It has become a common refrain - spoken once in jest - by baby boomers and those who once hoped for early retirement: Freedom 55 became Freedom 75 and now, Freedom Deathbed?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper added a whole new layer of fear to many people's retirement plans when he suggested his government may move OAS (old age security) eligibility to 67 years from 65.

Yes, the Conservatives pledged not to raise the age of eligibility for the OAS for several years, and they promised to leave current recipients alone. But such a change in the future would have a huge impact on poor seniors.

It's not as if all seniors can decide to work for an extra two years, nor should they, in many cases. There are not many opportunities for some seniors to pick up extra income - barring newspaper delivery or working at WalMart. Not that we think those are bad things to do - if you're doing them voluntarily and not under financial duress.

Some seniors - though not as many as in decades past - live at or near the poverty level. For them, less money will mean fewer food, heat or housing options. It will increase health issues and, yes, it will mean life or death for some. Those in lower income groups already die younger, and denying them two years of OAS benefits will not help.

We understand times are tight, and there's no hidden pot of gold. But surely a better plan would be to increase OAS clawbacks. Those with a net income of $66,335 (the age at which clawbacks start) are doing pretty good. They can give up a European cruise or a kitchen renovation if they suffer further clawbacks.

Many of those at the poorer end of the income spectrum, however, won't be able to retire at 65 without OAS payments. If Harper has to take action to make the system sustainable, it should not be at their expense.