Letters: Who's more out of touch on costs of entitlements?

Posted: April 02, 2011

On the one hand, if Medicare kicked in at age 67 or higher, the government would save billions ("Raising Medicare age seen as a cost shift," Tuesday). At the same time, many companies, including the one for which I worked for 25 years, are laying off people every few months, many of whom are over the age of 50. Several of my friends have suffered this fate recently.

Companies are looking for younger and cheaper workers. And benefits like Social Security are likely to start later. In the case of Medicare, there are proposals to make it start 15 years later. Were it not for "Obamacare," which is coming on line in a few years, most of those people losing their jobs would not be qualified for private insurance or it would be exorbitantly expensive, or would come with a very high deductible that basically invalidates insurance.

Who is not in touch here? The government, which is trying to get people off the "entitlement list" (to which people have contributed) or the companies that are trying to unload older workers in their 50s or early 60s, who likely have higher salaries and more of a chance of using health-care benefits? Flip a coin, but the choices are not pretty.

Caroline Gardner

Devon

caraskele@aol.com

comments powered by Disqus
|
|
|
|
|