Lowering Age for Medicare + Vision, Dental

[mitchjav]

Reading in the news that there's a push in Congress (which appears to be gaining some momentum) to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 or 55 and to add dental, vision and hearing coverage to Medicare.

Just wondering how that might impact those of us in the 55-65 age group currently on ACA? and how would the addition of dental, vision & hearing impact those already on Medicare?

 

[Montecfo]

This seems very unlikely given the financial state of Medicare and the makeup of Congress. I have not seen specific legislative proposals so not sure the effect.

 

[kannon]

While I am fiscally conservative, during my volunteer time I have seen how important Medicare is to our seniors. You would think that seeing clearly, hearing clearly, and good dental health would be part of the Medicare package. Quality of life should be maintained for seniors.

 

[ncbill]

From what I've read just on this forum, subsidized ACA plans can be far cheaper for early retirees than paying Part B premiums plus premiums for a traditional Medigap policy.

All I want is for them to fix the family glitch so we can take advantage of the above instead of being required to take DW's employer's plan.

 

[teej1985]

If they lower the Medicare age, it will enable even more people to retire earlier. I think that's great. ACA plans vary by state, and in some states are downright horrible.

 

[mitchjav]

Here's a link to the article referencing this initiative...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-to-add-dental-vision-and-hearing-coverage-to

 

[ShokWaveRider]

We wish.

 

[Aerides]

To paraphrase something I read recently:

Honestly I’m still confused why our teeth and eyeballs need their own freaking insurance.

But as far as this current news piece or any other on the topic, it doesn't mean anything is really happening. Trial balloons get floated all the time. And there are several other high profile objectives already working their way around congress taking up all the oxygen.

Until this gets out of committee as a firm plan with majority support...it's just fodder for a slow news day.

 

[finnski1]

didn't see anything about lowering the age? Just talk about dental , vision and hearing which would be enough for me.

 

[Montecfo]

Here's a link to the article referencing this initiative...

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-to-add-dental-vision-and-hearing-coverage-to

Unlikely to pass for the reasons stated. Does not change medicare age.

Personally I would like to see funds allocated to making Medicare solvent, a far greater priority in my view.

 

[athena53]

We know from the many discussions on dental insurance here that policies generally have limits on what they'll pay out annually that aren't that generous given the premiums. That's because basic services-regular exams and cleanings- are almost guaranteed to happen and costs of more advanced services- crowns, root canals, implants- can quickly spiral out of hand, especially if they're "free". Is there any motive to choose a less-expensive form of treatment or "watch and wait" if you don't have skin in the game? Will dentists who do implants care whether or not patients are good candidates for implants (non-smoker, willing to commit to cleanings 4X/year) or just go ahead, do them and send Medicare the bill?

I could see an annual vision exam and maybe one pair of eyeglasses up to $X. The national chains have gone crazy on pricing of eyeglasses and that could get out of control as well. They lead you over to the designer racks and then everything- anti-scratch coating, progressive lenses, extra large or extra small lenses, UV coating.. costs extra.

 

[Telly]

Unlikely to pass for the reasons stated. Does not change medicare age.

Personally I would like to see funds allocated to making Medicare solvent, a far greater priority in my view.

As a Medicare-ee, I whole-heartedly agree! My biggest concern has NOT been about something that's not been added to Medicare, but rather that we don't lose what we HAVE! There are so many ways that Medicare, and the use of it, could be damaged by possible future legislation (always with a catchy positive acronym that won't describe the real effect).

And it can come from the inside too, like the letter I got a couple months ago which made me dig into a Medicare experiment that has been going on from the last administration. Without my option, I have been put into it. Oh yeah, they say I can still see any Dr. that takes Medicare... but there already were internal proposals to remove that choice in the future. I should start a separate topic on that... what's come out of the Medicare Study Group, and how we may have a real battle in the future. It's all on the quiet.

 

[W2R]

To paraphrase something I read recently:

Honestly I’m still confused why our teeth and eyeballs need their own freaking insurance.

But as far as this current news piece or any other on the topic, it doesn't mean anything is really happening. Trial balloons get floated all the time. And there are several other high profile objectives already working their way around congress taking up all the oxygen.

Until this gets out of committee as a firm plan with majority support...it's just fodder for a slow news day.

+1 Couldn't have said it better.

Personally I would like to see funds allocated to making Medicare solvent, a far greater priority in my view.

+1 Good point, very sensible.

 

[Midpack]

To paraphrase something I read recently:

Honestly I’m still confused why our teeth and eyeballs need their own freaking insurance.

But as far as this current news piece or any other on the topic, it doesn't mean anything is really happening. Trial balloons get floated all the time. And there are several other high profile objectives already working their way around congress taking up all the oxygen.

Until this gets out of committee as a firm plan with majority support...it's just fodder for a slow news day.

+2. Not a new idea by any stretch, and Medicare solvency is already a big issue, worse than Soc Sec. More pandering to voters “well I tried (even though I knew it was a non starter)?”

 

[Time2]

If they lower the Medicare age, it will enable even more people to retire earlier. I think that's great. ACA plans vary by state, and in some states are downright horrible.

Just my two cents, but you should retire early on you own money, not on working taxpayers money.

 

[Dtail]

From what I've read just on this forum, subsidized ACA plans can be far cheaper for early retirees than paying Part B premiums plus premiums for a traditional Medigap policy.

All I want is for them to fix the family glitch so we can take advantage of the above instead of being required to take DW's employer's plan.

Yup for me, Medicare would clearly be more expensive than my subsidized ACA plan. However being on Medicare is not the worst thing.

 

[Scuba]

We are 60 and 62 and would love to see this happen, but won’t hold our breath. Our health insurance has good coverage, but has a high deductible and high max OOP limit, is non-HSA compliant, and is expensive. Can’t wait to transition to Medicare plus supplemental.

 

[swakyaby]

Signed DH up for Medicare, medigap, and a drug prescription plan this year. Was looking around for a dental insurance plan for the 2 of us and found that BCBS in California offered a “Specialty Duo” plan that provided dental and vision insurance for $48/month each person. After looking into the details and noting that both our preferred dentist and optometrist were in-network, I signed both of us up for $96/month.

 

[vafoodie]

My husband, whose spin on the news tends to be biased, claims that lowering the age on Medicare, was struck from the recent agreement between Biden admin and Senate Republicans. I’m trying to fact check that. Anyone know?

 

[Montecfo]

My husband, whose spin on the news tends to be biased, claims that lowering the age on Medicare, was struck from the recent agreement between Biden admin and Senate Republicans. I’m trying to fact check that. Anyone know?

It was never part of the infrastructure deal.

It also is not part of his $1.8T American Families plan, to the disappointment of some.

It does not appear that lowering Medicare age is something the president is committed to.

 

[Time2]

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler



Are we there yet? I think the car is pulling into the park now.

 

[REWahoo]

Are we there yet? I think the car is pulling into the park now.

I'm betting Porky is behind the wheel.

 

[MichaelB]

Once again, politics interrupts a thoughtful discussion. To make matters worse, Alexander Fraser Tytler never wrote that passage.

A detailed response from the library of the University of Edinburgh reveals that no such quotation appears in the library’s holdings of books by Tytler.

Yes, there was a Scottish historian named Alexander Fraser Tytler. He wrote several books in the early nineteenth century, but none with the title, The Fall of the Athenian Republic. In none of his books does this stage theory passage appear.

More here https://www.garynorth.com/public/19505.cfm According to Wikipedia that text dates to our modern political era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler,_Lord_Woodhouselee