The House Democrats on the Super Committee have done their due diligence leading up the the first meeting and come up with an evaluation of proposals to deal with what has been labeled "the Medicare Problem". One thing they do an effective job is arguing against raising the eligibility age to 67.
They start out by saying that the only way raising the age to 67 would be even close to possible is if ACA was solidly in tact (something the repubs want nothing to do with). They then go on to describe what would happen if the age was raised and ACA was in tact:
some people over age 65 who are subject to the new policy may
become uninsured if they no longer have access to employer sponsored insurance (ESI) and cannot afford coverage through the exchanges. Furthermore, this policy does
nothing to control costs, it simply shifts substantial costs from Medicare to other parts of government and to private and public employers. More specifically, this policy would increase costs for employers as more near-elderly retain employer-sponsored insurance.
It will increase Medicaid costs, as more low-income near-elderly would remain on Medicaid for longer and others who would become eligible for coverage through the exchange may be eligible for the new Medicaid expansion through the ACA. It would also increase government costs for subsidies in the exchanges, because some people who would otherwise receive Medicare will remain in the exchanges for longer. It would
increase premiums in the exchanges – raising costs for other individuals and raising government spending for the tax credits – as the risk pool gets a little worse when the population shifts to be slightly older and more costly. Similarly, this policy may also slightly increase Medicare per capita costs as the population shifts to be slightly older
than it is today by excluding the youngest and generally healthiest beneficiaries.
bold mine.
The memo goes on to chide the Republicans for not supporting a public option even though it would go a long way to reducing the deficit.
A significant deficit reducing proposal that the Republicans would object to is adding a public plan option to the federal and state exchanges. Such a proposal would result in $88 billion in deficit reduction in 2012 through 2021 according to JCT and CBO
bold mine
If you read The Hill article on the document, (or a certain diary) you might think that dems on the committee are in support of raising the age to 67. Don't fall for it. Use this document to help argue against raising the age or messing with the CPI. The memo does a good job on a range of topics related to Medicare and I urge anyone who is interested in knowing where the House Dems are coming from and what they'll argue for to read the memo and don't let the press (or DK) do your thinking for you.