Is it Fiscally Responsible To Lower the Medicare Age from 65 to 55?

[Vepres]

Expanding Medicare to all Americans would cost significantly less than any other universal healthcare scheme. So yes, it's fiscally responsible.

Of course, the best route is to not even shoot for universal coverage until we actually have the budget to do so.

[Senator Franzl]

Expanding Medicare to all Americans would cost significantly less than any other universal healthcare scheme. So yes, it's fiscally responsible.

Of course, the best route is to not even shoot for universal coverage until we actually have the budget to do so.

And that's a very easy thing to say for someone who has compete access to healthcare if necessary.

Somehow though, if you can imagine, I bet people that are sick and need help care more important their own health than balancing the budget. (Not to mention the cost saving effect of universal care.)


I oppose attempts to expand Medicare coverage, for the record.

[Senator Franzl]

Expanding Medicare to all Americans would cost significantly less than any other universal healthcare scheme. So yes, it's fiscally responsible.

Of course, the best route is to not even shoot for universal coverage until we actually have the budget to do so.

And that's a very easy thing to say for someone who has compete access to healthcare if necessary.

Somehow though, if you can imagine, I bet people that are sick and need help care more important their own health than balancing the budget. (Not to mention the cost saving effect of universal care.)


I oppose attempts to expand Medicare coverage, for the record.

Why don't you run for office in Illinois, Franzl? I could help make you a star (of course, I have my own career considerations in mind, but nevertheless...)

It's kind of hard to run for office in Illinois when I only officially have a residency there for absentee voting purposes

Although I have thought, if I ever went back (which is looking increasingly likely as time goes by)...that state representatives or the like could seriously use a challenge, even if I had no chance of winning. It's terrible. Our Democratic incumbent in the IL House had neither a primary challenge nor anybody from any other party running against him in the GE.

[Muse suck!]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

[Senator Franzl]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

Why don't you just come out and support full abolition?

[Muse suck!]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

Why don't you just come out and support full abolition?

Because I don't?

[Brown 2010!]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

Why don't you just come out and support full abolition?

Because that would be unfair to the people who are 75 or over.

[Senator Franzl]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

Why don't you just come out and support full abolition?

Because that would be unfair to the people who are 75 or over.

And why is raising it to 75 not unfair to people aged 65-74?

[Muse suck!]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

Why don't you just come out and support full abolition?

Because that would be unfair to the people who are 75 or over.

And why is raising it to 75 not unfair to people aged 65-74?

I didn't say it is fair. I'm trying to outline how it would be feasible to keep it, given that it is in dire straits.

[Senator Franzl]

No. I'd raise it to 75.

Why don't you just come out and support full abolition?

Because that would be unfair to the people who are 75 or over.

And why is raising it to 75 not unfair to people aged 65-74?

I didn't say it is fair. I'm trying to outline how it would be feasible to keep it, given that it is in dire straits.

Oh that wasn't even directed towards you. I was only trying to point out a mistake in Rochambeau's logic.

[Muse suck!]

Ah, okay.

[Grumpy Gramps]

Aside from being fiscally irresponsible, what would be a good reason to do it all?

[Vepres]

Expanding Medicare to all Americans would cost significantly less than any other universal healthcare scheme. So yes, it's fiscally responsible.

Of course, the best route is to not even shoot for universal coverage until we actually have the budget to do so.

And that's a very easy thing to say for someone who has compete access to healthcare if necessary.

Somehow though, if you can imagine, I bet people that are sick and need help care more important their own health than balancing the budget. (Not to mention the cost saving effect of universal care.)

In the long run, the deficit will do more damage than lack of insurance. Seriously, if current trends are left unchanged, there won't be a welfare state for the children of the uninsured because there's no money for it.

Besides, is it so hard to imagine them doing *gasp* both at the same time.

[Brown 2010!]

Aside from being fiscally irresponsible, what would be a good reason to do it all?

A good reason for Democrats to do it would be that they would likely get more votes from people aged between 55 and 64.

[Gren]

I don't know if it is fiscally responsible. Probably not. But it is socially responsible. I guess that sometimes the well being of the society is more important than having a balanced budget.