Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea is not bad.
The premium should be what the insurance costs, not a low ball government premium.
I am a Federal Government employee and a benefit I have is the ability to continue my health insurance following retirement with the same premiums I pay now while working along with the same Government contribution to that premium if I were to retire prior to age 65 and also after. So I think if pre age 65 Medicare buy in coverage was offered with NO Government contribution, a couple would be likely paying similar premiums to what I pay for my BC/BS coverage noted below along with having to pick up the premium part the Government pays towards my coverage because that part of the coverage would be akin to paying out-of-pocket for Medicare Part A which is free at 65 and the real costly part of Medicare coverage because that is what pays for hospitalizations. And the part I pay of my BC/BS premium would become the supplement to what is not covered by both Medicare A & B.
BC/BS Standard Plus 1 Coverage Monthly Premiums
Couple Pays - $521.67 x 12 = $6260.04
Government Pays - $1030.88 x 12 = $12,370.56
Total Premium Cost - $1552.55 x 12 = $18,630.60
Average Medicare Part B Cost x 2 = $268 x 12 = $3216
Total Combined Cost of BC/BS + Medicare Part B = $1820.55 x 12 = $21,846.60
For those who could afford this coverage it would be a nice option and may possibly be less than the private coverage with large deductibles they are paying for now because this combined coverage there would be no deductibles. But for most couples to pay close to $22,000 annually for comprehensive health insurance coverage for 5-10 years until conventional Medicare coverage is available would likely not be an affordable option.
I am a Federal Government employee and a benefit I have is the ability to continue my health insurance following retirement with the same premiums I pay now while working along with the same Government contribution to that premium if I were to retire prior to age 65 and also after. So I think if pre age 65 Medicare buy in coverage was offered with NO Government contribution, a couple would be likely paying similar premiums to what I pay for my BC/BS coverage noted below along with having to pick up the premium part the Government pays towards my coverage because that part of the coverage would be akin to paying out-of-pocket for Medicare Part A which is free at 65 and the real costly part of Medicare coverage because that is what pays for hospitalizations. And the part I pay of my BC/BS premium would become the supplement to what is not covered by both Medicare A & B.
BC/BS Standard Plus 1 Coverage Monthly Premiums
Couple Pays - $521.67 x 12 = $6260.04
Government Pays - $1030.88 x 12 = $12,370.56
Total Premium Cost - $1552.55 x 12 = $18,630.60
Average Medicare Part B Cost x 2 = $268 x 12 = $3216
Total Combined Cost of BC/BS + Medicare Part B = $1820.55 x 12 = $21,846.60
For those who could afford this coverage it would be a nice option and may possibly be less than the private coverage with large deductibles they are paying for now because this combined coverage there would be no deductibles. But for most couples to pay close to $22,000 annually for comprehensive health insurance coverage for 5-10 years until conventional Medicare coverage is available would likely not be an affordable option.
Indeed, that is much better than what I pay as a 61 year old early retiree.
I am a Federal Government employee and a benefit I have is the ability to continue my health insurance following retirement with the same premiums I pay now while working along with the same Government contribution to that premium if I were to retire prior to age 65 and also after. So I think if pre age 65 Medicare buy in coverage was offered with NO Government contribution, a couple would be likely paying similar premiums to what I pay for my BC/BS coverage noted below along with having to pick up the premium part the Government pays towards my coverage because that part of the coverage would be akin to paying out-of-pocket for Medicare Part A which is free at 65 and the real costly part of Medicare coverage because that is what pays for hospitalizations. And the part I pay of my BC/BS premium would become the supplement to what is not covered by both Medicare A & B.
BC/BS Standard Plus 1 Coverage Monthly Premiums
Couple Pays - $521.67 x 12 = $6260.04
Government Pays - $1030.88 x 12 = $12,370.56
Total Premium Cost - $1552.55 x 12 = $18,630.60
Average Medicare Part B Cost x 2 = $268 x 12 = $3216
Total Combined Cost of BC/BS + Medicare Part B = $1820.55 x 12 = $21,846.60
For those who could afford this coverage it would be a nice option and may possibly be less than the private coverage with large deductibles they are paying for now because this combined coverage there would be no deductibles. But for most couples to pay close to $22,000 annually for comprehensive health insurance coverage for 5-10 years until conventional Medicare coverage is available would likely not be an affordable option.
You would be surprised if I retired today I would have to pay almost 20,000 a year for my spouse and I to stay in my work's health plan just in premiums
I would think conservatives would be OK with medicare expansion if those receiving benefits paid the true cost, i.e. tax neutral, unless I am missing something in the conservative mindset.
You would be surprised if I retired today I would have to pay almost 20,000 a year for my spouse and I to stay in my work's health plan just in premiums
That is why I going to work until I am 65. 16 more months.
I would think conservatives would be OK with medicare expansion if those receiving benefits paid the true cost, i.e. tax neutral, unless I am missing something in the conservative mindset.
Sure, but the cost would be something around $10K per person. That ends up being a perk for the affluent who want to retire early. The average 60 year old can't stop working and afford a $10K health insurance premium.
It might be a good idea to offer early "buy-in" to Medicare for those without work or affordable healthcare in the 60-64 age bracket.
But, how long do you think it would take for the vote-pandering politicians to decide it was in their own self-enlightened interest ... to vote that Medicare should be paid-for by those who could afford to 'buy-in' BUT, given free (as an 'entitlement') to those who could not afford it??
That is why I going to work until I am 65. 16 more months.
Certiaintly a consideration but for many those extra years could bring more health ailments that could shorten life.
But that would be ideal so congrats to you for making it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
