What do you make of this way of doing it?

This quick post is a question, more than analysis of an issue. But it's something I stumbled upon today regarding New Zealand's superannuation history... and I'm wondering if it offers us a way forward.

I mentioned in my post yesterday that the Liberals back in 1898 introduced an old age pension (means tested) for those 65 and over. It's been tweaked since, with Muldoon bringing in a universal, non-means tested scheme and Bolger changing the age of eligibility etc. But see this from Wikipedia:

The 1938 Social Security Act lowered the age for the means-tested pension to 60, and introduced a universal (not means-tested) superannuation from age 65.^[12] The universal pension catered to a strong demand for universal payments, while the lowered age for the means-tested pension provided for the likes of manual workers who were worn out and still poor at the age of 60.^[13]

The first Labour government created a two-part scheme, with a means-tested portion at a lower age for those who earned less (typically manual labourers), and then a universal scheme at an older age.

Is going back to that system a way to deal with the various concerns now, such as caring for those whose bodies won't let them keep working and means-testing?

What are the pros and cons? Let's workshop this, people...