I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before, but we now have additional proof that raising the Medicare eligibility age would be a ridiculous program on all levels. It would not only cause needless anxiety and suffering to 65 and 66 year-olds, it would not achieve its alleged goal of saving money. In fact, it would increase costs almost everywhere in the health care system.
This is an intuitive outcome. We know that other countries, which have systems much closer to the single-payer system of Medicare than the rest of the US health system, spend less than half as much on health care as the United States, with better outcomes. So the way to lower costs in the system is to move CLOSER to a single-payer framework, not further away. Raising the eligibility age to 67 would move further away, putting 65 and 66 year-olds into the market. And as Paul Van de Water explains, that has ripple effects through the system:
While this proposal would save the federal government money, it would do so by shifting costs to most of the 65- and 66-year-olds who would lose Medicare coverage, to employers that provide health coverage for their retirees, to Medicare beneficiaries, to younger people who buy insurance through the new health insurance exchanges, and to states.
The principal study of the effects of raising the Medicare eligibility age, by the Kaiser Family Foundation, estimates that its increased state and private-sector costs would be twice as large as the net federal savings. If the proposal were fully in effect in 2014, Kaiser estimates, it would generate $5.7 billion in net federal savings but $11.4 billion in higher health care costs to individuals, employers, and states.
The fundamental purpose of deficit reduction is to strengthen the economy over the long term. The relentless rise in health care costs is the key driver of projected long-term deficits that policymakers must address. But reducing federal health care costs by raising state and private-sector health care costs even more makes little sense, as it only increases the burden that health care costs place on the economy as a whole. The goal should be to slow the growth of health care costs system-wide, while extending coverage to all Americans. This proposal does just the opposite on both fronts — raising costs system-wide and increasing the ranks of the uninsured.
Incidentally, I would question that net federal savings number. If exchange enrollees have to pay some portion of $2.5 billion more in 2014, as per the graph at the top, and the newly excluded 65 and 66 year-olds have to pay $3.7 billion more, that will mean not only more burden on the federal government on programs like Medicaid, but higher federal subsidies to cover the expanded cost of health care for the riskier pool of beneficiaries. It appears Kaiser’s study takes this into account, but given the numbers it doesn’t seem like they’ve fully accounted for it.
And there’s another factor. Putting 65 and 66 year-olds on a less stable health program means that when they turn 67 and enter Medicare, they are sicker on net. That means higher costs for Medicare over time. The purpose of health reform was not to make populations even sicker and more costly to treat.
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.
Aaron Carroll has more here. Raising the eligibility age is such a miserable idea, even conservatives like Reihan Salam oppose it.
The President will be offering a large deficit reduction package to go with his jobs speech in September. Early indications are that the deficit package will be similar to the grand bargain he almost inked with John Boehner in July, and that could include raising the Medicare eligibility age. I hope I’ve made clear how pig-ignorant that would be.






13 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The PTB including Obama simply do not want to pay for providing adequate health care to the people of any age, especially the old.
Their view is the best way to cut costs is by essentially rationing care by way of the private insurance and pharma industries which can be much more opaque than the government could do it. That is what Obama Care is all about. Let the insurance companies and pharma take the hit.
Here is something I posted on another blog.
I think you’re kind of missing THE POINT.
When your raison d’etre is kissing the asses of the rich pig scum who’ve been allowed to steal more, More and MORE for 30 years,
When your raison d’etre is to stack the cards and stack the deck so working stiffs have all their surpluses STOLEN, not taken for community investment, but STOLEN for rich pig scum pyramids, pyramid schemes and ponzi schemes -
fucking over tens of millions in medicare isn’t a COST, it is a BENEFIT to the rich pig scum whose asses you’re kissing all the time.
ya know what THE PROBLEM is here?
decades of upper middle class dilettantish obfuscation and euphemism, AND, a complete inability by a subset of the liberal ‘leader’ cla$$ to be able to figure out what each thieving costs each of us for EVERY hour of work, and then market to people how they’ve got a choice between investing in the community, OR, being fucking chumps who deserve what chumps get.
At least the 0bummer-clinton DLC Blue Dog Third Way New Dem Neo Libs are straight up lying thieves, just like th racist, sexist, bigoted flat earthers on the other side of the aisle.
Vote “Medicare ForAll” POTUS in 2012 – it will be a better wasted vote on this sell out, AND, you won’t feel like you’ve been misted with Honey Bucket Goo.
rmm.
The cost to Federal Revenue calculation also needs to include a factor for employment. If faced with retiring at 65 with no employer provided healthcare or working 2 more years to keep healthcare insurance until Medicare kicks in, how many people are going to delay retirement and what will that do to the number of you ng people unable to find employment?
We have been shown over and over again that single payer is the best way to go….but we can’t get through to the scum that we put into office. I don’t know what it is going to take, Dave. Everyone is so frustrated. My co-workers who have voted Republican are just as frustrated as we are. They keep asking me if I think it is possible that we will have another party to vote for by election time.
“And there’s another factor. Putting 65 and 66 year-olds on a less stable health program means that when they turn 67 and enter Medicare, they are sicker on net. That means higher costs for Medicare over time. The purpose of health reform was not to make populations even sicker and more costly to treat.”
This really falls under the heading: Preventive Health Care. It has long been known that the best way to reduce health care costs is through prevention: health care screenings for cancer and heart disease, helping people live healthy lifstyles, preventive medications like BP meds, etc. And of course single payer would do an excellent job of providing such care to the whole population, especially the poor who generally lose out on preventive medicine and partly as a result, have poorer health than more affluent Americans. The whole population would be healthier, less prone to disease, more able to contribute to society and – most importantly, happier.
But, of course, we know that this is not about cutting costs per se but about dismantling the federal social safety net because “Government is not the solution – it’s the problem.” R. Reagan
If they do this I won’t have health care, I just won’t have the $$$$.
This isn’t my only issue but it’s the deal breaking issue for me.
It make it impossible for me to vote for Obama.
Krugman had a great post on this today, too.
The Strange Power of Really Bad Ideas, Medicare Edition
The GOP – and Obama – are all about cost shifting. Taxes get shifted to the middle class from the super rich by avoiding allowing the Bush tax rates to expire and the Clinton rates to automatically return – indeed Obama has doubled down to actually get tax rates lower than Bush on the rich (loophole closing like that nasty mortgage interest deduction and medical insurance premium deduction that is so important to the rich).
Shifting health costs to individuals is called saving the program – shifting costs to states via block grants that are lower than previous help is Reagan’s idea about States being so much more effective. Really hard to see how Obama is different from the GOP.
IF Medicare costs MUST be cut, one reasoned response would be to greatly reduce the quantity of “hugely” major medical procedures offered to those living beyond “life expectancy” by 10 years. But, the Republicans made this option a very tough idea for our cowardly Dems. to forward. Characteristically, our Dems. responded by never uttering another word to the idea’s fairness.
The Repubs. may be repugnant, but the Dems. in many ways are far worse.
Hello,everybody,the good shopping place,the new season approaching, click in. Let’s facelift bar!
===== http://www.madeshopping.net ===
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
ugg BOOT $50
Nike (R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap $9
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
FREE SHiPPING
http://www.madeshopping.net
Cheapest Max Shoes,Discount Brand Purses,Wholesale A&F Clothing
If Obummer stumps for raising Medicare to 67 Progressives should call for a General Strike
So what’s the over/under on Obama’s approval ratting falling into the 30′s after endorsing Medicare to 67? 10%? 25%? Higher?