New proposal to lower Medicare age to 50 could be a lifeline to millions

[ansible]

A group of 21 Democratic senators have reintroduced legislation in Congress to lower the qualifying age for Medicare from 65 to 50. “When it comes to providing affordable health care for every American, there is more we must do right now to change the status quo, improve our health care system and lower costs,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin and one of the cosponsors of the bill.

Baldwin added that this legislation would give millions of Americans an option to “get the health care coverage they need at a price they can afford.” Since the program was created in 1966, you’ve had to be 65 years old to qualify for Medicare coverage.

At the press conference announcing the bill, Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, said lowering the age limit could be life-changing for millions of Americans.

“I remember a few years ago, I was at a town hall meeting in Youngstown, Ohio, and a woman stood up and said ‘I’m 63 years old. My goal in life is to live till I’m 65 so I can get on Medicare,’” he said.

“She was so fochttps://finance.yahoo.com/news/proposal-lower-medicare-age-50-130000091.html

[Auggie]

1. Why not offer it to everybody?

[Hortensis]

13. Well, for one thing the Republicans both emptied our treasury and

created/greatly worsened an explosion of emergencies that have to be addressed. We are spending money the way progressive government tackles emergencies, justifying it by building in synergies that will hopefully eventually put us in a much better position than we would be if we didn't spend. Paying for them in the future.

For another, there are a lot of reasons why extending flawed Medicare to everyone is not a workable route to universal healthcare. Even Senator Sanders doesn't propose that, MfA a simple-sounding but misleading label for the more expansive ACA-type program he does propose.

But in any case, neither our political power nor our funds are unlimited. Every expenditure of political and actual capital means cutting of others. What giant cuts would we have to make to take this giant step? We simply cannot abandon our commitment to stopping climate change, a huge threat to national health in itself. Also keeping in mind that negative reaction to passing the ACA threw our government to the Republicans, who redistricted the nation to their benefit for the next decade and packed the courts with their agents.

And here we are -- up to our eyebrows in national emergencies.

[IronLionZion]

29. Because retired old Republicans on Medicare are convinced

that socialism will bring about long bread lines, mass deaths, and unidentified officers grabbing people off the streets to toss them in unmarked vans. oh wait... we saw all of that last year.

[SMC22307]

36. Because it will not pass. I'm not sure 50 will pass, but I think 55 will.

The AARP crowd (me included) will be all over this.

[CrispyQ]

2. I know many people who would have retired earlier if not for health insurance.

My husband was one. I have a friend right now who would quit & start her own biz if only she didn't have to cover health insurance. $500 out of the gate at the first of every month is a lot of business to come up with.

[usaf-vet]

22. YES AND THE OTHER HALF OF THAT EQUATION IS THAT IT WOULD OPEN THOUSAND OF JOBS......

...... so younger workers can start to build their wealth toward their retirements. And the cycle starts again.

[Unwind Your Mind]

26. Yes, and offering it to self employed people would be huge too

I started working for myself 12 years ago and had time to work up to my current 600 a month.

It would be a real barrier if I were trying to do it now.

[Hoyt]

3. For this, but I'm not so sure it's going to be at a price people can afford.

[JohnSJ]

5. I am not sure many appreciate that Medicare is not free. It was designed so people pay into it

Until they retire, and then collect the benefits when they retire from what they were paying into

If they lower the Medicare age to 50 or even lower, someone needs to pay for that deficit, and that has to mean higher premiums for those in that demographic. Just taxing the 1% isn’t going to do it

It is a complex issue, and for those advocating Medicare for all, it would become even more costly, and I question if younger people would be willing to pay the price for something they don’t perceive they need

I think a possible solution might be to allow a buy-in option for those who want to be covered under Medicare, but have not reached 65

[Hoyt]

6. Exactly. The buy-in would essentially be a Public Option. But it won't be as cheap as people think.

[JohnSJ]

7. You are right

[Hortensis]

55. Yup. In reality, the "lifeline" for many without coverage would

be alternatives already in existence, Medicaid and Medicaid expansion for the ACA, family, retirement savings, charity, special government programs, etc. Those can cover virtually everyone until we have UHC -- IF we elect Democratic majorities.

Unfortunately, Medicare leaves a lot of bills uncovered, and many recipients simply can't afford to purchase the additional policies by far most really need as age advances and health declines.

Fortunately, for now between private and public insurance the vast majority of Americans have healthcare coverage, i.e., already have that lifeline, even though few have 100% coverage.

That's beside our government currently paying directly for almost all Covid care with taxpayer dollars during this emergency.

[Politicub]

8. Healthcare costs are less for people under 65. This will be factored in.

It’s not that complex of an issue.

[Hoyt]

9. Still unlikely people 50 will be able to enroll in Medicare for substantially less

than the cost of the cheapest private health insurance. One might save 10% or so, but not much less. Better than nothing, but still costly.

[SoonerPride]

11. If it is means tested then the Part B premium would be zero

Lower income brackets would be no worse off than their zero premium ACA plan and it would be a huge boon to employer based plans because the majority of expense is in that 50-64 age bracket.

Seems like a win win deal to me with zero downside whatsoever.

[drray23]

14. Absolutely.

Many small (those above the cutoff of 50 employees I think) l to medium size businesses would love not having to deal with insurance.

A good argument could be made that it would benefit both people and businesses.

[Politicub]

15. I agree. According to the article, people are waiting for tests and treatments,

which makes conditions more acute and costly to treat after age 65.

This will be a quality-of-life improve for so many.

[Hoyt]

16. That's the point, lower income people already have Medicaid or zero premium ACA. Won't be a change.

It's the millions who don't qualify for those who will be paying. Again, I'm for this. Just don't think it will make a substantial difference in most people's finances.

[SoonerPride]

18. If they are still employed, the employer can pay the Part B premium

I am a health broker in Oklahoma.

Many of the groups we insure will pay the employee's Part B premium because it is still significantly less than the cost of group insurance. So if employers pay the Part B premium the employee sees no out of pocket cost and the employer saves money to boot.

I still see it as a win win with zero downside for anyone.

Which means of course that it is dead in the water as no Republican would ever support something good for the country.

[Hoyt]

21. Do you think the Part B premium for people who haven't paid into the system until age 65

will be the same $148.50, plus $0 for Part A, as a 65 year old. Not to mention, coverage for the deductible, coinsurance, and prescription drugs.

I sure don't because I doubt it will pass like that.

[SoonerPride]

24. Part A is free if you have paid 40 quarters of taxes. Not to age 65.

As long as you work 10 years your Part A is free (or zero premium).

It is not calculated on working from age 18 to age 65.

[Hoyt]

28. It is for disabled and those 65. Don't think it will be "free" for those under 65 if buyin enacted.

Right now, you can't buy into Medicare under 65. Disability is about the only way you can get Medicare under 65.

I'd bet money that any passable plan would have people paying a premium at least of the level of disabled people who worked less than 30 quarters, something like $470/month just for Part A. Add in Part B and drugs, and you are up to a level that won't be affordable to most people.

[JohnSJ]

19. That is what Medicaid is for.

[SoonerPride]

20. Of course not all states expanded Medicaid to everyone.

See: Texas.

Oklahoma voters went to the polls to just add Medicaid expansion for those under age 65 and it starts in July.

Currently Medicaid is only available in this state to pregnant women, children, and the elderly over age 65.

So there are certainly holes in Medicaid coverage.

[JohnSJ]

25. If you are referring to Texas in your last two sentences, unfortunately I believe that Texas is the

one state that has the largest number of doctors who won't even accept Medicare, yet alone Medicaid

The only remedy to that is to vote them out, and more progressive representatives in. Easier said than done

[drray23]

12. You are probably correct, however there is of course a massive advantage

with medicare which is its not tied to an employer. I guess you could make the case that some of the ACA plans would be about the same cost, I suspect however that the benefits for the medicare approach would be much better if its anywhere like the existing medicare plan. Inexpensive ACA plans usually have high deductibles.

[Hoyt]

17. You are right about insurance tied to employment. But, ACA and COBRA give one protection now if you

want to switch jobs. But, you have to pay for it.

[Arazi]

33. You're assuming the ACA will be there in the future. Rs are determined to eradicate it

And COBRA is too expensive for 90% of folks even now

[Hoyt]

35. If Cobra is too expensive, a Medicare buyin will be too much for 70%

of people. An improvement, but not much.

Now, if Congress were to put significant subsidies into a buyin, that would change things. Chances of them doing that are roughly nil right now.

[speak easy]

40. 'a Medicare buyin will be too much for 70%'

such certainty on a matter of conjecture.

Care to present the actuarial tables?

[Hoyt]

46. Yes, look at what a young disabled person pays when they haven't worked

the full 40 quarters to qualify for Medicare.

Part A is $470 month minimum, Part B is likely at least $300, Part D is likely $150. You also have a deductible and 20% coinsurance. And, all that assumes doctors, hospitals, etc., will take another hit to their income.

You are free to present your calculations.

[Arazi]

51. 10 years ago, I was offered COBRA at $890/month

I'm absolutely sure it's much more now.

Medicare prices are a dream compared to what COBRA costs

[Hoyt]

54. If you've paid taxes all the years to qualify for zero premium Part A, $148 Part B, savings on

Part D. If you haven’t, I doubt Congress at this point is going to pay Part A, Part B, and drugs for you.

[Arazi]

56. It's still going to be FAR cheaper

[jonstl08]

4. Employer health insurance

I know quite a few people who still worked after age 65 but their employer kicked them off employer health insurance since they were now medicare eligible. Feel this may happen to a lot of people starting at age 50.

[DenaliDemocrat]

10. Most allow you to keep private as a supplemental

If you pay the premium

[JohnSJ]

23. Quite a few large corporations do that, and as you said it takes the place of a Medi-gap

plan F in many cases.

Some elect a Medicare Advantage Plan because it is more cost effective, but in most cases you are limited where you can go, and there may be other costs such as deductibles, etc.

[OneGrassRoot]

27. They really need to be thinking about the millions...

of people who work at retail jobs for huge companies who offer absolute shit insurance coverage. Like, $5k deductible, something most people working there can't afford. But the fact that they are offered insurance precludes them from enrolling in ACA. And they don't qualify for Medicaid either.

Not sure how Medicare can help this situation, or if they can change the parameters of "affordable employer insurance."

[DBoon]

30. someone who is unemployed at age 50 is likely unemployable

Many employers will not hire older workers, laws be damned.

You get laid off at age 50+ you are effectively retired.

[Tommymac]

37. Not true. I have had 3 jobs since I was 50.

Been outsourced several times in my field. Was not that hard to find work.

Got my last full time position at 62...I'm in it now and plan to be in it until I retire.

And my personal history had some hurdles to overcome due to past mistakes. So I am not a 'model' hire by any means.

[DBoon]

57. You personal experience, no matter how noteworthy is only a sample size of one

In general, older people who are laid off have a harder time finding work and when they do it is often at lower pay:

A new data analysis by ProPublica and the Urban Institute shows more than half of older U.S. workers are pushed out of longtime jobs before they choose to retire, suffering financial damage that is often irreversible.

https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement

For every worker whose circumstances have turned out as wonderfully as yours, many more have not thrived. You good luck does not invalidate the over grim statistics for laid off older worker.

This is why Medicare starting at age 50 is so important - many folks laid off at this age suffer lowered salaries and often hold "gig" jobs with no or limited medical benefits.

[drray23]

58. sorry but thats nonsense.

50 is not that old and with it come experience. Plenty of opportunities for seasoned professionals. Now of course if you have a blue colar job thats physical like construction or the like maybe its more of a problem.

[DBoon]

59. No it is not nonsense

It has been verified through surveys of individuals over 50 who have been laid off. I cited these in my prior response and can provide more.

It is a fact about how the labor market operates - older employees are at a disadvantage when seeking employment.

For example, https://squaredawayblog.bc.edu/squared-away/careers-become-dicey-after-age-50/

The study details the many challenges older workers are dealing with:

The financial consequences of late-life unemployment are steep. The typical older household’s income drops 42 percent after one of its members leaves a job prematurely. Even if they find a new job, they usually can’t recover all of the lost income. Some older workers resort to using retirement savings to pay their routine expenses, and the greatest financial hardship falls on black and Hispanic Americans.
The incidence of forced retirements persisted even after the economy rebounded from the 2008-2009 recession.
Among the recent retirees in the study, about four in 10 said they felt effectively forced to retire prematurely. Sometimes the retirement grew out of health or personal issues such as caregiving duties but many workers felt their employers pressured them to leave.
As people age, they become increasingly vulnerable to losing a job. The researchers took a snapshot of a two-year period and found that 6 percent of workers in their early 50s had a bout of unemployment during that short time. This rises to nearly 30 percent when people hit their mid-60s.

[Arazi]

31. Hurry! The GOP is determined to eradicate the ACA

Rs are out of power now but their ferocious efforts to destroy the ACA will never cease.

The more people are covered by Medicare, the harder it will be to strip coverage for those who are most likely to be stripped of coverage for PECs or who can't find coverage at any cost

[Aviation91]

32. Lowering the Medicare Age

to 50 is probably not going to happen. My thoughts are why not just lower it to at least 62 when people are eligible for Social Security. I would be willing to pay more taxes to pay for it.

[speaknow]

34. okat, so you think Medicare is good well

It's not free. Has anyone mentioned that?
Us oldies pay and pay every month for
self so if married both have to pay and
every year you start by paying higher the
first payment and you pay even if you don't
use it, plus it's 80% 20% you pay 20*
so not to pay the 20% you need extra coverage
and that comes with a cost it's not free either.
Remember Medicare is not Medicaid !

[Tommymac]

39. Um, it is way cheaper then private insurance.

Not sure what you are complaining about.

[SMC22307]

42. We know that.

We also know that Medicare is a helluva lot cheaper than private insurance for older Americans.

[marie999]

38. My husband and I are each paying $145 a month for Medicare.

We are covered by the VA so we don't need to buy a supplement. Would people save if they received Medicare and a supplement?

[Unwind Your Mind]

60. I think so

We have Kaiser, so I know that’s not available to everyone but here’s our example.

My husband is 60, blind and on Medicare. He pays 15$ a month for premium, 20 for co pays and never receives a bill for anything else, including an expensive scan a couple years ago.

I am 50, and don’t qualify for ACA because of income that is modest for my area. My premium is 600$ with 100$ copays and bills for everything.

I would be thrilled to have something better

[Scalded Nun]

41. Of course it is not free. I wish folks would stop acting like that is a surprise.

Higher taxes to pay for that, absolutely...but how about looking at diverting the real government waste into funding a big piece of that. Obscene defense spending, subsidies for non-renewable fuels, fraud and waste to name just 3. Corporate tax restructuring, to include a minimum tax. Eliminating the SS Earnings cap. So many ways to shift our government towards 'for the people'.

[JT45242]

43. Easily paid for in just a couple of easy steps, if not blocked by Manchin

1. Roll back the tax code to the last bipartisan tax law -- The 1986 "Reagan" Tax cut. Adjust the cutoff lines for the various percentages based on inflation. Make the opposition vote against "Saint Reagan"
2. Lower the estate tax threshold to something reasonable like 2.5-3.5 million -- A family business close to that is being put in a living trust anyway to avoid the tax.
3. Close loopholes for overseas profits for businesses (this may have been in the 1986 tax law not sure)
4. Institute the 2% wealth tax on 50 million to 999 million. 3% on wealth over a billion.

On a side note, I would eliminate cap on social security to fully fund it as well, but Medicare does not hit the same cap.

[BobTheSubgenius]

44. The cost of lowering the age to 50 isn't going to be quite as great as the right screams about.

People that are FINALLY getting proper medical care at 65 will have already had a hypothetical 15 years of deteriorating general health and quite possibly some chronic conditions. Having lacked the means to more proactively support their health, they are going to be racking up bigger bills than those who have had decent health care in that interim.

While it's hardly a secret that I support the lowering of the age to +/- 1 minute, 50 is a start.

[modrepub]

45. Treating the Symptom Not the Problem

Age discrimination. We all know it. Some of us have experienced it first hand or through direct family.

Once you hit the 5-0 you've got a target on you back. And just try finding a job at that point in your career. It's no secret and nobody talks about it (so we don't address it).

[kcr]

53. It would actually help the problem

Lower the age and you get rid of one of the major factors contributing to age discrimination, which is paying for the cost to insure older workers.

[pamdb]

48. medicare for all

I wish medicare travelled. We would love to move to Canada, our neighbor to the north, but
Canada is expensive and we just couldn't afford to buy into their healthcare. And at the ripe old age of 70...no one wants us.

[andym]

49. Will save businesses quite a bit and encourage them to hang on to older workers--good for economy

older workers will now be cheaper for companies providing health insurance-- although one could argue that the ACA is available as well to do this.

[Warpy]

50. It should have been lowered to 55 decades ago

since that's the age the good corporate job goes away, leaving people who likely have health problems working a patchwork of low paid jobs with no insurance and no way to get it pre ACA.

Those good jobs are going away younger these days, so 50 is a start.

[Ron Green]

52. One Risk Pool is a Health Care System.

Multiple risk pools is an investment scheme. We have enough investment schemes in this country; we need a health care system.