This week health care policy watchers are focusing their attention on the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) alternatives put forth by Senator Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. I can’t say that I was eager to read another Republican health care reform proposal. But as someone who makes a point of reading all publicly available health care reform proposals, I took the time to read them. And although short in length, reading them was exhausting.

All the major conservative health care reform boxes are checked…

I didn’t see anything in the Rubio and Walker proposals that I haven’t seen in other conservative health care reform proposals. Tax credits. Check. HSAs. Check. Employer tax-preference reform. Check. Medicaid block grants (state-controlled). Check. Allowance of bare bones medical plans. Check. State high-risk pools. Check. Interstate insurance plans. Check. Return to the pre-Obamacare status quo. Check.

Bottom line with these two proposals is that they contain very little detail but are clearly making the point that they are okay with the pre-Obamacare health care environment of crappy health plans but want major changes in health insurance plan tax treatment.

But as these two proposals are being dissected, another health care reform conversation is taking place among Republican presidential candidates that is more interesting and worrisome. At least three candidates have discussed raising the Medicare eligibility age beyond age 65 and/or privatizing the program. Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio have all proposed these types of changes to Medicare. But to be fair many Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate support these types of changes to Medicare and it was on the table when the Democrats drafted Obamacare.

Raising the eligibility age for Medicare is such a bad idea that only powerful people who have infinite, lifetime job options would even consider it. Every time I hear or read about raising the benefits eligibility age for Medicare I think about all the negative remarks I’ve heard over the years from executives about their mature workers. How they didn’t have it anymore or how their benefits were too expensive for the company and how they wanted to get rid of them.

These executives who had so many career choices and money that would allow them to retire at any age with no financial assistance have a lot in common with the politicians who think that people should just work longer, no matter what type of work they do. But the one thing that they do not have in common and is the most important factor in this debate is that one side (executives) does not support workers working longer.

All the talk about the benefits of retaining the knowledge and work ethic of older workers is just talk by academics and politicians. In the real work world, older workers are made to feel unwanted and are eventually pushed out by younger bosses, acting on behalf of top management. Their work is distributed among younger workers. They stop getting new assignments. They are left out of meetings. And they are talked about behind their backs and treated like they are a burden until they can’t take being ignored and retire. And the ones who refuse to go on their own are often verbally encouraged to go during the annual performance review process.

Oh, and this treatment of mature workers starts sooner than you think and often long before a worker turns age 65.

So, if Republicans and others think that working until you’re 67 or 70 is an option for everyone, they need to at least acknowledge that many employers don’t share their opinion.

Tags: health care reform