Tweet
Last night, Ezra Klein hosted the Rachel Maddow Show, and at the end he showed an analysis of the next-decade effects of raising the Medicare-eligibility age from 65 to 67. Earlier in the show, he had interviewed Rubinite, White House frontman, and Citigroup executive Peter Orszag who three times (IIRC) insisted that Obama will have to offer up that Medicare reform in order to get the GOP to give up their debt-limit leverage. Klein then showed Nancy Pelosi (at her best) demanding “Show me the money; show me how this would save any substantial amount … I don’t want give the GOP a ‘trophy concession’ and the expense of the people.” Or, words to that effect.
In a subsequent segment, Klein went into a detailed (for MSNBC) analysis of “the money,” and it boiled down to the fact that this so-called entitlement reform wouldn’t save a nickle; it would simply shift and double the costs. If fully implement by 2014, it would save Medicare $5.7B in that year but it would cost ACA, the states, other Medicare and exchange enrollees, employers, and the seniors themselves $11.4B, i.e., twice as much. So, I looked up that analysis on his blog this morning and he credits the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for it. Summary: it shifts the costs and doubles them. (Both articles are worth a read.)
This attack is coming, and Obama is not our ally. So, it’s important that we arm ourselves with the facts.
UPDATE: The exact breakdown of those shifted expenses:
* $3.7B for 65 and 66-year olds
* $4.5B for employers
* $2.5B for other Medicare and exchange enrollees
* $0.7B for states
$11.4 TOTAL
11 Comments
The lost economic activity alone should cancell any savings as wealth is transfered to Ins. CEO’s through the abominable care act. First link goes to blank FDL page.
Thanks for that headsup. FIXED.
And what’s five or ten billion over the next ten years anyway? Pocket change.
Well, except to us 47%ers, we may feel the bite. You don’t suppose that’s the whole idea?
By golly, I may have just had an epiphany. Class warefare?
ABSOLUTELY!
Recommended (FDL)
Tweeted
Recommended (FB)
I saw that too. Reminds me of Medicare for all. The Government an entity that can create all the money that it needs wants to continue save $800 B per year that it would otherwise have to spend on Medicare for All even though doing so costs the private sector minus the insurance companies $1.7 T per year. That Government’s sure acting in our interests isn’t it?
Raising the eligibility age is creeping privatization.
I know. It’s awful. Especially when he can mint the big coin and rip their mask away.
It is so crazy that I want to laugh, but real people are really suffering. Last time, according to reports, the debt-ceiling standoff cost the tax payers $18.9 billion. That was because Obama and Geithner refused to do their jobs. The petulantly insisted that, unless they could pay the government’s bills with borrowed money, they weren’t going to pay them.
Instead of raising the retirement ago end the embargo of Cuba, a number of Americans already retire to more dangerous Cuba to stretch their retirement dollars,
Retirees comments at,
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/83-83/14890-focus-the-fiscal-cliff-is-the-y2k-of-2012#comment-253227
related detail at,
http://my.firedoglake.com/richardkanepa/2012/12/08/lefties-must-defend-libertarians-in-this-time-of-crisis-or-bernie-sanders-might-be-next/
Exactly. Obama wants to move all medical care into his corporate welfare managed and severely limited care program. He intends to take Medicare which is an exemplary working model for single payer and dismantle it. There is NO intent to expand it. It is up to liberal Democrats to do everything to expose and hopefully kill these notions in the crib.