Medicare at age 55+?

[DangerousNachos]

So here's the deal. I recently read an article about AI displacing workers. I've been in the employee benefits business for over 30 years and I have personally spoken with employees that continue to work, just for the health insurance.

I believe the older work force are more vulnerable to the AI displacement, and some older employees would retire sooner, if they had health insurance coverage. So, with some help from AI, I wrote a policy proposal to lower Medicare eligibility to age 55. I am happy to share it with anyone that is interested, but I am looking to see if this is something the public would support. I've found policy can change more easily when the people want it. Any feedback or ideas on how to push this forward is greatly appreciated.

 

[Aerides]

I have had health insurance via the ACA since retiring in my 40's.

There have been many proposals to extend Medicare over the years and they go exactly nowhere. Including some currently active ideas just like this one.

As far as how to push, in this country most things get traction via k-street lobbyist groups. Or work with your senators.

But the current winds around health care are not favorable to this idea.

 

[DangerousNachos]

Thank you for the engagement. Of course, there are a couple of things different about this proposal than those from the past. One, a proposed increase of .5% on medicare withholding and the .5% match on the employer side. That's rougjly $5/week on a $50k salary. It is also voluntary. It's not Medicare for all. The retired, self employed, etc... would qualify, but those still covered by group insurance would not qualify. Think the current ACA and Medicare rules. There definitely needs to be gaurdrails so there isn't an employer dump. Also, since the subsidy cliff is back, ACA isn't as affordable as it was, so more people are suffering from the increased premiums. I'm not familiar with "k-street", so I'll do some Googling. Thank you again for your time and reply.

 

[engineernerd]

My idea for how to push ANYTHING forward that benefits ordinary Americans is to throw the bums out and don't elect the other bums. I honestly don't know what is wrong with voters, especially in my state where our "top two" primary lets a lot of people get on the ballot who were not chosen by the Parties.

 

[DangerousNachos]

My idea for how to push ANYTHING forward that benefits ordinary Americans is to throw the bums out and don't elect the other bums. I honestly don't know what is wrong with voters, especially in my state where our "top two" primary lets a lot of people get on the ballot who were not chosen by the Parties.

I think that might apply to more than just my topic, but thank you for the insight

 

[Dtail]

I am still waiting for the proposal to replace Obamacare in 2 weeks.
I am not sure there is an appetite for this proposal, but welcome to this wonderful forum anyway.

 

[thenameiwish]

I'd vote against it.

 

[DangerousNachos]

I hear you. I wasn't excited to see the rollback on subsidies. If the math is correct and my household income is $80,000, I get around $26k in subsidies. If I make $80,001, I get nothing and would have to pay everything back. That's part of what was broke to begin with, and now we've gone back in time. A reality, lobbiest, legislators, think tanks and academia seem to overlook. I've spent thrifty years listening to farmers, self employed, and small business owners just trying to cover themselves or offer benefits and the pricing is not getting corrected. Regardless of what's been tried in the past, AI job displacement and skyrocketing insurance costs where small employers will be begin to drop coverage all together is a reality around the corner that the country isn't prepared for. I don't have an ultimate answer, but I think there is some relief that could be offered by freeing up jobs, because of voluntary retirement due to coverage through Medicare, or Medicare taking over a demographic that is currently covered by ACA and adding to the overall cost of Healthcare. Thank you for the welcome note

 

[DangerousNachos]

Fair enough. Was there a specific part of the white paper that jumped out at you? Maybe there's something I'm not seeing.

 

[Diogenes]

Didn't we just have a short-lived thread on this very topic, that was removed after 2 posts, owing to allegations that the original posting was via AI?

Regardless, not all of us qualify for ACA subsidies. It would be lovely to be able to buy discounted health insurance at some nominal cost, even if it's a "bronze" plan, rather than the "rack rate" for ACA, in the 55-65 period, or even 60-65. Even though I personally am unready for full retirement, I'd consider such a thing in 3-4 years, which is to say still quite some years before reaching age 65, if a good fixed-price alternative to ACA were available.

 

[Aerides]

The current main problem with pre-65 insurance for those who don't work full time for bigger companies is financial. It doesn't need a rewrite, or a major policy overhaul (neither of which will happen in this decade).

It needs better financial support, and the cliff is a big issue. Tweak those things, it's not half bad (ie, the 2020-25 version).

The rest of the problem is still the cost of healthcare. But none of these solutions are anything that anyone with the ability to take up currently have interests in seriously pursuing today, that's been made extremely clear over the last 6 months.

 

[TripleLindy]

I didn’t read your proposal, but I personally believe that Medicare (or something similar) should be offered to everyone, perhaps with rates tiered by age. I don’t expect that we’ll see that in my lifetime, though.

There’s so much chaos and instability in today’s political environment, I don’t expect anything meaningful to be accomplished.

 

[ncbill]

I'd sign up for Medicare tomorrow if I could.

Though I checked once & noticed for those under age 65 Medigap plans are much more expensive.

 

[DangerousNachos]

I'd sign up for Medicare tomorrow if I could.

Though I checked once & noticed for those under age 65 Medigap plans are much more expensive.

My experience has been that the Medigap policies for those under 65 are directly due to being on Medicare Disability. Put bluntly, those are individuals who have ongoing medical needs, and the premiums reflect that. This proposal is for those who could retire early, are currently on ACA, self-employed, etc. It's still a work in progress, so I appreciate the feedback to help me talk it through. Thank you

 

[DangerousNachos]

The current main problem with pre-65 insurance for those who don't work full time for bigger companies is financial. It doesn't need a rewrite, or a major policy overhaul (neither of which will happen in this decade).

It needs better financial support, and the cliff is a big issue. Tweak those things, it's not half bad (ie, the 2020-25 version).

The rest of the problem is still the cost of healthcare. But none of these solutions are anything that anyone with the ability to take up currently have interests in seriously pursuing today, that's been made extremely clear over the last 6 months.

Aerides, I address most of this in the white paper. I would post a link or attach it, but I don't think I'm supposed to. I have developed one page handouts and a summary. I'm happy to share once I understand the rules.

Thanks

 

[DangerousNachos]

I have had health insurance via the ACA since retiring in my 40's.

There have been many proposals to extend Medicare over the years and they go exactly nowhere. Including some currently active ideas just like this one.

As far as how to push, in this country most things get traction via k-street lobbyist groups. Or work with your senators.

But the current winds around health care are not favorable to this idea.

Did you get hit with the ACA cliff for 2026? I have clients that are struggling.

 

[DangerousNachos]

I didn’t read your proposal, but I personally believe that Medicare (or something similar) should be offered to everyone, perhaps with rates tiered by age. I don’t expect that we’ll see that in my lifetime, though.

There’s so much chaos and instability in today’s political environment, I don’t expect anything meaningful to be accomplished.

@TripleLindy I purposely chose age 55 to fall in line with a lot of company retirement plans that require age 55 and ten years of service to withdrawal without the early withdrawal penalty. I know some in the group retire way earlier, but it's an age that has relevance to other programs. Thank you fir your response. I'm happy to answer questions

 

[DangerousNachos]

Didn't we just have a short-lived thread on this very topic, that was removed after 2 posts, owing to allegations that the original posting was via AI?

Regardless, not all of us qualify for ACA subsidies. It would be lovely to be able to buy discounted health insurance at some nominal cost, even if it's a "bronze" plan, rather than the "rack rate" for ACA, in the 55-65 period, or even 60-65. Even though I personally am unready for full retirement, I'd consider such a thing in 3-4 years, which is to say still quite some years before reaching age 65, if a good fixed-price alternative to ACA were available.

@Diogenes if I don't use AI on some topics, my "D" in English starts to show. I used it heavily to write the white paper. I'm competing with academia and think tanks. I have numerous employees I've spoken with that would love to semi-retire, but they can't give up the employer health insurance. It's the job-lock I refer to. Now, what if we could give a bridge to get them to retire from their job? Then, there is a job opening for someone else that may have lost their job, or it is a job that the employer doesn't have to fill, and helps the financial crunch they maybe going through. I appreciate any questions you may have. It helps develop the idea further and prepares me more for when I finally get in front of legislators and can give the public’s concerns.

 

[TripleLindy]

I wasn't excited to see the rollback on subsidies. If the math is correct and my household income is $80,000, I get around $26k in subsidies. If I make $80,001, I get nothing and would have to pay everything back. That's part of what was broke to begin with

While I also didn’t like seeing the subsidy cliff return, I personally believe that subsidies mask the real problem - higher cost of healthcare than anywhere else in the world, and by a large margin.

@TripleLindy I purposely chose age 55 to fall in line with a lot of company retirement plans that require age 55 and ten years of service to withdrawal without the early withdrawal penalty.

Keeping Medicare as a retirement program instead of a universal health program doesn’t address the overall cost problem. Additionally, the costs are isolated to a higher utilization cohort, whereas expanding Medicare to everyone would allow lower costs on a per person basis while generating revenue through premiums from a younger and healthier cohort. Just applying the trillions spent on insurers and other unnecessary administrative functions, which add zero value to our health, would be a great place to start and could probably fund the entire program.

That’s my perspective on U.S. healthcare anyway.

 

[MichaelB]

@Diogenes if I don't use AI on some topics, my "D" in English starts to show. I used it heavily to write the white paper. I'm competing with academia and think tanks. I have numerous employees I've spoken with that would love to semi-retire, but they can't give up the employer health insurance. It's the job-lock I refer to. Now, what if we could give a bridge to get them to retire from their job? Then, there is a job opening for someone else that may have lost their job, or it is a job that the employer doesn't have to fill, and helps the financial crunch they maybe going through. I appreciate any questions you may have. It helps develop the idea further and prepares me more for when I finally get in front of legislators and can give the public’s concerns.

The ACA assures guaranteed access for all. I suspect the job lock is no longer access to health care insurance, now it’s access to a healthcare insurance subsidy.

Health insurance is unaffordable. Any policy or initiative that gives access to subsidized insurance will work. Of course, it does need to be paid for by someone.

 

[Chuckanut]

I'd sign up for Medicare tomorrow if I could.

Though I checked once & noticed for those under age 65 Medigap plans are much more expensive.

People forget that standard Medicare also requires a Medigap plan if you don’t want to risk financial ruin for covered care.

Sadly the providers will simply increase prices to capture for themselves any increased government payments.

 

[Aerides]

Exactly, it's not access, it's price. And the non-employed early retiree at 55 can quite often manage under the MAGI cap of $84k for two, as of 2026. Those who can't have (sorry) enough income in retirement to reduce their ability to garner political sympathy from most votes and electeds. And how many is that? People over 55 who don't have jobs but make over the MAGI cap is simply not a huge constituency. We are the crowd for whom tiny violins were invented. It's like complaining about RMD's to the average working taxpayer.

Those that planned to ER and saved enough for a bigger nest egg have a more challenging time staying under the cliff, of course, which includes many here. That's where some have taken alternate catastrophic plans, or found better ways to manage their MAGI.

The number of retired people with no employee insurance between 55 and 65, with income that exceeds $84k is incredibly small across the population. Gotta be less than a million. A proposal for just that group would not be enough to drive ample votes. 20M ppl on the ACA wasn't enough to drive keeping the enhanced subsidies. Slice us up into small groups and it gets even less politically viable.

 

[TripleLindy]

The number of retired people with no employee insurance between 55 and 65, with income that exceeds $84k is incredibly small across the population. Gotta be less than a million.

That may be true, but I don’t think the issue is only retired people. There are millions who do not have access to employer sponsored healthcare whose income exceeds $84.5k. And if your pre tax income for 2 is $100k, but health insurance costs $30k, you’re probably going to skip health insurance.

But, as you say, the majority of our population gets health insurance through their employer.

 

[DangerousNachos]

The ACA assures guaranteed access for all. I suspect the job lock is no longer access to health care insurance, now it’s access to a healthcare insurance subsidy.

Health insurance is unaffordable. Any policy or initiative that gives access to subsidized insurance will work. Of course, it does need to be paid for by someone.

@MichaelB You actually stated it better than I did. There was a time when the sliding scale subsidy during COVID gave people real options. Now that's gone. If you're 58, ready to retire, and you have your ten-plus years in, so you can tap your retirement plan without the early withdrawal penalty, you're stuck again because you don't have a reasonable healthcare option. As for who pays: that's addressed in the proposal. A .5% increase in Medicare payroll tax, matched by the employer. On a $50,000 salary, that's roughly $5 a week from the employee. The people still working fund the bridge for those who are ready to leave. Please continue to ask questions. --- Thanks

 

[DangerousNachos]

Exactly, it's not access, it's price. And the non-employed early retiree at 55 can quite often manage under the MAGI cap of $84k for two, as of 2026. Those who can't have (sorry) enough income in retirement to reduce their ability to garner political sympathy from most votes and electeds. And how many is that? People over 55 who don't have jobs but make over the MAGI cap is simply not a huge constituency. We are the crowd for whom tiny violins were invented. It's like complaining about RMD's to the average working taxpayer.

Those that planned to ER and saved enough for a bigger nest egg have a more challenging time staying under the cliff, of course, which includes many here. That's where some have taken alternate catastrophic plans, or found better ways to manage their MAGI.

The number of retired people with no employee insurance between 55 and 65, with income that exceeds $84k is incredibly small across the population. Gotta be less than a million. A proposal for just that group would not be enough to drive ample votes. 20M ppl on the ACA wasn't enough to drive keeping the enhanced subsidies. Slice us up into small groups and it gets even less politically viable.

@Aerides The group you're describing is real, but it's not the one I'm focused on. Retired people over 55 without employer coverage are a visible, pretty small group. The group I'm talking about is still employed. They show up in the workforce data as workers, not as early retirees, because they can't afford to leave. After 30 years mostly with small employers, I've watched people stay in jobs well past when they wanted to retire because a spouse or a household depended on their coverage. That group is invisible in the numbers right up until the day they can finally leave. I'd argue it's considerably larger than a million. We can't see them yet because they haven't left.

From what I see with my small employer clients, they're struggling to continue offering group insurance. I believe a reality is coming where jobs will start changing, and the older workforce may not want to retrain to meet the needs. I'm also working on the off-ramp for those who may be forced out due to job displacement. That piece addresses a different but related group. A growing one. Please continue to engage with your thoughts. They are helpful.