Via Eschaton, quoting Digby in toto (go read), since I need to quote all the way to the end:
From a personal perspective, this would be a godsend:
Senate Democrats are discussing the idea of expanding Medicare by lowering the age at which the elderly could enter the government-run insurance program, Democratic sources on the Hill tell the Huffington Post.
The proposal would lower the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 55, though an age limit of 60 has also been suggested. Crucial details -- such as the timing of the implementation of such a reform -- were not provided due to the sensitivity and ongoing nature of the deliberations. A high-ranking Democratic source off the Hill confirmed that such discussions are taking place.
The huge group of baby boomers in my age group (the second wave) are facing an unbelievable squeeze and the latest versions of the public option aren't going to help us much, especially in high cost states, unless we are really doing badly financially. I ran the numbers for myself and the reforms will probably end up costing me more, although my coverage will hopefully be better. Allowing me to buy into Medicare at 55 would be a huge relief.
As a good progressive I'm not basing my support for the public option on my own personal situation. But I do worry about the political ramifications with respect to this huge demographic between 50 and 65 that's likely to have very mixed results in this health care reform just as they are dealing with aging parents, college aged kids, lower pensions, loss of housing equity, insecure employment and deteriorating health. If they are nervous about health care reform it's going to cost the Democrats. The seniors are already falling away.
This would go a long way to alleviating their concerns.
Update: Atrios is exactly right. I amend my statement:
This is a terrible idea that only a centrist, moderate, corporate lackey, right wing teabagging villager could love and I will fight it with my last breath! Betrayal!
Of course, the post Digby -- or Atrios, even if he is a latecomer to the discussion -- could and should have written is very simple, and consists of two sentences:
Great! Now let's start pushing right away to have Medicare's age of eligibility progressively lowered, and in a few short years, we'll have covered everybody in a popular program that works -- Just like Teddy planned!
Camel's nose, and all...
But n-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!
And, of course, only an asshole like lambert would remember that not only did Teddy propose that very idea, but Mike Ross supported it. It'll sell on the right, too, since "Medicare isn't a government program." So it might just get traction.
Get a grip, access bloggers. It's not all about you and your brand.
UPDATE Of course, who could have guessed, the HuffPo story omits a crucial detail:
Under the potential trade-off with party moderates, near-retirees beginning at age 55 or 60 who lack affordable insurance would be permitted to purchase coverage under Medicare, which generally provides medical care beginning at 65. Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor, would be open to all comers under 300 percent of poverty, or slightly over $66,000 for a family of four.
Better, or rather less bad, since you can get rid of the hideous exchanges and implement earlier. Now, the post they need to write is: (a) expand eligibility progressively downward, (b) add a payroll checkoff option (again, to eliminate the hideous exchanges), and (c) then fight to eliminate the checkoff. In fact, why not sunset it?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
Deleted, not sure of posts meaning
Are you for / against lowering Medicare down to 50 with a payroll?
Because if we had lobbied for single payer this would have been something that the negotiation would have moved to.
If you add in VA/Medicare - VA drug coverage for all honorable discharges [currently it's a point system that gets played with due to budgets] that gets the the younger folks.
Then slap in a catastrophic like Kerry suggested in '04 which would lower premiums because it reduces cherry picking.
We'd have made some real progress this year...but instead the (blog-go-sphere) wanted ObamaCare to help insurance companies make more money.
Hmm...
Medicare for more people. Interesting idea. Too pie-in-the-sky and aggressive, though. Gotta be more realistic. Only a purist asshole whiner would want several more people to get Medicare.
Maybe there should be big fundraisers that push the idea of Medicare for One More Person. I heard a kid in a junior high somewhere wrote a paper on the idea. Are we all in, or what?
If anyone suggests anything bigger than that, or has rallies for more than that, let's shun them. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the puny!
If we push this hard for months, maybe we'll compromise down to Medicare to 1/4 of One More Person. One quarter of a puny symbolic victory will set the stage for further prospective fractional puny symbolic victories. And if we can multiply those fractional victories, think of the size of that cumulative symbolic victory! Yaaaaayyyy!!!!
Well, the master negotiorators have a prime opportunity
So why they don't see that immediately, I'll never know. But they're at the table, and the single payer advocates aren't! I guess they'd rather complain. Haw.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
banging my head on the keyboard
ack!
beware the details. this could actually be a good way to further undermine the single payer system we do have in medicare.
if medicare is going to be extended down to age 55, it has to be for everyone (and probably funded primarily via taxes — not premiums). that’s what makes it single payer and an entitlement instead of either a welfare program (if subsidies for low income) or too expensive for many (if no subsidies). single payer is how we avoid the traps of adverse selection, weak regulation and excessive administrative costs of the small po in a multipayer system.
before endorsing this kind of idea i strongly suggest we consult with the policy experts at pnhp. what do marcia angell, steffie woolhanger and david himmelstein say?
there may be ways to do this, but please please please let's make sure we don't do anything to undermine the closest thing we have to a single payer system (medicare) right now.
these guys have been trying to con us for over a year. this may be another con (if reports are even true).
That's the destructive part of the the proposal
And that's the sting of the buy-in part, I agree.
My point was not so much that this was the best option, but that you'd think that the master negotiators would seize it and start, well, negotiating with it.
But thanks, Selise, for bringing me back to earth.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
This System Already Exists
If you don't have 10 years in the Social Security/Medicare system, you have to buy in to receive Medicare, that's where the "other" funding comes from on the Medicare financial report.
The rates are set, and the system can do this without changes or new bureaucracy.
Obviously this can't be permitted, any more than having Part D, the prescription benefit, use the TriStar/VA/DoD drug pricing. These things would make the government look good, and private enterprise look bad. Too much money would be saved, and we can't have that.
They are just teeing up another football to jerk away at the last moment.
restricted to those w/o insurance
how is this a good thing? It's not open to all 55+, right? The less healthy of this cohort into Medicare ... I dunno.
So how much would it cost to "buy in"?
Is it just another unaffordable non-option for the self employed?
Elliot Lake
The 2010 Rates
Are at this link.
Part A is Hospitalization, and Part B is medical.
The question is what about the people in the added group who have 10 years in the system? Do they get charged, or not?
Medicare Equality for All
Seems like a winner to me, but what do I know?
Reporter to Mahatma Gandhi: What do you think of Western Civilization?
Gandhi to reporter: I think it would be a good idea.
If you haven't given money to Jane Hamsher's fund...
... then you don't know anything. Or, at least, you certainly haven't done anything!
I don't like it, but it's the law. Sorry.
access bloggers ARE DFH's
at least in the eyes of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, they are just DFH
's who get played. We are DFH's who can be safely ignored. PNHP, California Nurses, and Healthcare-NOW! are dangerous trouble makers who require a total news blackout.
Access bloggers are *not* DFHs
Its nearly impossible, in my eyes, to reconcile Bower's PBR/Whole Foods post with access bloggers being DFHs
. That hip, trendy, small group of whatever he called it cannot be DFHs. They kicked the DFHs and anyone who was dirty (e.g. working class folk) out of their hipster pad. No amount of nostalgia can change that.
Only tyrants rig elections.
That Bowers PBR/Whole Foods post...
you mean this one?
Not that it made a big impression on me, or anything. ;-)
Never vote for people who hate you.
ERA Now!
The Widdershins
Nah, me neither
Perhaps my most hated post!
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi