Something that I don't quite understand - could someone illuminate me?
It seems almost everyone on the forum that is under 65 just can't wait to have medicare, which will provide basic hospital care, then you get part B D part F G N etc... depends on how much more fancy care you'd need - then medicare advantages is another option.
What if we make medicare available to everyone at cost (whatever cost that the government pays for 65 crowd) - then samething with part B D F G N - whatever you want just pay.
With lot of people in the medicare pool (not just 65 crowd), would it bring the medicare premium cost down?
I wish that some of the politicians who were floating the Medicare buy-in option for age 55+ would have gotten more traction. It would have allowed people who wanted or needed insurance to purchase Medicare for a reasonable cost. Seems like it would have been a win-win situation for everybody.
Many in the 55-65 age range who want to retire early or just can’t find another job after being laid off could buy into Medicare so they could be insured, and avoid the exorbitant costs of the individual market. The program would be optional so if they had a better option (currently employed, covered under spouse’s plan), they wouldn’t have to participate.
It wouldn’t hurt the government, and may actually help to have younger and potentially healthier people in the Medicare pool, and they would be paying into the program so there shouldn’t be a giant cost burden.
And to your point, if you take some of the older and potentially “less healthy” people out of the private insurance pool, that should theoretically bring down the premium costs for the others in the individual market.
Seems so simple to me. My understanding is Obama had wanted to lower the Medicare age to 55 as part of the ACA (not a buy-in, just lower the age), but Joseph Lieberman, the CT senator, was dead set against it for some reason. Man, I wish that had gone through. Would have solved a bunch of my concerns...