Lowering Medicare Eligibility to Age 60 - Do You Support It? (drug, health care)

[Kibby]

Originally Posted by tinytrump

Think we have it ok at 65. I don’t use it - but unless disabled that is a good age.

Sounds like you have Private Insurance through Unions that allows you to avoid Medicare.

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I support lowering it to age 55 at least. We could consider other age options.

Part A is paid out of Social Security commencing at 65, anyone who joins before qualifying would have to pay for Part A until their 65th birthday, but that is viable.

Adding younger people to the pool would definitely strengthen the program. Making preventive care more accessible would definitely bring down the overall costs across the country by helping reduce emergency room visits.

I don't see why not.

No way it "strengthens" the Program - the Medicare Program is in trouble now.
Adding people will NOT help that.

Medicare is the MOST Expensive Insurance we have ever had - Our company Insurance was better and Cheaper .... we were FORCED on to Medicare the day we turned 65.

The Bureaucracy involved with choosing Medicare Plans ...... which by the way, the Democrats want to remove so that we can ALL have Equality of Results - which =Medicaid

is unbelievable - until you get there and go through it. IF Seniors had any idea that the Leftist Plans would take away their Private Advantage Plans ..... not a single one would vote for any Democrat.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Joe Biden has said he wants to see Medicare eligibility lowered from 65 to 60. Do you support that?

No.

I would support lowering it to age 62, but only for those receiving Social Security Retirement benefits.

I would also support changing the age of eligibility to the age at which one begins receiving Social Security Retirement benefits.

That means if you retired and enrolled in Social Security at age 64 your Medicare would start then, and not at age 65.

Originally Posted by Seacove

The GOP has shown that they don't care about deficits since Trump took office, in fact, they support another $2 trillion stimulus right before the election.

You started out so well with an issue that could be discussed civilly and then you had to ruin it by throwing in a deceptive non-sequitur.

Deficits have nothing to do with Medicare.

Originally Posted by Seacove

We also know that most Medicare recipients have not paid for the benefits they receive. They depend on current workers paying into the system.

"Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000.

Does that matter to voters?

What matters to voters is Truth, for which your claims are false and so are those of the Liberal Urban Institute and the Göbbeling WAPO.

Let us speak Truth to stomp out the lies and deceit.

First, you all are wrong:

All citizens 65years of age or older with credit for at least 40 quarters of employment are fully covered for life under Social Security. They are entitled to Part A at no cost. Senior citizens without sufficient quarters of coverage can purchase Part A for premiums based on the actuarial value of benefits.

That's your government talking.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/210/200562.pdf


That's one lie debunked.


Both Social Security and Medicare operate on the same mathematical revenue principal:

Revenues = # of Workers x Wages x FICA/HI Tax

Each program has operated exactly the same since the first day of its inception.

In the case of Medicare, the HI (Medicare Part A) tax is placed into escrow by the employer during a given month.

CMS uses those revenues to pay benefits in the following month.

When there is a surplus of revenues after payment, the surplus is transferred to the General Fund.

The Treasury Department issues a non-marketable treasury security in lieu of the actual cash which is, and always has been, required by law to be transferred to the General Fund.

That's right. No political party stole it. You cannot steal something that is transferred to you as a matter of law.

Those non-marketable securities in the HI (Medicare Part A) Trust Fund accrue interest at varying rates up to 13.3% per annum.

Now does everyone see where WAPO and the Urban Institute lied?

First, they lied by not admitting that the employer paid $122,000 on their behalf.

That's means they paid $244,000, not $122,000.

$122,000 in life-time HI taxes. Assume they start work at age 25 and both retire and receive Medicare at age 65. That is 40 years.

Their HI taxes would be $3,050 per year for 40 years and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and set the interest of the non-marketable security at 5.0% ends up being $368,439.

Of course, if we add in what their employer contributed on their behalf then it ends up being $736,878.

So, why did WAPO or the Urban Institute tell the Truth?

They both have an agenda.

Also, the HI tax only covers Medicare Part A and that only covers hospitalization.

Medicare Part B is deducted from your Social Security Disability/Retirement check every month.

That cover's doctor care.

Medicare Part C, also paid by the beneficiary, supplements Medicare Part A & B.

Medicare Part D, also paid by the beneficiary, provides prescription drug coverage.

While the HI (Part A) Trust Fund is in danger of collapsing soon, and even sooner if Joe Hiden pushes a $15/hour minimum wage, Parts B, C and D are the SMI Trust Funds and they're quite healthy.

[katharsis]

Only if someone over 60 lost their job and couldn't get another one. (Personally speaking, the COBRA payments are an added strain for my 64-year-old husband who was laid off in March due to COVID.)

Losing his insurance just added insult to injury.

[evilnewbie]

When FDR did Social Security he expected most people won't live long enough to collect... He never envision spousal SS, disability SS, and a whole bunch of things... I rather not do that to Medicare... However, I wouldn't mind a severed Medicare system for those 60 to 64, where they elect to pay EXTRA which MUST cover the additional expenses and cannot use current Medicare funding and is mandated to break even with premiums paid and have a small cushion for unexpected costs...

[YourWakeUpCall]

It would benefit me personally, but isn't good for the country. I don't support it.

[illtaketwoplease]

The GOP has shown that they don't care about deficits since Trump took office, in fact, they support another $2 trillion stimulus right before the election.

Got to love these wordsmiths. This sentence is indicative of the democrat rationale and argument.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Seacove

Joe Biden has said he wants to see Medicare eligibility lowered from 65 to 60. Do you support that? Would you support that if Trump supported it? What if it meant your side (whichever side that is) would win more elections?

The GOP has shown that they don't care about deficits since Trump took office, in fact, they support another $2 trillion stimulus right before the election. And they know the 60+ age bracket tends to be reliable voters. Does that figure into the calculation?

We also know that most Medicare recipients have not paid for the benefits they receive. They depend on current workers paying into the system.

"Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...cial-security/

Does that matter to voters?

He's a leftist, he wants as many American citizens beholden to, and dependent on the federal government as possible. It's a horrible idea. Medicare is such poor health care that it mandates everyone to buy supplemental insurance and eye and dental care. Medicare sucks.

[Boss]

I see it as an option to get better healthcare for lower cost.
The person who takes it at 60 would have a higher premium then those who take it at 65.
If they are working they are still paying into the system as normal through taxes. They would then be able to add on a medigap and part D.

I believe it would be a lower cost option then current health coverage from a job. 80-20 and a medigap and D can be had for a much lower price for a 60 year old.

[Nanny Goat]

Definitely. Most have pre existing and to buy coverage is too costly.. Maybe even w/ Obama Care? I don't know. Also, people, can unintendedly, lose jobs at or over that age and have no health coverage. Finding a job over 60 isn't always a possibility. I think over 55 actually should be an option.

[michiganmoon]

Age 60 would better match the 59.5 401K age rule. Medicare's finances aren't great, but we are already sinking, why not.