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.
I know this idea's been floating around for years, but will it finally be put into place? Some studies suggest if so, there would be a trade off where younger buy-ins would save money, but rates would go up for those in the plan already.
A group of Democratic senators re-introduced legislation, dubbed the "Medicare at 50 Act," that would expand Medicare access to Americans who are between 50 and 64 years old.
“This legislation has the potential to lower people’s costs, as well as reinforcing the existing Medicare program,” Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), who sponsored the bill along with twenty Democratic co-sponsors, told reporters on Wednesday. “And it would help strengthen the health insurance marketplace.”
A 2019 survey by the University of Michigan found that 27% of adults approaching retirement had little or no confidence in being able to afford health insurance over the next year and 45% had little or no confidence to afford the cost of their health insurance once they retired.
As with everything out of DC the devil would be in the details of how to pay for it....and I'd definitely want lawmakers to consider unintended negative consequences.
-- How would it be paid for?
-- Would it be fair if people already on Medicare saw their premiums increase more than they would otherwise?
-- Would more doctors NOT take Medicare?
Why go all the way to 50...why not start with 60 -- just 5 years lower -- and see how that works -- first....or heck even just 62 to match it to the first age of SS eligibility.
I never have understood why the two eligibility ages don't coincide.
I'm 61 and just working another 20 months to qualify for retiree health insurance so lowering the age Medicare age certainly would have me doing some new calculations and retirement projections.
As with everything out of DC the devil would be in the details of how to pay for it....and I'd definitely want lawmakers to consider unintended negative consequences.
-- How would it be paid for?
-- Would it be fair if people already on Medicare saw their premiums increase more than they would otherwise?
-- Would more doctors NOT take Medicare?
Why go all the way to 50...why not start with 60 -- just 5 years lower -- and see how that works -- first....or heck even just 62 to match it to the first age of SS eligibility.
I never have understood why the two eligibility ages don't coincide.
I'm 61 and just working another 20 months to qualify for retiree health insurance so lowering the age Medicare age certainly would have me doing some new calculations and retirement projections.
I totally agree that they should lower it to 62 when people can legally apply. It makes no sense that they can't qualify for full benefits at 62. My hub spends a lot of money on health insurance through the Obamacare. We can't wait till he's 65 next April. I have a 63 year old friend that's disabled with no health insurance.
I'm not sure about lowering it more then that because I think it will be the opposite of what I'm reading. It's saying people 50 to 60 are generally more healthy but that is not the case these days. I know many people in that age groups that are disabled like me from a bad back. There isn't any help for me so I don't use much of my insurances (Medicare and a BCBS Medigap) but someone else may just be starting out with needing surgeries.
It all depends at what cost ...retirees have been paying in for part A for most of Their working careers ...you certainly shouldn’t give someone stopping paying part for part B 12 years earlier the same deal .
Plus the costs would be insane .most of those on Medicare with no Iirma surcharges have the govt paying 75% of part b costs
Legislators are always throwing these things out there to see how much if any support they can muster up. Don't hold your breath for it to become law though. It's not going to happen.
It all depends at what cost ...retirees have been paying in for part A for most of Their working careers ...you certainly shouldn’t give someone stopping paying part for part B 12 years earlier the same deal .
Plus the costs would be insane .most of those on Medicare with no Iirma surcharges have the govt paying 75% of part b costs
It's in the Trustee's Report 2021 edition is due this month.
In the 2020 edition Part A (Hospitals) will run out of trust fund money in 2026. At that point taxes we all pay fund 90% of the benefit. You & I pay 1.75% to this fund. There is no income limit for the tax. Some of the income tax on social security some seniors pay also goes into this fund.
Nobody knows yet what Covid has cost. All the people unemployed & not paying tax has got to hurt. Don't know what cost of vaccine is. The prescription document should show if insurance saved you $5.99 x 2 for the Pfizer vaccine. $12.00 with a million patients costs something.
Part B may be in good shape although premium increase was limited. Parts B,C,D should be in good shape if premiums rise with inflation.
A version of Medicare should be available to anyone over 18yo.
I earned my Medicare; they should too!
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.
