Just stop, Senator Conrad. This is sheer insanity. Here's what he said:

Obama has already suggested raising the retirement age for Medicare. Should that be the starting point for thinking about entitlement savings?

I wouldn’t want that to be the starting point, but as part of an overall package, that’s balanced and fair. Given that we now have exchanges to purchase insurance because of the president’s health-care reform law, it makes it much more acceptable, much more reasonable, over a long period of time to gradually increase the age given that people are living so much longer.

Before the exchanges in the Affordable Care Act, it would really be unacceptable to raise the age. What would people do without insurance? Now that exchanges are going to be there, that’s going to be an alternative.

This way lies madness. Here's why:

• Medicare is far more efficient than private insurance companies; therefore, it stands to reason that it would be more, not less expensive for the government to subsidize insurance through the exchanges for people age 65-67
• Subsidies are inevitable for that age group, since most will not be working and will not have employer post-retirement health insurance benefits. With lower income and higher costs, the government will be providing hefty subsidies to older people
• Raising the retirement age will also raise the actuarial probability that those entering the system at age 67 will have more health problems and be more costly for Medicare to cover.

If insurance companies weren't run by right-wing money grabbers someone would actually speak up and tell this doofus that savings do not rest in raising the retirement age, but instead in lowering it. Adverse selection is costly, and it rises with older populations. Open the whole thing up to everyone and suddenly health care spreads across a spectrum of people who are also healthy.

What Conrad is proposing will actually drain Medicare of revenues instead of the other way around, and this is why a retirement age increase is such a monumentally bad idea.

To Conrad's credit, he did say that Social Security shouldn't be part of any budget discussion and also said capital gains taxes should rise to normal rates. I could not agree more on those points. But this business with Medicare is just wrong-way policy. Forget the politics, it's terrible policy.

Anyone who has ever worked in the insurance field understands that costs are reduced by three factors: benefit cost management, administrative cost management, and a very large pool of insureds spread across a risk spectrum. Why can't our Senators seem to understand this?

I actually see some benefit in striking a Grand Bargain, but not at the expense of the people least able to absorb the hit. If Republicans really are going to hold Medicare, Obamacare and Social Security hostage in exchange for tax reform, then put some ideas on the table that make more sense. Means-test Medicare if need be. I hate that idea, but it makes more sense than screwing people in the 65-67 age brackets.

Or maybe they just really don't need to go after Medicare at all. The Center for Economic and Policy Research has some interesting information about the "Fix the Deficit" Gang and their core beliefs, courtesy of Dean Baker (h/t digby):

They made a point of keeping this plan out of election year politics because they know it is a huge loser with the electorate. People across the political and ideological spectrums strongly support these programs and are opposed to cuts. Politicians who advocated cuts would have been likely losers on Election Day. But now that the voters are out of the way, the Wall Street gang and the CEOs see their opportunity.

It is especially important that they act now, because one of the pillars of their deficit horror story could be collapsing. Due to a sharp slowing in the rise of health care costs over the last four years, the assumption that exploding health care costs would lead to unfathomable deficits may no longer be plausible even to people in high level policy positions.

See, Senator Conrad? Sometimes you shouldn't "fix" things that don't need fixing. And that goes for you, too, President Obama. No Grand Bargain should touch the retirement age for Medicare unless it lowers that age.

If you're as aggravated over Senator Conrad's proposal to push back the Medicare retirement age as I am, you can sign the petition at BoldProgressives.org. I urge you to sign and share it with as many as you can in order to speak loudly about what a terrible idea this is.

Via Media Matters:

Robertson: ...Now with medicine and nutrition in our society people are living a great deal longer and consequently they should be working longer and they should not begin retirement age at 65 or 66, we should push that retirement age up to 70 or 72 and it’s not going to hurt anybody. People really like to work they don’t want to sit around----there’s nothing worse than sitting around in a rocking chair, who needs that.

Yea Pat, you go support your beloved GOP's agenda with plans to work people into their graves. It's easy picking up a shovel or unloading boxes for UPS when you're sixty nine with arthritis. What does he care? He's worth millions of dollars, but talking on TV is a big strain on the back I'm told. Let me ask you, Pat. What jobs will be available to seventy-two year olds?

This man represents religion in America? Maybe he's hoping that if grandma does continue to work she'll keep the donation checks coming.

In news you may not have heard, the French have been protesting a bill to raise the retirement age in France from 60 to 62. And by protesting, I don't mean just showing up for one day. French President Sarkozy has struck back:

Clashes have broken out outside a major oil refinery in France after riot police moved in to clear strikers who blockaded the terminal for 10 days.

Two people were hurt outside the Grandpuits refinery east of Paris, one of 12 facilities affected by strikes.

President Nicolas Sarkozy ordered the authorities to lift the blockade earlier this week after thousands of petrol stations across France ran dry.

The Senate will vote later on the pension reform that sparked the action.

Ministers said the bill would clear its last major hurdle in a matter of hours, after the Senate was asked to halt debate on hundreds of opposition amendments and hold a single vote on all of them.

Changes to the retirement and pension age could become law next week, once they pass the committee stage and a final vote is held in both houses of parliament.

Notice something here: the protesters are doing economically damaging things. They aren't just showing up in the mall, waving some flags, making some speeches and wandering off.

Notice also, that Sarkozy is still going to pass his bill.

The key point will be whether the opposition keeps up the pressure. AFTER the bill passes, they must continue rolling strikes and occupations until the elite gives in.

RULE #1 Of Post-Modern Elite Thinking: Elites think in terms of costs. If the cost of something is less than the benefit of doing it, assuming the return is also high enough they will almost certainly do it.

Continue reading »

First, read John's post from earlier today on why raising the retirement age for Social Security is the worst idea ever. He's exactly right, it is. But it's not just a terrible idea for Social Security recipients; it's a terrible idea for business. Especially small business.

What many don't know is this: When tweaks are made to Social Security, they ripple through the entire benefits universe, including private pension plans, union pension plans, 401k plans, and related deferred compensation benefits. When the Social Security retirement age was raised in the '80s, it required every employer and union plan to be redesigned and amended at considerable expense.

Worse yet, it required that benefits earned by employees through the old retirement age be retained, with benefits earned after the new retirement age kicked in to be added on as a new "layer," which actually increases costs for many employees.

Continue reading »