CRLLS
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
It's always seemed odd to me that you can get Social Security at 62 but have to wait until 65 for Medicare. If most people that take Social Security early do so because they need the money, perhaps they can be covered under a low cost ACA plan or Medicaid. However, people that need to take Social Security early may not be able to qualify for or afford the low cost subsidized premium ACA plan or they may live in a state that did not expand Medicaid.
I'm not sure exactly how that would work. In the case of SS, one choses for a lifetime of lower monthly benefits. Would you suggest that Medicare at 62 have a higher monthly premium for life or perhaps an x% copay for life just to make early Medicare similar to early SS?
I not sure that I buy into the theory that most early SS recipients do so because they need the money. Some, yes. But as a rule? I don't think so. I know many who take early benefits for other reasons. I may be wrong.
It is not surprising to me to see discussion of lowering the Medicare age on an early retirement board. Medical insurance has always been the major unknown for bridging the gap between work life and Medicare age. It would seem to me that the ACA, with all of its issues, has served as that bridge for early retirees much better than pre-ACA times. I know that the ACA premiums and deductibles can be high. These premiums and deductibles are not that much higher than when I was buying a private policy before the ACA. At least with the ACA, they can be covered with preexisting conditions. Premiums for those "of need" are reduced via the subsidy. Those of significant "need" are covered by Medicaid.
I'm all for expanding Medicare in principle. The devil is in the details.