Will 60 be the new 65 for Medicare?

[Looking4Ward]

Just ran across this, supposedly we could see some action this month:

"Biden Considers Opening Up Medicare Eligibility to More Americans - The change would make 60 the new 65 — and millions of Americans could save thousands."

https://moneywise.com/a/biden-considers-opening-up-medicare-eligibility

 

[skyking1]

I am hopeful. My take is they will compromise at 62.

 

[disneysteve]

I would love to see it. 60 or 62 would be a huge improvement over 65. It would save us many thousands of dollars.

 

[plex]

Honestly prefer the subsidized exchanges over medicare, but I'll take either.

 

[Montecfo]

Would hurt social security and you are expanding a program which is already growing at double the rate our economy is growing

The Medicare program is running a deficit and is expected to be exhausted in 3 years.

Highly doubtful.

 

[Calico]

If it changes to either 60 or 62 I have several friends who will choose to retire, rather than return to in-person w#rk after Covid.

I will watch with interest how this unfolds, on their behalf. It's a moot point to me, as I just turned 65 four months ago. So naturally they're thinking about lowering the age now. My timing never was optimal!

 

[badatmath]

I never understood why it wasn't 62 at a higher cost just the way you give up some SS payment for drawing "early" at 62. My biggest perceived problem in my state is lack of access to health care more than paying for it. Not that I am rich it is just that a couple of state run HMOs are not my idea of what I would like on the exchange.

 

[USGrant1962]

As Montecfo says, paying for it would be a problem. Not that it's slowed down any spending recently. But Medicare is in worse financial shape that SS.

And then we'd see all the complaints that Medicare with the usual add-ons is more expensive than subsidized ACA exchange plans, which it is. We've already seen those complaints here.

If they can figure out how to fund it, I do think 62 makes sense to line up with early SS.

 

[disneysteve]

If it changes to either 60 or 62 I have several friends who will choose to retire, rather than return to in-person w#rk after Covid.

So many older people work solely for medical benefits. I might even be one of them in a couple of years. This change would enable a lot of people to retire sooner.

 

[SecondCor521]

So many older people work solely for medical benefits. I might even be one of them in a couple of years. This change would enable a lot of people to retire sooner.

Interestingly, nearly the exact same statement was made in reference to the ACA when it was in the process of being passed.

Do you not find the ACA adequate for early retirement? (I do; it has worked well enough for me and my family for the past five years of my FIRE.)

 

[audreyh1]

Hmmm - will I no longer be able to contribute to my HSA at 62?

 

[disneysteve]

Do you not find the ACA adequate for early retirement? (I do; it has worked well enough for me and my family for the past five years of my FIRE.)

ACA will probably work but only if we can qualify for the subsidy. Otherwise the cost is ridiculous.

How much is Medicare monthly generally speaking?

 

[disneysteve]

Interestingly, nearly the exact same statement was made in reference to the ACA when it was in the process of being passed.

That’s true and I know people who were able to retire because of that.

 

[Dog]

Not sure how they will pay for it, but that doesn’t seem to stop the government. Someone has to pay for it at some point.

 

[audreyh1]

ACA will probably work but only if we can qualify for the subsidy. Otherwise the cost is ridiculous.

How much is Medicare monthly generally speaking?

Compared to unsubsidized ACA plans, Medicare costs less, even with IRMAA, and much, much lower OOPs, plus access to a large network and no gatekeeper.

 

[SecondCor521]

ACA will probably work but only if we can qualify for the subsidy. Otherwise the cost is ridiculous.

How much is Medicare monthly generally speaking?

I'd like to answer your questions, but honestly the most accurate answer is "It depends".

The most recent ARPA law lowered the cost of ACA plans for pretty much everyone. It also enabled subsides for some who are close to but above the 400% cliff. But I think those changes are only currently slated for 2021/2022. The cost of ACA plans also depends on your income and what plan you choose. I'd share my specific premium and situation, but from other threads I've read it varies quite widely so it wouldn't do you any good. Also, I have pretty good flexibility now on what my AGI will be, which is helpful for ACA purposes but also might distort any usefulness of my data point for you.

You might like the KFF subsidy calculator which includes the latest ARPA law changes at https://www.kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

The cost of Medicare depends on what you include (B/D), whether you get a Medicare advantage or supplemental plan, and what your income is. IRMAA appears to kick in right around where the 24% bracket starts and impacts both B and D premiums. I can tell you at age 75 my current plan has me paying the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $202.40 a month for part B only. But again, that info is probably not very helpful.

 

[garyt]

I'd much prefer to stay on subsidized ACA till 65.

 

[badatmath]

I would just like to have a freaking choice between something besides a crappy HMO and my MC. Right now that choice is probably pick new employer *and work 12 years* or move.

 

[Telly]

Will 60 be the new 65 for Medicare?

Nope. I don't see it. Don't crash a program that so many people paid into for so many years, depending on it being there for them. So why not start early SS at age 55?(that's rhetorical). Actually, early SS at age 55 could be a much-reduced age 62 benefit. But for Medicare, how would you pare-down the approved medical costs to allow earlier entry?

What does Medicare COST? Back in ~2016/2017, CMS was budgeting an average of >$10,000 per Medicare recipient per year. This was the per-person per-year dollar amount that was handed over to Medicare Advantage companies for them to handle everything for a person who went the MA direction. The government would still act as collector of the Part B premium, relieving an MA insurer of running a collections business.

 

[badatmath]

Maybe that is it. They will push it as traditional medicare then make it like advantage plan with gatekeepers? IDK I just need to qualify for MC retiree health (2 years) and will be safer then

 

[Athermos4u]

Why..

Just ran across this, supposedly we could see some action this month:

"Biden Considers Opening Up Medicare Eligibility to More Americans - The change would make 60 the new 65 — and millions of Americans could save thousands."

https://moneywise.com/a/biden-considers-opening-up-medicare-eligibility

If 401k withdrawal, without penalty starts at 59 1/2, why not make that the medicare age? Or does that make too much sense?

 

[target2019]

Since this is not yet proposed legislation, not much to say. But I wonder who benefits by having so many different ages for qualifying for social security, Roth, 401(k), medicare, RMDs, and so on? Follow the money is probably the best answer. If this were simple enough, most would understand their retirement picture.

My opinion about the retirement age? It should be 65 for everything mentioned above. This would greatly help the future economy by utilizing many more younger persons in the job market. Quit tinkering and be bold.

 

[Athermos4u]

Since this is not yet proposed legislation, not much to say. But I wonder who benefits by having so many different ages for qualifying for social security, Roth, 401(k), medicare, RMDs, and so on? Follow the money is probably the best answer. If this were simple enough, most would understand their retirement picture.

My opinion about the retirement age? It should be 65 for everything mentioned above. This would greatly help the future economy by utilizing many more younger persons in the job market. Quit tinkering and be bold.

I like your thinking about freeing up the job market for the next generation, but making my 401k, IRA, etc unavailable until 65 doesn't seem like it would encourage me to retire early, in order to make my job available to that younger person. Maybe that magic 59.5 age, or even 55, to match the current "rule of 55" on current employment 401k availability. You could make the SS benefits and medicaid cost slide based on age.

There are currently nearly a half million retired Americans drawing SS outside the country, and a like number retired, but not old enough to draw benefits. That's a lot of people spending money, and paying taxes somewhere other than here. Maybe some flexibility would lure some of them back home.

 

[Dtail]

I am 61 and brother is 62 and we are currently on a heavily subsidized ACA plan. So Medicare would definitely cost more.
However, it would take out the uncertainty which shows up every year as to the ultimate costs.

 

[Dtail]

Since this is not yet proposed legislation, not much to say. But I wonder who benefits by having so many different ages for qualifying for social security, Roth, 401(k), medicare, RMDs, and so on? Follow the money is probably the best answer. If this were simple enough, most would understand their retirement picture.

My opinion about the retirement age? It should be 65 for everything mentioned above. This would greatly help the future economy by utilizing many more younger persons in the job market. Quit tinkering and be bold.

A potential issue with the above is that not everyone CAN work until 65, even if they wish to.
Certain industries including many of which members of this site used to work in take those folks out before 65.