A serious question about Obamacare

Over the past two weeks I have talked to a couple of what I would call "sharp cookies". Guys who are lawyers or work on Wall Street. Not dummies.

However - important clarification - none work day to day or even tangentially in the health care industry. They are not doctors.

That having been said, I asked them isn't a way we could solve many of Obamacare's problems simply by letting Medicare be something for people not 65 and up but, say, 55 and up? They all take a sip of their whiskey or tea or whatever and say, you know, you may be on to something thetre.

Then you would have three tiers of care (talking in a general sense here).

* Zero age to 25 years of age. You can stay on parents plan, which is part of Obamacare and everyone thinks this is good and wants to keep it.

* 25-55. You do insurance.

* 55 and up - Medicare (currently starts at 65 if I recall correctly).

The thing about this is that it would take all the people aged 55-65 out of the insurance market. THESE are the people that make insurance policies so expensive for the most part. While of course obviously there are exceptions, it is the 57 year old with Glaucoma and the 61 year old with heart issues and the 63 year old with early onsent dementia - that are driving costs up.

Would not Obamacare actually work pretty good if Medicare were lowered?

And yes, I know this would increase Federal Budget Costs, but I am for the moment putting that aside just to ask if I am missing something about the theory.

Just down below someone posted his health care costs 18k a year and he has a huge deductible. I am just wondering if you take some of the geezers out (and I am one of them so I am allowed to say that), if costs would not radically go down for health plans.