GOPers FINALLY identify cuts - to Medicare (raising the eligibility age)

[Bill USA]

[font size="3"] Republicans keep saying "we must have spending cuts" but say the Austerity Cliff impasse is Obama's fault for not identifying cuts for the GOP! (Of course NOBODY IN the GOP media echo chamber ever mentions this)[/font]


http://www.nationalmemo.com/gop-senators-propose-raising-medicare-age/

Republicans have been calling for huge spending cuts to resolve the so-called “fiscal cliff” but they’ve been reluctant to actually name the cuts they want, especially to Medicare — until now. The two GOP senators from Tennessee — Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander — unveiled a plan Friday with $1 trillion in cuts, most of which would come from Medicare.

The plan would raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and raise the cost of Medicare premiums for wealthier beneficiaries, which is reminiscent of Mitt Romney’s plan for the popular program that provides insurance to all Americans 65 and older.

“This will sound unpopular. This is bad medicine for many people. But it is part of what we are supposed to do,” Alexander said.

Corker and Alexander’s plan wouldn’t be part of a short-term deal to avert the “fiscal cliff,” which they assume will solve the question of the expiring Bush tax breaks. Rather, it would be used as a tradeoff in order to get Congress to raise the debt limit. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced Wednesday that the U.S. would hit the statutory debt limit on December 31, 2012. At that point “extraordinary measures” would be taken, giving the government two to three months to pay its bills before defaulting.
(more)

[Panasonic]

1. Wrong area to cut.

The 60% of the entire budget belongs to DoD, it needs to be cut down to 15% and redistributed.

[Bill USA]

5. Definitely. The insurers aren't for this either. but GOP would rather do this before returning

the top 2% to the income tax rates they paid in Clinton era.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. He hasn't caved yet.

[exboyfil]

3. Medicare is part of a broader consideration of healthcare

I do not doubt that higher premiums will have to be part of it (premiums based more on income including retirement income). The 65 vs. 67 is ridiculous as an area of savings because, for those two years, individuals are going to have to be insured anyway. If this passes then I am at my employer as long as they will have me (since S.S. retirement is 67, full pension without penalty is 67, and now Medicare is 67). My fear is that my employer will not want my services until 67. The Republicans better get on board with age discrimination measures as well.

Overall it is not good for the economy for professional positions to be tied up until 67. I have to wonder how my employer is going to react in a few years. They have done things to enhance individuals desires to stay until 67 that have not gone through our system yet (averaging every year of earnings instead of the last five years, no more 80 rule (combined age and years service), and no more subsidized healthcare until the start of Medicare). They currently benefit tremendously from hiring late 50s to mid-60s back as consultants - that will go away in the future.

A little bit of realism. The paltry premium we way no way justifies the level of coverage in Medicare currently (I know that may be an uppopular viewpoint). You could argue that this small premium reflects that current year healthcare is obtained in some other fashion (our hodgepodge fiscally irresponsible system).

How do you convince Republicans that shopping for healthcare is not like shopping for a new car?

[BlueStreak]

4. Let them shut down government over that.

What a perfect illustration of what the GOP stands for. They won't look at a dime's savings in the bloated military budget, and they won't consider big cost-saving opportunities in Medicare, such as negotiating drug prices. But they will cut millions of seniors out of the program.

Let them shut down the government over that.

Dare them to shut down the government over that.

[Swede Atlanta]

6. Several independent reviews of these proposals show this does nothing to cut the deficit...

There is little savings in raising the age of eligibility to 67. Further, many employers force older workers out despite the fact that age discrimination is illegal. So that leaves those that would otherwise retire with no option but to try to stick it out another 2 years.

I have several friends who are otherwise financially secure enough to retire early (between 62 and 65). But each one of them are holding onto their current jobs because they need health insurance. Some are planning on retiring at age 63.5 and then taking COBRA, for the 18 month bridge to Medicare, despite the high cost.

It is a sick society where people have to stay working for the sole reason they need health insurance. I realize that under the ACA seniors would be able to purchase health insurance through an exchange but the premiums are likely to be very high. Nearly every person in that age group would have one or more "pre-existing" conditions from hyper-tension, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc.

We need to move seniors into retirement to open jobs for the younger generations. This does the opposite.

Screw the repubiics!!!

[santamargarita]

7. Goddamn I hate this bunch!!!

I mean pure fire breathing 110% hate!!!

[newfie11]

8. This can't be done unless the Dems go along

Cutting SS and raising Medicare premiums
Will devastate many seniors. As of now we have no idea what the so call plan to help THOSE seniors might be.

Yes SS has nothing to do with the deficit and this is insanity if Dems let this go through.

[ROBROX]

9. ICELAND WON BY DEFAULTING

Iceland said to screw the debt and it is the only country which is doing GOOD.

Worldwide the private and public debt should be ERASED and then the world can get on with business. The only people hurt are the 1% who don't need any more money. The people that are helped are EVERYONE. This is just a fantasy idea which seems to good to work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

10. Medicare would be better off if the age of eligibility were LOWERED

Medicare's problem is that it insures only the oldest, sickest people in the country. It was founded precisely because insurance companies didn't want this population. But now that we have compulsory private insurance with way too few regulations (grr), the Republicanites (who proposed compulsory private insurance in the first place, let us not forget) want to force this population into the jaws of the insurance companies--at very high prices, I would guess.

If younger, healthier people were added to the pool, the money coming in would increase, but the increase in money going out to care for the younger people would be less than the increase in premiums they paid.

It's arithmetic, something the GOP can be really bad it when an ideological point is at stake.