Representative Nancy Pelosi won’t support any move to increase the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.
“Don’t you think … you ought to see if raising the age really does save money?” the California Democrat said during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “Those people are not going to evaporate from the face of the Earth for two years. They’re going to have medical needs, and they’re going to have to be attended to.”
“I do think we should subject every federal dollar that is spent to the harshest scrutiny,” Pelosi added. “I do think the challenge in Medicare is not Medicare, the problem is rising health care costs in general.”
She is right about one thing, the costs are not going away, but she is wrong about saving money, at least for the federal government. Much of Obamacare is based on saving money for the government and not for individuals and the private sector. In fact, the costs are shifted to the private sector. On the other hand, the savings for Medicare from raising the eligibility age will be offset to some extent by those individuals who purchase coverage through a health insurance exchange and in the process receive government tax credits based on their income, which we can assume will be relatively low if they have retired.
Is there any essential difference between the health care needs of a 62 year old, a 65 year old and a 66 year old, or for that matter a 58 year old (I know, older folks use more health care in general). A 62 year old who retires (and some 74% of those collecting Social Security do so before their normal retirement age), must provide for health insurance via employer coverage or simply pay on their own, why not a 66 year old? Very few and a declining number of employers provide health insurance to retirees.
While raising the eligible age is not the best approach to reducing Medicare costs, it does save money for the government if that is the goal. Is that the goal? If so, it means that all Americans will receive less or pay more for what we do receive or both. It is not all that complicated.
However, before we start tinkering with eligibility, taxes, etc. as Congress is declined to do, we should be looking at a complete overhaul of Medicare, an overhaul that combines the funding and benefits design of Parts A and B, and eliminates the need for supplemental coverage plus includes a Health Savings Account younger workers can use to accumulate funds to offset future Medicare out of pocket costs. In other words, a plan that mirrors current employer plans and those that will be offered in the exchanges; a single deductible, co-insurance that is not paid by supplemental coverage, out of pocket limits, care management, utilization review, etc.
Where is the logic of a person having one health plan design when they are 64 and a completely new design when they turn 65?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 