Why are there no Dems talking about lower medicare to 55 to save money & gain jobs?

[BigD_95]

Seriously no one says it on tv or radio. If you lower the age to 55 it saves money because more healthy people are paying in that wont use the services.

Plus one of the main reasons people work until 65 is health Ins. I know so many people have worked until 65 because of this. They saved for retirement but have to work for Ins. Its so dumb. They could survive if they had heathcare. So there would be lots of people that would retire early maybe get a part time job which would open up jobs for younger people. Its a win/win.

So why is this not being talked about? Why would we want people to work longer. It makes no sense. Make room for jobs for younger people and let people enjoy their retirement.

[Sherman A1]

1. Precisely

The concept could have so many benefits to society, yet it's not on the table, in fact it's not even near the building where the "table" is located.

[robinlynne]

2. excellent idea.

[Warpy]

3. Uh, you don't read so good.

I've been talking about that for years, an unsubsidized buy in for people over 55 (or even 50), Medicare at full price being lower than moneygrubbing insurance companies charge anyone over 50 with any sort of pre existing condition, which means most of us. Younger, healthier seniors brought into the system at full price would shore up the finances considerably. Insurance companies would be delighted to get rid of us.

Young and healthy people already get a premium break. They're about the only ones the moneygrubbers insure these days. And then they renege on coverage when people get sick.

[annabanana]

6. "Seriously no one says it on tv or radio."

I would have LOVED to have heard the idea you've been talking about for years get a larger audience.

It's exactly the kind of idea that every Dem in Congress should be pushing at every opportunity.

[karynnj]

7. Not to mention, it was floated in 2009 as part of the ACA

The problem was that it could not get 60 votes -- as Lieberman immediately said he was a no and we needed all 60 Democrats - in that brief time we had 60.

[SHRED]

12. Joe Lieberman is Satan's helper

I hate him.

[avaistheone1]

35. True.

[BigD_95]

17. I'm talking about right now

All you hear on " morning Joe" is about cuts or any talk show radio or tv. You don't hear anyone talk about expanding Medicare to save it.

[timdog44]

22. I tried to listen to "morning Joe".

Could not stand him. I think I'd rather be "mourning Joe".

[eomer]

23. Except that it didn't need 60 votes.

The final bill was passed through the reconciliation process, which can't be filibustered and therefore requires only 50 Senators. The public option was actually killed by an agreement between the President and Congressional leadership not to allow a vote on it.

[karynnj]

28. There were 2 FINAL bills - the main bill passed with 60 votes by the Senate and a smaller bill that

it that passed under reconciliation. This was necessary because the Byrd rule prevented the passage of the entire thing under reconciliation. The second bill, which contained fixes also contained the entire redo of college loans. From what I remember, there were some supporters of the public option that did not think it was possible to create a public option as part of reconciliation.

It is the Republicans who claim that "Obamacare was rammed through under reconciliation" - which they imply was unconstitutional or at least wrong. The fact is ACA passed the Senate and then the Senate bill - word for word - passed the House once it was clear that with Scott Brown there were not 60 Senate votes to pass a reconciliation bill. There was an agreement and the votes counted for the reconciliation bill that fixed some things the House disagreed with, but, in fact, it was the passage of the main bill that changed healthcare in this country.

[eomer]

30. The second (final) bill was a reconciliation bill. A public option could have been added to it.

There was a push at the last minute to add the public option to the second bill, which was a way to pass it with just 50 Senators voting for it (plus the VP for the 51st vote if necessary) since it was a reconciliation bill. The only reason this wasn't done was that the President and the Democratic leadership of Congress decided not to allow it to come up for a vote.

Here's an article from around that time laying out these facts:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/02/19/reid-public-option-white-house-hedges/

[bvar22]

32. Shhhh!

That is something else no one wants to talk about.

[karynnj]

34. I know there was that push - and there were some Senators, who supported the

public option, but did not think it appropriate to add something with this much structure to the reconciliation bill.

[eomer]

37. The precedents are for, not against, something this large through reconciliation.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a reconciliation bill, created two new federal health programs: CHIP and Medicare Choice. There are other reconciliation bills that make massive changes to Medicare and Medicaid and other substantive changes like broad changes to income tax rates. Those Senators, if you are correct, were making a really lame (and dishonest) excuse.

Here is a summary of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997:
http://www.naswdc.org/archives/advocacy/updates/1997/grbudget.htm

[karynnj]

38. It was the passing of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that led to the Byrd rule

ALL of those things predate that. I am NOT arguing that that was a good rule - just that some Senators, who had voted for the ACA, felt that it was.

They also feared the Republicans saying they rammed it through and using it politically -- something they did anyway - making it not a good reason.

[eomer]

39. Not true, the Byrd Rule originated in 1985, was amended in 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Rule

[n2doc]

4. Because the "Serious People" don't think that way

They all have fun jobs where they get to spew and blovate as much as they want to, on TV, radio and print media. The NEVER want to retire! They can't imagine why anyone would! And if you are a politician you had better do what they say, or you will never, ever,ever get on a Sunday talk show!

That, and because the 1% firmly believe in keeping the work force desperate so they can keep wages low, low, low! Healthcare for 50 year olds might mean that some would say "fuck you" to abusive job situations instead of sucking it up for the meager health care offered.

[Curmudgeoness]

8. You read my mind.

There is one reason that I am still at my job.....and it isn't because I love it.

[timdog44]

15. Correct.

It is the reason a lot of people I know stay at their jobs until in their mid 60s. Enough to retire on but for the insurance premiums. That would be a next step on the road to medicare for all. Sounds wonderful, a bill congress of only three words. "Medicare for all."

[BigD_95]

20. I work around 4 people

That are 61, 63 & 63 that talk about about how they can't wait until 65 to retire and the other person is turning 65 this year and is retiring when she turns 65.

All of them would have retired already if they could get Ins.

Most 401k through companies let you start pulling your money at 59. The last job I was at I can start pulling money at 55. It just makes no sense to force people to work when they could retire 2 or 4 years earlier and open jobs for others.

[marlakay]

29. My husband retired early

Because they had special deal where he worked many years ago if he paid extra money per paycheck for long time he would get medical when he retired and he has PERS from state job.

If it wasn't for medical he would still be working.

After 40 years of working people are tired.

[Curmudgeoness]

36. I am still disappointed

that we did not get Medicare For All---or even try. It is something that everyone can understand, not like what we did get that has too many people confused. And us old folks really do have to get out of the way for younger people to help the economy.

I am not there yet, but when I get to within the time that I could use COBRA until Medicare kicks in, I might choose to retire "early". I guess that will depend on how much the COBRA premium will be when I get there.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[msongs]

5. dems party leadership (hah!) is promoting the republican austerity agenda instead of coming up

with better ideas, even ideas that a majority of the public seems to favor in poll after poll

[andym]

9. Has anyone done the calculations?

The key to proposing this is to show that the money made up by letting younger people in at full price would save substantial money for the program overall. Clearly the payouts on younger folk would be less, so they key is how much money could be made up. It may be that people buying in would have to pay more than the current price without subsidies, but that shouldn't stop Democrats from going forward.

[rurallib]

10. I may be wrong, but i think I have heard Bernie Sanders bring it up

but of course, he is not a Democrat.

[CarmanK]

11. How would the premiums be paid? PPL are not receiving SS at age 55.

There are some real logistics that would need to be in place. Once Obamacare is in full swing, the possibilities for lowering Medicare age eligibility would be a possibility.
The insurance companies have spent 50 years fighting expanded health care, they still need to get over sticker shock.

[subterranean]

13. The same way premiums are paid for Medicare now.

Unless your premiums are deducted from your SS check, they send you a bill and you pay it.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Preventative care is CHEAPER than catastrophic care as well.

General maintenance to keep people healthy costs a HELL of a lot less in the long run, than patching up major health problems down the road.

[Egalitarian Thug]

16. Because there are no Dems in power anymore. Just republicans calling themselves Dems

and insane people calling themselves repubs.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. Are you allowed to say that?

It's true, but for some the truth is greatly overrated.

[Yo_Mama]

18. Because it's elitist, undemocratic, a subsidy to the winners from the losers

and would make a fiscal crisis even worse!

The per-person SUBSIDIZED (by the taxpayers) monthly premium cost would be over $570 a month for parts A, B & D (prescription coverage). So for a couple that would be $1,140 a month.

Most people would also want a Medigap, because there is a lot Medicare doesn't cover plus all the copays. That would be around $125-135 monthly additionally, or about $250 a month for a couple. Only the well off can afford to retire and pay $1,400 a month for medical coverage.

Don't we cater enough to the upper middle class in this country? The whole system is really set up for them already. They get massive tax subsidies, especially for saving.

If we wanted to do this why don't we just go single-payer so poor people can also get benefits? They are more likely to NEED to retire early, and they are the ones who are completely out of luck when they're too sick to get hired and too healthy to get disability.

For ONCE - just ONCE - why don't we try returning the Democratic party to its roots, which were concern for the lower-income, not the whining well-off?

Right now Medicare is hugely subsidized by the General Fund. Even if 55-65 year olds joining the program were generally healthier (which might not be the case), it's hard to see how a program funded 45% from the general fund could possibly be made more fiscally sound by more participants:
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf

The difference between Medicare’s total outlays and its “dedicated financing sources” reaches an estimated 45
percent of outlays in fiscal year 2012, the first year of the projection. Based on this result, Federal law requires the Trustees to issue a determination of projected “excess general revenue Medicare funding” in this report. This is the seventh consecutive such finding , and it again triggers a statutory “Medicare funding warning” that Federal general revenues are becoming a substantial share of total financing for Medicare.

Note that that 45% subsidy calculation was predicated on the SGR cut for Medicare providers, which of course did not happen because it never happens. It was about 27%. There will be only about a 2% cut in sequestration, so the 45% subsidy turns into a much higher subsidy.

The Trustees' estimate in 2012 was that the actual actuarial HI (hospital, Part A) insurance deficit was 2.43% of payroll, meaning we would have to increase the Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% to 5.33% to cover expected costs with the recommended level of general fund subsidy.

[BigD_95]

24. A couple of things your not thinking about

Some of those people would get part time jobs to offset some of that cost.

[Yo_Mama]

31. But the reality is that it is a huge taxpayer subsidy to the well-off, still

About 75% of the Part B premium is paid by the General Fund. If the early retirees were going to pay $350 -$400 monthly, then the subsidy would be much smaller. But that takes the monthly cost to $441 (part A premium) + $370 (part B premium, unsubsidized) + Part D (prescription drug benefit, mostly unsubsidized). That's at least $860 a month per person, or about $1,700 a month per couple, without Medigap. That's some part-time job. Again, this is only doable for those who are already wealthy.

There is another hidden subsidy - Medicare pays much less than private rates for a lot of services, which is why many doctors don't take new Medicare patients or limit the number they take.

Medicare is not really more efficient than private insurance - it is just cost-controlled. The balance of the costs is shifted to other consumers and to private insurance.

It is not right to ask some $30,000 a year earner to pay these costs for older, better off would-be retirees, and if you actually get the would-be retirees to pay the costs, only the pretty wealthy could retire. I can think of no public benefit that would result from this.

[RB TexLa]

19. That's 10 years of not being able to defer income through my HSA you are talking about

Just using the 2013 maximum contribution you are costing me $32,500 in tax deferred income and the investment gains for 10 years on it.

Are you proposing this be mandatory at age 55? 55 is not old.

[xchrom]

25. Du rec. Nt

[still_one]

26. because most are being paid by the insurance companies

[woo me with science]

27. K&R

Why not, indeed.

[bvar22]

33. You have to look WAAAAAAY out on the Fringe Left Wing...

...to hear people talking about something like that.

Dennis Kucinich used to talk about it,
and you see what "they" did to him.