Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why are there no Dems talking about lower medicare to 55 to save money & gain jobs? [View all]
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.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
39 replies, 3044 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (46)
ReplyReply to this post
39 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why are there no Dems talking about lower medicare to 55 to save money & gain jobs? [View all]
BigD_95
Feb 2013
OP
There were 2 FINAL bills - the main bill passed with 60 votes by the Senate and a smaller bill that
karynnj
Feb 2013
#28
The second (final) bill was a reconciliation bill. A public option could have been added to it.
eomer
Feb 2013
#30
The precedents are for, not against, something this large through reconciliation.
eomer
Feb 2013
#37
It was the passing of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that led to the Byrd rule
karynnj
Feb 2013
#38
dems party leadership (hah!) is promoting the republican austerity agenda instead of coming up
msongs
Feb 2013
#5
Because there are no Dems in power anymore. Just republicans calling themselves Dems
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#16
That's 10 years of not being able to defer income through my HSA you are talking about
RB TexLa
Feb 2013
#19