I am in my early 50’s and trembled with disbelief in 2011 when Obama embraced the idea of raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 so as to have a bargaining chip in a potential “Grand Deal” with the Republicans. He was ready to make the “tough sacrifices” even though it would not have saved that much money, and the shift would’ve increased this country’s total health care spending. In order to garner the acquiescence of current seniors, it would have been phased in incrementally, and the first people who would have been hit full force with it would have been me and my age group when we hit 65. While it is true that people are working longer, raising the age of Medicare would be a blow to those 55-65-year-olds, who are the first ones fired in a recession and the last ones hired because of ageism. The angst of this dicey job situation is exacerbated by the fact that this is the age group that is taking care of their aging parents whose often sudden health crises require time off from work, to the dismay of employers. But wait, if seniors are laid off at least they have the affordable option of the individual market ACA exchange, right? It is true that once laid off, the 55-65 year old will see that the individual market is better than it used to be. Obamacare does require that premiums for this group be not more than three times a 20 year old, but so many in this group have chronic conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes and orthopedic issues that they will hit their deductible every year and often their maximum out of pocket. That’s $12K on top the the premiums of $600/month. In my profession I see so many practically on their hands and knees crossing the finish line into Medicare at 65. For the many people, moving the age to 67 would be like coming to an oasis in a parched desert crossing but the life saving oasis is a vanishing mirage.
We know where Bernie stands on this issue. He would lower, not increase, the age of Medicare. But what about Hillary? Her website says she would:
“Fight any effort to privatize or weaken Medicare and Social Security, and expand Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest to contribute more.”
What does this mean? She may be against voucherizing Medicare. But she doesn’t say she promises not to raise the age. In fact some have said raising the age is necessary to “preserve” Medicare. This is not a question that has been asked in the debates as far as I can tell (nor has the ISDS in TPP). I am not saying she will or she won’t agree to raise the age of Medicare. I honestly don’t know. I welcome enlightenment from anyone with an inside scoop. And specifics. When Bernie “ran from Obama” it was to defend Medicare and Social Security. Yay! I totally applaud him for that. And trust him to protect Medicare eligibility age in the future. I honestly don’t know if we will be able to afford everything for everybody, but raising the age is no, no, not the way to make reforms. Will Hillary take a stand now and promise never to raise the age and stick to it? or will she stay mum and later use it as a bargaining chip like Obama wanted to, in an attempt to show how she can get things done? Who is she really?
To the women in my age group who are crazy for Hillary: do you trust her not to ever raise the age of Medicare on us? We are the most vulnerable demographic here! She is terrific on social issues, but so is Bernie. And he is great on economic issues too. The whole package.