.

In my opinion, he owns the Obama administration's economic experts.

[mlevans]

2. It's truly heartbreaking.

Not only the plain and simple facts, so well presented here, of what those two years can mean, but also that our president could make such an offer. I am deeply saddened.

[kick-ass-bob]

3. Yes - a 2 year loss of coverage will see the reduction of the avg life expectancy.

Just watch and see.

[FreakinDJ]

4. My Mother would still be alive

[Ozymanithrax]

5. It is a 12% cut in Medicare for those eligable.

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

I have yet seen millionaires taking a 12% cut in their tax refund.

[jtown1123]

6. A HUGE difference. It makes everything more expensive. Some info:

This was one of the more controversial parts of the Lieberman-Coburn Medicare legislation introduced last month. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that this change would save the government $124.8 billion between 2014 and 2021, and that’s not even accounting for the incremental increase. So it would actually save less than that. And, there are several things not factored into that calculation. For one, this would mainly just shift costs to businesses and individuals, and because 65 and 66 year-olds are relatively sick populations, it would mean higher overall health care spending, because providers would demand rates based on the private market rather than Medicare. Plus, younger people now in a risk pool with 65 and 66 year-olds would pay higher premiums. Second, lots of these people would go onto the exchanges, where… the federal government would pay exchange subsidies. So you have to subtract that from overall savings. Third, Austin Frakt and Aaron Carroll showed that this would be bad for overall health, because people wait until their Medicare kicks in to get things taken care of. As a result, in the long run you get people coming on Medicare who are sicker on net, COSTING the government money overall.

So those are the facts about moving Medicare eligibility to 67. It’s a terrible idea all around. The other part is that it’s just a cruel thing to do. In the space of a year and a half, we went from allowing 55 year-olds to buy into Medicare to considering raising the eligibility age to 67. Only one of those two is a better deal for the American public.

Via Fire Dog Lake

The Rest: http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/07/11/report-obama-proposed-raising-medicare-eligibility-to-67/

[theophilus]

7. Raising the age would equal murder imo. There will be blood

on their hands. They have what they need...millions do not. They have nothing in the way of health care. Medicare should be available to all....NOW! Now that would be a change I could believe in. The other....not so much. What a shameful sham this country is becoming.

[chill_wind]

8. Galbraith is calling it what it is: "an abitrary cruelty".

"If you wanted to build on that, the right steps would be to lower – not raise – the Social Security early retirement age, permitting for a few years older workers to exit the labor force permanently on better terms than are available to them today. This together with a lower age of access to Medicare would work quickly to rebalance the labor force, reducing unemployment and futile job search among older workers while increasing job openings for the young. It is the application of plain common sense. And unlike all the pressures to enact long-term cuts in these programs, it would help solve one of today’s important problems right away.

Instead of this, what do we have, from a President who claims to be a member of the Democratic Party? First, there is the claim that we face a fiscal crisis, which is a big untruth. Second, a concession in principle that we should deal with that crisis by enacting massive cuts in public services on one hand and in vital social insurance programs on the other. This is an arbitrary cruelty. Third, a refusal to stand on the strong ground of the Constitution, against those whose open and declared purpose is tear that document and the public credit to shreds."

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/07/11/hawk-nation-a-guide-to-the-catastrophic-debt-ceiling-debate-51211

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1471690

[Tansy_Gold]

66. Except that there's nothing arbitrary about it

It is designed very carefully to target working people.

Working people are already punished with much higher taxes. Now the pukes can make us work harder, pay more, and get less. That's not arbitrary at all.


I'm 62 years old. I haven't had any health insurance at all for four years. I have mild high blood pressure and hypothyroidism. If I could get insurance, I couldn't afford it.


Tansy Gold, 2012

[gratuitous]

9. It's their own fault

If they didn't get sick, they wouldn't need health care. Poor choices lead to bad results, and they're none of my concern. I shouldn't have to pay for it! And how do we know that the clinic they might go to doesn't provide abortion services? That's like my tax dollars being used to pay for abortions! Whaaaa!

Aren't we a callous bunch?

[Ken Burch]

25. "No Medicare Abortions!"

n/t.

[xchrom]

10. Recommend

[bvar22]

12. Recommended.

Well stated!
Please send it to the Democratic Party leadership.
:patriot:

I would LOVE to see your post go viral.




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

13. My neighbors mother died from breast cancer

She was 64 when she found the lump. They were very careful people and had hung on to the family farm by always paying cash, growing their food and making most of their own things. She was a very strong and healthy woman and not being able to afford treatment, she waited till she turned 65 to seek medical help.

Despite getting treatment it was too late and she died in agony. But she saved the family farm.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. "The bank which had employed her for the last eighteen years had laid her off, ..

...just a couple of years before she would have qualified for retirement"

That is becoming standard practice in the business world. More and more Americans are losing their jobs in their mid 50's to early 60's, when they are least likely to find new jobs outside of fast food restaurnats, so that corporations can pad profits by a few more bucks rather than give any retirement benefits to long time loyal workers.

That means even if they were able to save some bucks for retirement, those IRA's get drained simply trying to stay alive long enough for Social Security and Medicare to kick in. Delay medicare another 2 years, hey what's the problem? Let them purchase private plans until then, and let them eat cake.

[WinkyDink]

16. Peas.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. Yup. really really big peas...

The type that can choke you.

[Ken Burch]

24. Or, as old folks did back in the Seventies...

[Horse with no Name]

50. Correct. And that isn't even counting the hit everyone took on the

401k's when the banksters made their grab.

[JDPriestly]

53. You are so right. Many Americans lose their jobs in their 50s and 60s.

That is why "compromising" on Medicare and Social Security is such an evil idea.

Who needs to look to Iran and North Korea for "evildoers" when the "evildoers" most likely to hurt the most Americans are in our own government.

Iran and North Korea don't need to do a thing to us. They can just sit back and let our government do it to us.

Sorry. I'm going overboard, but I am just so disgusted. How uncaring can these people be. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs is doing just fine, thank you.

[russspeakeasy]

15. The golden rule..those with the gold make the rules.

Unless you are sitting on a big pile of cash, you really don't count for much. They will tell you that you do, but only until the election is over.

[indepat]

17. The Sallys and Teds of the US world would be sacrificed at the alter of

shared sacrifice: oh the joys of living in a society wherein shared sacrifice is the code word for wholly capitulating to a radical obscenely depraved RW agenda. :patriot:

[indepat]

18. The Sallys and Teds of the US world would be sacrificed at the alter of

shared sacrifice: oh the joys of living in a society wherein shared sacrifice is the code word for wholly capitulating to a radical obscenely depraved RW agenda. :patriot:

[JDPriestly]

54. +1

[sulphurdunn]

20. Why are we having a discussion

about cutting Medicare benefits when the discussion should be about demanding that the system cover everyone? Why are ruling class corporate stooges and their hired boot lickers permitted to be intransigent while those who claim to represent the rest of us are expected to be reasonable and to compromise? Since when did being reasonable means we die so they can get richer? Enough!

[Rex]

21. Well, if you are 65 and in dire need of medical assistance

you will be fucked and probably not make it to 67. The difference it a lot of people that should have medical insurance at 65 will not get it and they will die.

[CTyankee]

26. Just like Alan Grayson said about the repub health care plan: die quickly, die sooner.

You that that is best, don't you?

:sarcasm:

[Lifelong Protester]

22. So sadly true, and hell yes, two years can be a life and death

situation. I am saddened by these, and the countless other, stories of people who cannot 'hang on'.

Yep, if you are a 30 or 40 something politician, those two years don't seem like such a big deal.
Look at it when you are in your late 50s or early 60s, and it looks a whole lot scarier.

TAX THE RICH
END THE WARS
BLAME THE REPUBLICANS
MEDICARE FOR ALL

[murielm99]

23. I know enough real life stories like this.

One of my friends here, who is active in the Democratic party, got breast cancer at 63. She had just lost her job, because the business closed. She faced her diagnosis with no insurance. Her husband has Medicare.

She told him to let her die. He would not do it.

She is 65 now, and on Medicare. They are $63,000.00 in debt. This is the real figure.

She is doing well physically and emotionally. She works at a local grocery store to help pay off the debt. It will never be paid off.

Who knows, maybe she is one of the lucky ones. She did not die.

We all have these stories. We see the very real suffering caused by the greedy. They are too insulated to see it, and they simply do not care.

If I have to wait an extra two years to go on Medicare, we could be deeply in debt, too.

[Quantess]

27. K & R

[TriMera]

28. k&r. n/t

[quaker bill]

29. Neither of my parents

made it to 67.... enough said.

[SnakeEyes]

68. As unfortunate as that is

Our system relies on people not making it to retirement age. That money your parents would have received, in return for the money they paid in for existing retirees of their working days, and can't transfer to anyone else then goes to other retirees that do live long enough.

[Faygo Kid]

30. Remember when they said "no changes" to those over 55?

Did anyone believe them then? Does anyone believe them now? This would be phased in - soon. Anybody now 60 who has counted on Medicare at age 65 for retirement would have to wait to 67 - or more, when they move the chains again.

[larwdem]

31. I cant believe

That the man I knocked on doors for sent my money to and defended. ever ever ever put that on the table. I just cant believe it.

[Scruffy1]

32. Excellent post. McCamy always brings it home. n/t

[trekbiker]

33. raising the age to 67 would be a huge windfall for big insurance

2 more years of private insurance premiums right at the stage of life when premiums are highest? My girlfriend just turned 50 and ever since HCR passed her insurance has been skyrocketing. She keeps upping her deductible and every two months the insurance keeps going up. I'm starting to think the goal is to force everyone into a catastrophic health insurance plan with a huge deductible and still charge more for premiums. Its absolutely criminal whats going on in this country.

[slipslidingaway]

37. It sure is criminal :( n/t

[MissDeeds]

34. K&R

Beyond that, words fail me.

:cry: :cry:

[nashville_brook]

35. i'm just going to say 'k and r' b/c what i want to say is too ugly

[valerief]

36. You can be sure Congress won't be cutting their healthcare or pensions

or other lifetime benes they get.

[Divernan]

38. Outstanding and powerful OP.

It's been up over 8 hours and not a single sarcastic Third Way supporter has dared raise their head to ridicule or attack. I'll be forwarding your post to family and friends. You renew my spirits by endorsing the need for our old school Democratic values.

[Lordquinton]

39. I didn't read it

I didn't have to, I know exactly what it says, and there is already too much sadness in my life to get into the details again. Let's just say I hope you're wrong, and try to smile.

[Jakes Progress]

40. It's a continuation of Obama's health reform failure/betrayal.

It's moving the age the wrong way. First we get the only chance for American health reform given over as a bonus to the insurance companies. Now he wants to add to two years to the excess profits from each of our lives.

A start (not a good one, but a start) would be moving medicare coverage up two years. At least that would be a start toward what we elected a supposed Democrat for in the first place.

[begin_within]

41. They should let anyone, of any age, buy into Medicare.

Having more people in Medicare will make it more solvent, because young people typically have lower medical costs than elderly people... more people paying in those monthly premiums, with fewer claims for them = Medicare becomes more solvent. It should be a basic function of government and it shouldn't be politically tied to deficits or tax rates. They are just playing political chess using Medicare as a pawn.

[Divernan]

43. One might say they're playing human chess, with us as the pawns

[BlueMTexpat]

56. Exactly - universal health care!

It's as simple as that. And with younger individuals able to receive preventive treatment earlier, which they would under universal health care, long-term health care costs will also decrease.

But there are too many people in power in the US who are beholden to maintaining our dysfunctional health care system exactly as it is.

I currently reside in Switzerland. While the health care system here is neither what I would consider universal health care nor optimal (e.g, France, Germany, other systems in the EU - even in the developing world, for god's sake - are better, IMO), paying premiums as we must into private insurance companies here, there are employer mandates (if you are employed, health insurance is a benefit), insurance costs are regulated and benefits cannot be denied. I pay both into private insurance here (must demonstrate a minimum of coverage under the terms of my residence permit and Medicare, with a few precise exceptions, only applies to treatment within the US) and Medicare premiums. All together, it still costs less than what most people younger than 65 in the US must pay for themselves. Also, assisted suicide is legal here, even though the legal hurdles are high; it's not available simply on demand.

So far as I am able to ascertain, no one here goes bankrupt because of health care costs. It would be considered scandalous. As one would think that it should in any civilized society.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. Ted can not walk, but tell me, can he eat his peas?

nt

[Somawas]

45. A bunch. I'm 62. Docs found a brain tumor last week.

[Lars39]

72. I'm so sorry, Somawas.

:hug:

[DocMac]

47. You won't get any argument fom me!

But it seems that there is enough hate in this world to start another world.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

48. I once thought I was proud of our country.

Now I know I am not.

[WillyT]

49. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[RickFromMN]

51. Why don't the Republicans make suicide compulsory when one reaches a certain age?

Reminds me a of Star Trek Next Generation Episode, "Half a Life".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_a_Life_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29
In this episode, a person of the planet, Kaelon II, is expected to commit
suicide at the age of 60.

It's an old motif. I read a short story, "The Test", by Richard Matheson,
and found it to be unsettling, and frighteningly plausible given humanities cruelty.
http://books.google.com/books?id=CEM1sk7k3XQC&pg=PA323&lpg=PA323&dq=%22The+Test%22+Richard+Matheson&source=bl&ots=3AnunfpEb_&sig=WWMe423k871z6QKqP8RqJiK2F7I&hl=en&ei=viEdTqylNoyisQKd_biuCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA
I believe this book link is only a preview.
I don't know where one can get the complete short story.

I hope the above Google book link works. I searched for
"The Test" Richard Matheson
The above is the books.google.com choice.
"The Test" was published in 1954.


In "The Test", a person upon reaching the age of 65, must pass a test,
every 5 years, or die.

The test is a full day affair, testing memory, comprehension,
physical dexterity, psychological factors.

Tom is the Grandfather, 80. Les is Tom's son. Terry is Les' wife.
The children of an elderly person have two ways to remove an elderly person.
They can sign a "Request for Removal" for the elderly person.
They can wait for the elderly person to fail the test.
In one section of the short story, Terry and Les discuss the chances
of Tom passing the test.
I will quote only a few paragraphs, Terry said the following to Les,
"Les, if he passes the test it means five more years. Five more years.
Les. Have you thought what that means?"

And later on, the following paragraph,
"And yet, now his father was eighty and, in spite of moral upbringing,
in spite of life-taught Christian principles, he and Terry were horribly afraid
that old Tom might pass the test and live another five years with them--another
five years of fumbling around the house, undoing instructions they gave to the boys,
breaking things, wanting to help but only getting in the way and making life an
agony of held-in nerves."

It's a cruel world...and then we are not wanted...and then it's time for us to die.

The socialist, in me, feels medical health care should be a right, not a privilege of the wealthy.

[Capitalocracy]

55. You're worth more dying than dead.

You're worth a hell of a lot more trying to keep up with severely inflated health care costs to keep yourself alive than you are dead. Jesus, if they just killed you at 60, you might actually leave something to your children instead of funneling every penny you've saved up from your meager earnings throughout your life to insurance companies! That's crazy talk!

[emsimon33]

57. Irony: The 2 year increase would probably end up costing the government more

Single-payer national health care with insurance companies out of the picture would be the simple and cost-effective answer!

[LostinNY]

58. Have they thought about this fact--

My husband works for a government agency. He gets to keep his health coverage (we are very fortunate to have his excellent plan) even if he retires early, until full retirement age and then we get Medicare. So many government workers will get excellent health coverage for these two extra years, while other people won't. I don't think that is fair and I benefit from this situation! And some government workers will also have excellent coverage for life, never going on Medicare. How is this right?

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Folks I know who retire from the government made less than they would have in private industry.

So, it all evens out. The feds pay less, but as a huge, self insured entity, they can offer more benefits. That helps them retain good employees.

The fed honoring its contract to its retiree is NOT what is using up our Social Security and Medicare. Tax cuts for the rich and the inflated military budget are what are eating away at the money we have paid into our public retirement. However, the right wing wants to see the American workers fight among themselves, blaming each other, rather than people like the Kochs.

[TBF]

65. However, the right wing wants to see the American workers fight among themselves,

blaming each other, rather than people like the Kochs."

And not just the right wing, we also have the DLC wing of this party doing the exact same thing.

This is class warfare, and so far we are losing. It is up to us to band together and fight back against the Koch Bros. and the rest of the ruling class. They are literally killing us with their capitalism.

[Pooka Fey]

59. K&R

[Enthusiast]

61. K&R! Thank you for this.

Bombs and bullets...........

Priorities.

[4dsc]

62. another campaign issue..

[Autumn]

63. K/R that's all I can say

[TBF]

64. Excellent piece McCamy, and you know these are just a couple examples out of thousands. nt

[vssmith]

67. Jobs

If they want people to retire and open up jobs for younger recruits they need to lower the age for SS and Medicare

[mdm646]

69. Cuts?

I have an idea for Medicare cuts. How about cutting the drug makers free ride and require the drug contracts put out for competitive bidding. Just think of the money that would save.

[eagertolearn]

70. Less jobs for the younger too. Most people have to pay a very high

risk pool insurance if they retire before age 65 now. They end up spending their retirement money because of health care and insurance costs. Many are trying to hang on and keep working to make it to the finish line because of health insurance and health care costs. How many college graduates are out there looking for jobs right now? Lots and increasing medicare to 67 will leave even less jobs. This is a huge mess. I know many nurses who would like to retire because of how they physically can't handle their jobs anymore and can't because of this. Now there is currently a "surplus" of nurses and they are cutting the positions in nursing school. When all these people get sick because of not going to the doctor because of the costs. We are going to be in deep trouble. But this is another ploy from the right...remember they have always complained if we went to a single payer there wouldn't be enough doctors or nurses. We'll they are going to be right if we don't do something quick. Doctors are leaving the profession because they are so frustrated with dealing with the insurance companies trying to tell them how to be doctors and what they can and can not do. We have a big mess on our hands.

[SheilaT]

71. This is not so much a story about Medicare and the

age at which it kicks in, but a story about our entire health care system.

Make Sally 32, husband works, has supposedly good insurance coverage, but with a lifetime cap. The cap is reached at some point.

Any of you can give even "better", meaning more expensive scenarios.

We need a single payer system. Health care should absolutely not be a for-profit system in this country.

[sybylla]

73. At 57 my dad could no longer get insurance on the open market.

He was healthy, but the insurance companies were all skittish and came up with reason after reason to deny him, regardless of what his primary care physician said about his current and previous health status.

Being a small business owner (and I mean small) meant that my mom had to work until he could get on Medicare, even though she was older and could have retired. She made a deal with her boss to cut to part time and then pay for the health insurance benefit.

If her boss hadn't been so understanding and my mom hadn't been so good at what she does, my dad would have spent several years without insurance at a time in a man's life when he probably should have it most.

It also meant he had to stay in business longer - until the crashing economy destroyed it and ate up my mother's retirement.

Raising the age to get Medicare is unconscionable. I can't believe it's even on the table.

[appleannie1]

74. I am 68. I retired at 65. Right after I retired I required 2 stents. Bill? Close to 100 grand.

Without medicare I would not have lived passed 65. Ask me what the difference is.