So this happened this week. Someone requested that the Congressional Budget Office analyze raising the Medicare eligibility age.
Raising the Medicare eligibility age would save the federal government money while shifting more costs to seniors, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.
CBO also said the effects of raising the Medicare eligibility age would be "less onerous" if President Obama's healthcare reform law remains in place.
Proposals to raise the Medicare age have surfaced in nearly every round of budget-cutting talks in Congress since Republicans took over the House majority, and Obama put the idea on the table during negotiations last fall.
President Barack Obama will reprise previously rejected deficit-reduction plans and tax increases on the wealthy while proposing new incentives for companies to return jobs to the U.S., as part of his fiscal 2013 budget, administration officials said.
The election-year spending plan, due to be presented to Congress Feb. 6, is intended to demonstrate the administration’s intent to chip away at the nation’s long-term deficits. [...]
The president will offer a plan for deficit reduction along the lines of the $4 trillion proposal that he outlined last September. Two administration officials confirmed the plan on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss it before it’s announced.
Hopefully, these two events are unrelated and the White House isn't still considering raising the Medicare eligibility age as part of a deficit package. Because, you know, what the CBO says: It will shift more costs to seniors. But, just in case they are still thinking about this, they should go read Aaron Carroll.
If only there was a blog that posted on why it costs two times more to raise the Medicare age from 65 to 67 than we’d see in savings. If only there was a blog that explained such a move would be bad for health, regressive, and require the ACA to be fully in effect. If only there was a blog that explained that even the liberal case for this move is weak. If only there was a blog that explained that this is especially bad for certain, large unions. If only there was a blog that explained that the federal savings in such a move are actually very small.
If only there was a blog that had a FAQ on this topic.
If only a blog had done a podcast on this topic.
Every link above explains why this is still a bad idea, both in policy and political terms.