Originally Posted by Helena
Those who turned 65 this year are paying more for Medicare B coverage than most of those who turned 65 in previous years because those who turned 65 this year are not in the main "hold harmless" group until 2017. But even then they will still be paying more. Those who turn 65 in 2017 [ME!] will pay even more than the 2016 group... and on and on and on... In other words, the year you begin Medicare you are not "held harmless." Also in the 30 percent [NOT held harmless] group are those who delay SS and high earners.
The articles I first posted discuss all these special situations.
Just looking at the finances it is clear that both SS and Medicare are unsustainable and are headed for a big crack-up if they stay as they are. Forget the political aspect, just look at the financial aspect.
Given that, it seems silly to make plans that depend on SS & MC staying unchanged. Yet that is what delaying SS does -- makes a plan for getting an increased benfit later in return for zero benefit now. When there is a large probability of an unpredictable change you should include that possibiity in your plans.
When making plans to delay SS to get the deferred credits, nobody considered that this would require them to pay a higher Medicare premium. That cost is the direct result of deferring SS.
The obvious question is "We just got a completely unexpected cost of delaying. What *other* unexpected costs may be lurking that we aren't seeing?" Bad news never is just one item -- bad news comes in groups.
Some (not all, but some) people who decided to defer SS kinda got a holier-than-thou attitude. They figured that there was no financial risk to deferring to get the extra 8%/yr. But now we see that there was a risk. Deferring cost them $17/mo in 2016, and an unknown monthly amount in 2017 & beyond. It will probably be $40/mo in 2017.
And that's a big point -- nobody knows what this extra cost will be.