Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Political Forces Lining Up To Raise Medicare Retirement Age - FDL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 07:27 PM
Original message
Political Forces Lining Up To Raise Medicare Retirement Age - FDL
Political Forces Lining up to Raise Medicare Retirement Age
By: Jon Walker - FDL
Friday September 9, 2011 9:30 am

<snip>

The threat to Medicare is very real and pressing. Over the past several months more and more political forces in Washington have being slowly lining up behind a campaign to raise the Medicare eligibility age. This most recent effort really got started when Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) put forward a bill to raise the Medicare retirement age in late May.


Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Tom Coburn

It got a major push in July when Obama privately offered it up as part of a “grand bargain” on the debt ceiling with Speaker John Boehner. It probably got another push in Obama’s jobs speech last night when the president suggested he still wants to change Medicare in a way “some in his party” won’t like.

The campaign also got a behind-the-scenes boost this week. First, the Democratic members of the House Ways and Means committee included raising the Medicare retirement age in a memo to the Super Committee outlining possible deficit reduction options. But more importantly, the powerful American Hospital Association came out in favor of it.


From Politico:

The American Hospital Association has a strategy for heading off any more Medicare payment cuts: Tell Congress to get the money from Medicare beneficiaries instead. The association is urging its nearly 5,000 members to lobby Congress to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, in addition to other money-saving alternatives, according to spokeswoman Marie Watteau.


It is no surprise the hospital industry wants to see the change. Raising the Medicare retirement age means old people will be forced to buy overpriced private insurance instead. Private insurance pays hospitals more than Medicare because they lack Medicare’s market power. It is one of the few ways to cut the government’s Medicare spending while increasing profits for the health care industry — at the expense of older Americans.

<snip>

More: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/09/09/political-forces-lining-up-to-raise-medicare-retirement-age/

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. i`m glad my parents are`t alive to see what is happening to their country.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 07:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Does the CBO also score how many Americans will die/be killed as a result
of proposed legislation? To say the blood of thousands will be on the hands of all party to this might be an understatement, but I would bet not an effin' one of the perpetrators gives a damn. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. This
"First, the Democratic members of the House Ways and Means committee included raising the Medicare retirement age in a memo to the Super Committee outlining possible deficit reduction options. "

...is inaccurate. From the memo (PDF)

Discussion: Raising the Medicare eligibility age would be a radical departure from current policy and is only possible if the ACA is retained. If ACA were subsequently repealed or otherwise substantially changed, this policy would result in a significant increase in the number of near-elderly uninsured persons. Even assuming current law with respect to the ACA, some people over age 65 who are subject to the new policy may become uninsured if they no longer have access to employer sponsored insurance (ESI) and cannot afford coverage through the exchanges. Furthermore, this policy does nothing to control costs, it simply shifts substantial costs from Medicare to other parts of government and to private and public employers. More specifically, this policy would increase costs for employers as more near-elderly retain employer-sponsored insurance. It will increase Medicaid costs, as more low-income near-elderly would remain on Medicaid for longer and others who would become eligible for coverage through the exchange may be eligible for the new Medicaid expansion through the ACA. It would also increase government costs for subsidies in the exchanges, because some people who would otherwise receive Medicare will remain in the exchanges for longer. It would increase premiums in the exchanges – raising costs for other individuals and raising government spending for the tax credits – as the risk pool gets a little worse when the population shifts to be slightly older and more costly. Similarly, this policy may also slightly increase Medicare per capita costs as the population shifts to be slightly older than it is today by excluding the youngest and generally healthiest beneficiaries. This policy idea was floated by the President near the end of the debt ceiling debate.

The Democratic members were discussing the negative impacts of raising the retirement age.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Rose Colored Glasses ???
You need to become more cynical.

That way if you are correct, you will be pleasantly surprised.

:D

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Does
"You need to become more cynical."

...that change the facts and the ability to represent the memo accurately?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Memo = Words
Action = Deeds

We shall see...

Have you ever dealt with a used car salesman ???

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. What
"Action = Deeds"

...does that have to do with the inaccurate claim in the OP piece?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Nothing At All... It Has To Do With What Is Promised, And What Is Done...
Quite simple, actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Damage control is in high gear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. We don't yet know that the OP is inaccurate.
Your post could be inaccurate.

More and more political sources are working to target Medicare. They wouldn't be trying it if they didn't have the ability to get it done.

When have politicians ever had a problem passing a quick change of rules to give themselves more authority? If they don't currently have the authority to change something, they can give themselves that authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Could I please have the link to the original The HIll article?
Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Try
going to the link in the OP. There you will find the link to The Hill article, which includes the link to the memo.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. You are so remarkably helpful... If you are not already employed in the technical
manual profession, perhaps you should give it a whirl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #3
21. FYI, the memo does suggest raising the age to 67 (Oh god knows why you left that off)
Edited on Sat Sep-10-11 01:14 AM by Luminous Animal
Immediately preceding your quote one of the bullet points coming out of this committee does suggest raising the eligibility requirements to 67.

FROM YOUR LITTLE BLUE LINK A SUGGESTION THAT YOU LEFT OUT:

Raise Medicare eligibility age to 67 (-$124.8 billion, CBO). While various permutations are possible, one option is to phase-in an increase of the eligibility age by two months per year, achieving age 67 by 2027.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
woo me with science Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. So the most relevant and important information was omitted. Thank you for pointing that out.
Edited on Sat Sep-10-11 06:23 AM by woo me with science
We have people in Washington now, in both parties, who are fucking corporate thieves, shills, and murderers.

They are targeting the safety nets of the poor, elderly, and disabled, and LYING to the country that they are our defenders.

MONEY is the bottom line. The poor, sick, and elderly do not produce enough. They are not profitable like the bloody wars that these warmongers continue to fund and defend. They are expendable. Let them suffer and die.

Do not let any corporate shill or political hack justify or paper over this evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. Thank You For That !!!
:bounce:

:hi:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. What percentage of Medicare costs would this save?
Most Medicare costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Dying turns out to be really expensive.

So this would really save costs mostly on the seniors who die between age 65 and age 68. But this is a small percentage of over 65 deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. It would actually COST money, not save any
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/delaying-medicare-eligibility-is-bad-for-health/

By now most of the blogosphere has weighed in on Joe Lieberman’s idea of increasing Medicare eligibility from age 65 to 67 (see Frakt, Klein, Volsky, Drum, Krugman). Most of the focus has been on how the delayed eligibility will affect overall health costs. Though federal costs may go down, overall costs would not, because most would just be shifted to seniors themselves. Cost isn’t everything, though. There’s something else delay would do: harm health.

This is not guesswork on our part; there’s clear evidence in the literature. In several papers, Michael McWilliams and colleagues found that utilization, spending, and outcomes for age-eligible Medicare beneficiaries differed for those who had been uninsured prior to turning 65 vs. those who had been insured. Their work was based on survey data, sometimes merged with Medicare claims. This is a relatively strong analytic approach since it exploits a discontinuity in coverage that potentially applies to nearly all individuals: the vast majority of the population enrolls in Medicare at age 65.

The authors found that, relative to those with insurance before age 65, those without insurance prior to Medicare eligibility spent much more money on health care after they became Medicare eligible. In other words, people wait to get care until their Medicare kicks in. This is bad both for health and for the federal government’s bottom line.

Delaying Medicare even longer would likely make this worse. People would forego care longer, health would suffer, and Medicare would pay for the consequences later.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It makes sense. It’s hard to get affordable insurance as you approach age 65. If you’re lucky enough to have insurance, then you’re getting the care you need, so getting Medicare is nice, but not a huge change in your life. If you’re uninsured, though, then getting Medicare is a huge change. If you know you need care, and it’s expensive, then you will likely try and wait until the Medicare kicks in to get it. People do this all the time; the evidence above confirms it.

Raising the eligibility age will just force these people to wait longer. If this somehow saved us money, then we suppose you could have a debate about its benefits and harms. Knowing that it will likely cost Medicare more, however, means that it’s entirely possible that delaying Medicare eligibility will cost more and lead to worse outcomes. That’s the worst of both worlds.

Graphs and charts are available online.

References

<1> McWilliams JM, Meara E, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Health of previously uninsured adults after acquiring Medicare coverage. JAMA. 2007;298:2886-94.
<2> McWilliams JM, Meara E, Zaslavsky AM, Ayanian JZ. Use of health services by previously uninsured Medicare beneficiaries. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:143-53.
<3>Page 2 of this document--Kaiser Foundation study on cost shifting effects of raising the Medicare age.






Raising the Age of Medicare Eligibility:
A Fresh Look Following Implementation of Health Reform
http://www.kff.org/medicare/8169.cfm


Several major deficit-reduction and entitlement reform proposals include raising Medicare's age of eligibility from 65 to 67 as a way of improving Medicare's solvency. This Kaiser Family Foundation report estimates the expected effects on such a change on the federal budget, as well as on affected seniors' out-of-pocket costs, employers, Medicaid and others in light of the major changes in coverage enacted under the 2010 health reform law.

The study estimates that raising Medicare’s eligibility to 67 in 2014 would generate an estimated $5.7 billion in net savings to the federal government, but also result in an estimated net increase of $3.7 billion in out-of-pocket costs for 65- and 66-year-olds, and $4.5 billion in employer retiree health-care costs. In addition, the study projects that the change would raise premiums by about 3 percent both for those who remain on Medicare and for those who obtain coverage through health reform's new insurance exchanges. The study assumes both full implementation of the health reform law and the higher eligibility age in 2014 in order to estimate the full effect of both the law and the policy proposal.

In the absence of the health reform law, raising Medicare's age of eligibility would result in an increase in the uninsured, according to other studies, as many older Americans would have difficulty finding affordable coverage in the individual market in the absence of Medicare. With health reform, virtually all 65- and 66-year-olds would be expected to obtain alternative sources of coverage.

The study is authored by researchers from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Actuarial Research Corporation and is available online. It is the first in a new series of Kaiser Family Foundation studies examining the effects of proposed Medicare changes on the program’s beneficiaries, the federal budget and other stakeholders.

NOTE: Originally released in March 2011, this report and news release were updated in July 2011 to reflect additional provisions of the 2010 health reform law. These adjustments result in lower estimates of net federal savings and aggregate out of pocket spending attributable to raising the age of eligibility.

Despite the savings to the government, overall health care costs will INCREASE due to shifting them to employers and to sick people, by $2.5 billion dollars.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
justgamma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. That's job killer for sure.
At least 10 people in my small plant would retire now and give their jobs to younger people if we could buy into Medicare. So they'll sentence seniors to 2 more years of hard labor to pay for tax cuts to the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
7. Smell the triangulation.
Bubba's back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
14.  "Make no mistake: time for old folks to eat their peas
Edited on Fri Sep-09-11 10:31 PM by MannyGoldstein
and catfood.

Americans understand that times are tough, and the little people have to begin living within the means that our bankers, my administration, and Congress allow.

As the poet John Donne reminds us, no man is an island. We must all rely on one-another to see us through the difficult times. Just as the banker relies on each little person to work three jobs so the banker can afford fifteen mansions, the little person relies on the bankers kindness in allowing him to work those three jobs. Together, we can make this work. Yes we can."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 05:48 AM
Response to Reply #14
24. Manny, thanks for your eloquent defense for the elderly
I'm not yet 60, but I'm disabled. And not on any benefits.

Many people's health starts faltering at 60. Those insurance rates are unaffordable for many of us. I doubt I'll be able to afford a Medicare supplement plan. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThoughtCriminal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-09-11 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
18. It's a double fail
Does not save very much since the younger Medicare members cost the least.

Costs more in the long run when people postpone medical treatment that they cannot afford. When they do become eligible to enroll, they now have more serious and costly to treat medical problems that could have prevented if they had earlier coverage.

This plan is evil.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
22. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mimosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
23. Monstrous. Connecticut gives us Liebermann. ICK! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Le Taz Hot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 05:51 AM
Response to Original message
25. Well, most of us have smelled this coming
Edited on Sat Sep-10-11 06:38 AM by Le Taz Hot
for awhile. Can't say we weren't warned.

Edited to actually make sense. :eyes: (It's early.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-10-11 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Yep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC