August 31, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Austin FraktThis is a FAQ entry. See the main FAQ index for others.
- Why it costs two times more to raise the Medicare age from 65 to 67
- Why it is bad for health, regressive, and requires the ACA to be fully in effect
- Why the liberal case for it is weak
- What it means for certain, large unions
- Why the federal savings are actually very small
- What if states don’t expand Medicaid?
- A podcast on this topic
- It saves the federal government even less than previously thought
Comments closed
by Michael Cohen on December 13th, 2012 at 06:30
Of course the Republican party, the Party of Big Money since Reagan wants to raise the retirement age. The net effect is to increase payments from poorer Americans to the medical–beaurocratic–industrial complex. Republicans are not for saving money when the savings benefit middle income folk and the costs line the profits of favored constituents. Romney talks about gifts and in a way he is right but not as intended. There are many of wealth and power who are subsidized by the rules of the state and it has to stop if the U.S. is not going to go bankrupt. The U.S. is already third world and the question is are we going to look like the Brasil or Indiai of old in the long run. Time will tell.
by Michael K. on January 18th, 2013 at 18:25
A possible question to be answered in this FAQ: What effect would an increase in Medicare eligibility have on younger people looking for employment? That is, if older workers hold onto their jobs for two or more years longer than normal, will there be significantly fewer openings for later generations?