White House Says No to Raising Medicare Eligibility Age

The president would still consider lower Social Security cost-of-living adjustments

Raising the eligibility age for Medicare is off the table as a way to reduce the deficit, says White House spokesman Jay Carney.

When asked at a press briefing Monday if President Barack Obama would consider the idea, Carney's answer was pretty clear: "No."

"The president's made clear that we don't believe that's the right policy to take," Carney said, even though Obama had expressed openness to the idea in previous budget talks, The Hill reports.

Republicans had proposed raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as part of deficit reduction negotiations to avoid the sequester --$85 billion in across the board spending cuts that will kick in on March 1. Raising the age would save the federal government more than $100 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, news reports say. Some health policy experts argue that it would just shift health care costs and doesn't address expensive end of life care.

But Carney said Obama would still consider a formula for lower cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries, known in Washington-speak as "chained CPI," if Republicans agree to a "balanced" approach to deficit reduction that includes tax revenue. So far the GOP has insisted on a spending cuts-only approach, CBS news reports

Via The Hill and CBS

Do you think the age for Medicare eligibility should be raised to reduce the deficit?

[Thunderchicken]

I think raising any entitlement age would have to be dependant on how close an individual is to that age. Raising it for someone who's 55, no. Between 45 and 55, raise it two years. Under 45, maybe go as long as five years. But no more.

[Knightkore]

Too much common sense....I agree though....

[Thunderchicken]

@Knightmare

Yeah it's frustrating to be one of the sane ones on this board. ;-)

[Fishbone345]

MediCare isn't an Entitlement unless you meant those of us that pay into it are fully entitled to it. I pay into it, I'd fully expect a return on my investment.
Usually though, when Simeon on the Right says "Entitlement", they are speaking of a different definition.

[Fishbone345]

@Fishbone345 *someone. Stupid spellcheck.

[PayThatCEO]

Why? Because you either already have yours or are too far away from social security to care to you want to take it away from everyone else?

It's not an entitlement program, my friend, no matter how many time Sean Hannity tells you that. I'm 55 years old. I've been forced by law to pay into this program since I went to work at 15. Dammit, I expect to see a return on my investment.

I'm glad the government said no. Some people would simply like to have everyone who's paid into social security and Medicare to just die and go away so that money can be invested into someone else's pocket. Screw that.

Either keep things the way they are or give me my money and let ME invest it the way I want.

[acg]

The federal government needs as much money as it can get so it can pay off the debt and create jobs

[thatgirl]

So you're ok with the govt taking it from old people that paid into the system?

[acg]

@thatgirl
No but if the gov. doesn't do something then they will never get anything. I think anything not too extreme is a good idea and as much as it sucks waiting 2 more yrs. I think they will have to so they can receive the benefits that they deserve. I think the whole gov. should cut back and pres. and congressional perks should be reduced or eliminated, but the gov. Isn't going to do anything that effects their pay without a vast majority of the country forcing them to.

[thatgirl]

@acg How about lets end corporate welfare and leave the old folks alone.

[Knightkore]

@thatgirl It's not about taking money from old people but rather changing the system NOW to reflect for future generations....who are living longer and healthier....welll at least longer....Medicare and Social Security was designed in a different time and when job creation and growth was still potentially good....now....there is not enough people paying into the system....you have to come up with a few ideas and raising the age for younger generations....

[thatgirl]

@Knightmare If you dont think that the lower cost of living decreases will affect people currently on SS, then I have some beachfront swampland I will sell you for cheap.

[PNWest]

We should not be bailing out these big banks that cratered the economy yet pay no taxes when they are profitable, giving tax breaks to the giant oil companies that are making record profits, giving out no-bid military contracts to companies like Dick Cheney's Halliburton and handing out so-called farm aid to giant agricultural corporations that are destroying the American farmer. This country should stand up for the people - not the corporations. Let the GOP try to raise the age of Medicare eligibility. We'll see how seniors and baby boomers feel about it in 2014. Good for Obama in saying no to raising the medicare eligibility age.

[methinks]

Obama doesn't want to raise the eligibility age, but wants to cut the COLA for SS recipients. You call that good? Some of these folks are barely making it and for 2 years straight, they got no COLA increase at all, but their real estate taxes continued to rise while union teachers got theirs on the backs of seniors. Give me a break.

One item that should be looked into is raising the cutoff for the SS tax, which is somewhere around $107k. Bump that up to $250k and that should keep SS solvent for quite some time.

[Canoochee]

$10 says you cannot show the 'record profits' the oil companies are supposedly making. I will give you three tries.

[Knightkore]

@methinks I noticed that too....kind of sleazy actually....

[Knightkore]

@Canoochee Government usually benefits from those profits by piggy backing with gas taxes....that we feel on the pump....wonder where those profits go?

[Canoochee]

@Knightmare Government always benefits. Gas prices would be as much as 25% less were it not for the taxes. In most states the federal government and the state government make about twice as much as the oil company on a gallon of gas.

[Raptor]

That is the only way to do it, the President is protecting those who have payed in tax's for 20 or more years with the understanding that they have the right to retire at 65.

[jessejaymes]

He will protect the future seniors but take the cost of living raises from those who have had about 40.00 a year raise over the past 4 years. What a guy. Nothing but more of the same bought and paid for slimeball Presidents. He's go to bat for you if you're gay or illegal but you seniors can just kiss his ass. Doesn't say boo about banks not paying taxes and in fact getting refunds for not paying taxes but he's hot on the trail of those senior cost of living raises. The man is no different than GW Bush.

[Brownie]

I agree. We need a president, who can take us back to a power house of a country. A president that cares about the economy. Not about their own wallets and that's not a softy. A president who cares about our world dominance. Like in the Late 70s, thru 80ss. After 1990, I country began to falter, our country started to lag behind in science, math, the list goes on. It was all about business, and not about the business of America. Clinton, tried lowered deficit. Slight peace with other nations who don't like Americans. His downfall, he was a hoe. But, he tried. I don't see us getting our crap together, until 2083. I hope a genius with gusto and common sense is born soon. Bring some life back to our country. Because geniuses we are lacking. It's all about the money (the individuals). But, not about America's money.

[jessejaymes]

@Brownie Clinton for all his sliminess was the only decent president of my lifetime.

[Brownie]

@jessejaymes Indeed, he was.

[DerivePI]

Why not raise the age limit? Lets agree to bump the age up 5 years over the next 10 to 15 years. Lets at least put a budget together that balances in 10 years. Whether we can hold to it or not is another matter. But, if we don't at least have a goal, we might keep scoring against ourselves.

"The man is no different than GW Bush" - Completely different, http://radikalfront.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

[PayThatCEO]

@DerivePI

When I'm this close to being able to retire WITH my social security and Medicaid, forget it. Take it from YOUR pocket. In fact, if you want the budget balanced, how about you toss in some extra tax dollars. But don't speak for everyone, because personally the budget doesn't include what I have paid for for many, many years.

[Medicinebow]

Moving the goal posts now, after i've paid in for several decades, is wrong. They'll need to figure out a better way to cut the defecit. What will they do when they run out of other people's money?

[BelinKS]

It's two years. Most of us won't be able to retire at 65 anyway thanks to the recession. My husband who is 10 years older than me and works a physically demanding job would completely disagree. We can't afford for our taxes to be raised at this time either. I'm starting college again to get a different degree because I have SLE lupus and cannot work in the field I chose to begin with. Back then I had no idea I had this disease. So though educated, my field required physical labor. I was good at it too. That's down the drain now and I have to find a different field. He is solely providing for our family right now until I finish a new degree and can return to the workforce. I have enjoyed being able to be home with my 7 year old daughter since she was born. Now that she's in school, I can work on this degree while also working to get into remission so I can go to work. It may be a bad idea to raise the retirement age. I don't really know. My dad retired at 65, but was not dependent on social security for retirement. He didn't live but 7 more years. That was not long enough. Seniors deserve more time to be retired.

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

I'm not surprised. obama says no to spending cuts of any kind. So sad...

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

Personally, I'd support raising both the Medicare and Social Security age to 70. That wouldn't bother me one bit and would save this country billions of dollars. This is money we simply do not have. obama won his second term, he can stop buying votes now.

[talkenhed]

@Neo_NtheMatrix How are you going to pay for your Obamacare until you reach age 70. Unless you're self employed odds are you would have lost your job to a younger, more productive, lower salary, junior employee. Social Security age will have to go up too, I can see you now gobbling up all those Dem entitlements . Great retirement planning are you sure you're not a Seal Team member

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

@talkenhed - That's the typical "I'm a victim" type thinking the left engages in. How about I retire like normal people do?

[Neo_NtheMatrix]

@talkenhed - Btw, normal people save up for their retirement and work to stay in good health and not expect uncle obama to take care of them.

[PayThatCEO]

@Neo_NtheMatrix

And I'm sure you'll live forever.

[WMCOL]

The GOP plan will wipe out social security payments for most black males.

National average life expectancy 74.79 years for white men and 67.66 years for black men and 79.84 years for white women, 74.64 years for black women.

[MarkJM]

First off, people are living longer these days, yes even the folks who don't take care of themselves. Social Security was meant to be a supplement to retirement, only lasting two or three years (average life expectancy back then was around 65 years). People are now living considerable longer with the average life expectancy well up into the upper 70s, lower 80s. Therefore, with folks lasting longer than the age of 65 (heck, many of them are working into their 70s anyways), they can probably manage waiting until the age of 67.

Second, when Social Security was enacted by FDR, it was intended to be it's own separate fund, not to be touched by CONgress, that never happened. It got folded into the general fund and CONgress along with Presidents started to rob Peter to pay Paul. Social Security would've remained solvent had it stayed as its own locked separate fund. Money going in would go to those who put in it. It's no wonder it won't remain solvent. I think if you put in towards your own 401K and/or Traditional IRA/Roth IRA up to 6.2% of your income (Same percentage taken out for Social Security), then you should be exempt from paying Social Security. If the money won't be there at the time, you shouldn't have to throw money down the toilet (that's my opinion, I'm sure there will be others who disagree).

Third,$16 plus Trillion in national debt (Thanks CONgress and 0bama along with all previous Presidents). Of that $16.5 Trillion,$7 Trillion of it approximately was added during 0bama's watch. So yes he gets the blame too. Spending $3.3 Trillion on an annual basis (and rising) while only taking in $2.2 Trillion is a path unsustainable which will lead towards bankruptcy, but hey as long as "you" are taken care of, screw the children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations. Apparently, members of CONgress as well as 0bama have either never paid attention to or taken simple Economics 101 (You don't spend more than you take in). Cuts need to be made EVERYWHERE, not just one area or another area or whatnot.

[WMCOL]

>>>Social Security was meant to be a supplement to retirement, only lasting two or three years (average life expectancy <<<

Not exactly. Supplement to retirement was non-contributory or what was known as Title I, not the Title II which is Social Security as we know it today, which was NEVER meant to be temporary.

"The two major provisions relating to the elderly were Title I- Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance, which supported state welfare programs for the aged, and Title II-Federal Old-Age Benefits. It was Title II that was the new social insurance program we now think of as Social Security. In the original Act benefits were to be paid only to the primary worker when he/she retired at age 65. Benefits were to be based on payroll tax contributions that the worker made during his/her working life. Taxes would first be collected in 1937 and monthly benefits would begin in 1942.(Under amendments passed in 1939, payments were advanced to 1940.)"

"The significance of the new social insurance program was that it sought to address the long-range problem of economic security for the aged through a contributory system in which the workers themselves contributed to their own future retirement benefit by making regular payments into a joint fund. It was thus distinct from the welfare benefits provided under Title I of the Act and from the various state "old-age pensions." As President Roosevelt conceived of the Act, Title I was to be a temporary "relief" program that would eventually disappear as more people were able to obtain retirement income through the contributory system. The new social insurance system was also a very moderate alternative to the radical calls to action that were so common in the America of the 1930s."

[harold_lloyd]

Why not just throw Obamacare, medicare, medicaid, and the VA health system into a big pot and call it Universal Health Care. Two basic rules: Competitive bidding, and pay as you go.

[DARSB]

There are two downsides to raising the age.

First, I see the people promoting this in DC are all wearing suits and ties. Doubtless, they aren't taking into account the situation of blue collar workers who have worn down their joints and bones in physical labor over decades - and would face a poor choice between continuing with the job that is breaking their bodies down or risking financial catastrophe if they cannot physically work, retire at 65, and must wait until 67 for Medicare.

Second, I think it's reasonable to assume most of the people affected by this change will decide to postpone retirement until they are Medicare-eligible. That's about 4 million workers, according to the US Census, and that means 4 million job openings delayed 2 years for younger workers. I'm not an economist, but it seems to me tweaking the age requirement upward will also result in higher unemployment for younger folks who may have dependents to care for.

[Synthesis]

The social security payout is going to be greater than what they set aside for social security payouts. Something has to change, I don't want to pay for something that I will not recieve!

[jessejaymes]

What just infuriates the hell of out of me is these Presidents and Congress people can serve 4 years and are set for life with pension and medical and YET this so called "liberal president" has now twice offered up the cost of living increases for seniors. The average check for a person who has paid in all their lives is around a thousand dollars a month. Out of that seniors have to make Co-pays (when welfare pays nothing for a miniscule amount comparatively), has to pay for supplemental insurance, has to pay for part D or B (none of which welfare pays for). If I had to live on just social security I would lose my house because I couldn't pay the property taxes (despite owning the house outright, you never get free of property taxes) and YET this same President says 12.00 a month increases over the past four years is "too much" for social security recipients. I would like to see Obama and Congress spend one single year on the average check from Social Security. They couldn't do it.

While they have no problem with Banks making billions in profits and paying no taxes they do have a problem with social security and medicare despite seniors have paid in plenty to cover themselves over their lifetimes and that money was simply stolen by our govt.

A pox on them all. It's time to take back America. RE-ELECT NOBODY 2014

[Canoochee]

Well he did something right.

[Your_Name_Here]

A 20-year member of Congress who is at least 62-years-old collects over $50,000 a year for life. Private sector employees collect an average of $16,000 annually. Congress members are also eligible for pensions at 50-years-old if they've completed 20 years of service. If they've served more than 20 years, they can collect their pension despite their age."

I think we all know who is looking out for who.

[Seamus]

The picture of these entitled old socialists says it all: "I got mine, and you get the bill, shitheads!"

[IMAQT]

So what exactly is Obama's plan to reform Medicare, a program with over 85 trillion in unfunded liabilities? I thought raising the age makes sense as people are living longer. To do nothing is suicide, so tell us Obama lovers, what is his plan?

[MellowGuy]

Lower Medicare Eligibility to 62 so those that need to retire early can have medical benefits.

[seedtick]

What happens during the two years between 65 and 67?