Would you favor raising Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67?
Related Stories
How much money could the US government save by raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67? That’s a key question facing the White House and House Republicans as they try to keep the US from plunging over the so-called “fiscal cliff.”
Any deal Washington negotiators might reach is likely to cut big entitlement programs in some fashion, according to the Christian Science Monitor. House Speaker John Boehner has proposed raising Medicare’s eligibility age by two years from the current 65. President Obama has not ruled this change out, so at the moment it remains on the table. What would be its fiscal effect?
In isolation, it would substantially reduce government health spending. The Congressional Budget Office in January released a report that looked at increasing Medicare’s age of eligibility by two months per year, beginning in 2014, until it reaches 67. (A phase-in on that schedule would hit that ceiling in 2027, for people born in 1960, in case you’re interested.) By itself, this change would save the government $148 billion from 2012 to 2021, according to the CBO.
Altering the rules of the Medicare road this way would have a permanent effect on the program’s expenditure outlook. By 2035, Medicare’s spending would be about 5 percent lower annually than it otherwise would be. That would be an appropriation equal to about 4.7 percent of gross domestic product, as opposed to a projected 5 percent of GDP under current law.
What do you think of the idea? Would you favor raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Good health care should be a right and not a privilege and until they get national health care for all legal citizens, they need to leave medicare as it is.
“Would you favor raising Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67?”
Absolutely Not!
On the surface, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 would appear to save some money for the government. However, those people not covered would seek insurance from other (private) sources. Private insurance is more expensive than Medicare for the same level of coverage. The total aggregate cost of insuring people aged 65 and 66 would increase. This is simply a dumb idea. Sadly, being dumb does not disqualify an idea from consideration by this congress.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-57559633/how-raising-age-for-medicare-would-affect-seniors/
the republicans amaze me, cut medicare, cut social security, they are willing to run our ecomomy into the ground if we do not continue the tax cuts to the top 2%. they must sign a agreement saying they will not raise taxes or not receive cash from grover norquest. their job is to cut benefits to the average person and cater to the whims of the koch bros. spend the time to research americans for prosperity and the koch brothers. i know i used to work for a company ran by the director of americans for prosperity.
Yes, raise the age limit. While you are at it, raise the age of full Social Security another two years. Everyone will need to make sacrifices to help balance the nation’s budget.
Thanks in part to the existence of Medicare, people are living longer, healthier lives than they did at the program’s inception in the 1960′s. I see no issue with raising the eligibility age to reflect this, provided that it is done in a way that preserves the present acttvation age for those close to being able to access it. I think that most people understand the rationale for raising the eligibility age (and no, it’s not just another example of GOP class warfare) and would be OK with having the age raised if they had sufficient time to plan for it. I don’t know what “sufficient time” would be for most people, but I suspect that it is on the order of five years, possibly longer.