Medicare at age 55+?

[FD1000]

In plain English: good healthcare matters most where early diagnosis, continuous management, or fast intervention can stop death or disability. (Not in how long you waited for nonemergency MRI).

Country	Life	Healthy	Infant	Preventable	Treatable
Spain	82.7	71.1	2.6	92	50
Italy	82.2	70.6	2.5	93	52
France	81.9	70.1	3.5	114	48
Germany	80.5	68.9	3.1	129	66
United States	76.4	63.9	5.4	217	95

Life = life expectancy
Healthy = healthy years of life
Infant = infant deaths / 1,000 births
Preventable / Treatable = deaths per 100,000

Again.
Americans eat junk food, bigger food portions, don't do as much exercise, and work too hard = more stress = shorter life.
HC can't solve it.

 

[Onda]

Again.
Americans eat junk food, bigger food portions, don't do as much exercise, and work too hard = more stress = shorter life.
HC can't solve it.

Look at definition of Infant Mortality and preventable deaths.

 

[TripleLindy]

And by the way, $300K would be a pretty small portfolio for a retired person using the ACA marketplace.

Yeah, I saw that, too. Current unsubsidized ACA premium is $34k for a couple in my area. Spending more than 10% of a portfolio annually on insurance would be financial suicide, but I understand the concept of the argument. I don’t agree with the premise, but a more reasonable position for the argument would be $3m.

 

[TripleLindy]

That’s essentially how things worked before the ACA. Roughly 70% of people paid reasonable premiums, while those with higher health risks paid more. About 10% remained uninsured and often relied on emergency rooms for care.

You’re leaving lots of things out, like pre-existing conditions and caps on coverage, which I don’t think anyone wants to have return. But none of those things are real drivers of skyrocketing premiums. The #1 driver is that U.S. healthcare costs have increased much more than general inflation and are higher than anywhere else in the world, by more than 2:1.

 

[TripleLindy]

Yes, ACA basically guaranteed coverage for everyone

That’s not even close to true. If it was, we wouldn’t have ~30m people without health insurance. Yes, it made health insurance available to everyone, but that’s very different from guaranteed coverage.

The point is, there was a reason rates were lower before the ACA. It was because insurance companies did not have to cover all risks.

Not true, at least not that this is the primary reason for higher premiums. Rising healthcare costs are by far the most responsible for increased premiums. The whole “ACA is the cause of increased costs” is a narrative concocted by ACA opponents.

If you really want to drive change with a position paper, you’ll find it quite challenging if you don’t have a thorough understanding of the topic. I say that as a supporter of your cause (but mainly as a step towards universal healthcare).

 

[pb4uski]

You still didn't get it.

Let's make it a basic case. The numbers are just an example. You have only 2 choices: $500 per month or $100.
* If your income is above $50K you pay $500 for ACA per month. You are done.
* If your income is below $50K
Then you have 2 choices
*** If yo.ur portfolio is greater than $300K, you pay $500 per month.
*** Else,he you pay $100.

pbuski talked about the difficulty of implementing this idea.
Everything is doable. Imagine a simple solution: just self-report your portfolio correctly in some cases.
If the government later finds that you lied, you will have to pay a penalty of five times the amount retroactively.

Jack is the guy mentioned in your post above with $301k in a taxable account. He is 60 and retired so under your proposal he would pay $500/mo for ACA health insurance.

OTOH, Jill is 60 has $0 portfolio but receives $1,855/mo or $22,260/yr pension. $22,260/yr pension is equivalent to a $301k porftolio.

So they have the same financial resources. In fact, if he wanted to Jack could buy a SPIA that pays $1,855/mo and his portfolio would be $0.

In your proposal, Jack would pay $500/mo since he has a $301k portfolio but Jill would pay $100/mo since her income is less than $50k and her portfolio is $0.

Another example would be where Joe has a rental property or raw land that is worth $301k rather than a $301k portfolio. Are you going to force them to have annual appraisals of the rental property or raw land to dermine what they should pay for ACA premiums?

By the time you make it fair you have an ugly mess that is more complicated than our current tax code and is a devil to administer fairly.

 

[DangerousNachos]

That’s not even close to true. If it was, we wouldn’t have ~30m people without health insurance. Yes, it made health insurance available to everyone, but that’s very different from guaranteed coverage.

Not true, at least not that this is the primary reason for higher premiums. Rising healthcare costs are by far the most responsible for the increase in premiums. The whole “ACA is the cause of increased costs” is a ntive concocted by ACA opponents.

If you really want to drive change with a position paper, you’ll find it quite challenging if you don’t have a thorough understanding of the topic. I say that as a supporter of your cause (but mainly as a

@TripleLindy That's a fair correction on both points. "Guaranteed" was the wrong word, and the ACA discussion wasn't directly relevant to the proposal anyway.

To clarify what I meant: the ACA made individual health insurance guaranteed issue, and carriers could no longer decline applicants based on medical underwriting. I had clients before the ACA who were simply uninsurable in the individual market. That changed. But guaranteed issue isn't the same as guaranteed coverage. People still fall through. Networks don't include their doctors, formularies don't cover their medications, or the premiums are still more than they can afford.

I should also add context I left out. Beyond individual and small-group markets, I helped build and consult on large, partially self-funded plans, in which specific and aggregate reinsurance was purchased to cover claims above certain thresholds. In that world, the relationship between claims and premiums is transparent. Administrative costs are part of the equation, but claims are the engine. That fact underscores the need for the best negotiated rates for services provided, if you want to keep premiums down.

My point about the ACA wasn't that it caused the healthcare cost problem. It's that bringing in a population with previously uninsurable pre-existing conditions created a claims surge that hadn't been actuarially priced. That's not a political argument. It's just how insurance math works.

I'm happy to share more background if it's helpful. I'll say that over the past 30 years, I've spoken with thousands of individuals about their health insurance coverage. Individuals, Medicare-eligible clients purchasing Advantage or Supplement plans, small groups, and large employer plans. I've advocated for clients in getting claims paid and fought to reduce group health insurance renewal increases for employers. I've seen a lot from that seat, and I'd like to think it informs how this proposal was built.

Respectfully, I have a rather in-depth knowledge regarding the subject matter.

 

[TripleLindy]

My point about the ACA wasn't that it caused the healthcare cost problem. It's that bringing in a population with previously uninsurable pre-existing conditions created a claims surge that hadn't been actuarially priced. That's not a political argument. It's just how insurance math works.

Glad to hear that you have the requisite background to support your cause. And I’ll acknowledge that coverage of previously excluded pre-existing conditions resulted in more claims, it’s still not the primary force behind the increase in premiums. Your statement that insurance premiums were lower because of additional coverage is misleading at best.

As far as not being actuarially priced, I can only respond with insurance companies had 3.5 years after passage of the law to plan. I have a hard time accepting that actuarial planning didn’t occur, including the pricing in of claims that had previously been declined.

 

[FD1000]

Jack is the guy mentioned in your post above with $301k in a taxable account. He is 60 and retired so under your proposal he would pay $500/mo for ACA health insurance.

OTOH, Jill is 60 has $0 portfolio but receives $1,855/mo or $22,260/yr pension. $22,260/yr pension is equivalent to a $301k porftolio.

So they have the same financial resources. In fact, if he wanted to Jack could buy a SPIA that pays $1,855/mo and his portfolio would be $0.

In your proposal, Jack would pay $500/mo since he has a $301k portfolio but Jill would pay $100/mo since her income is less than $50k and her portfolio is $0.

Another example would be where Joe has a rental property or raw land that is worth $301k rather than a $301k portfolio. Are you going to force them to have annual appraisals of the rental property or raw land to dermine what they should pay for ACA premiums?

By the time you make it fair you have an ugly mess that is more complicated than our current tax code and is a devil to administer fairly.

It was just a simple example for GenXguy, and all the numbers were purely illustrative.
In reality, any workable solution would need to be far more thoughtful and comprehensive.
We must try and close all loopholes for the providers and consumers.

Bottom line: I’m still waiting to hear a viable plan for fixing the U.S. healthcare system. Since the ACA was implemented, I’ve repeatedly said across different platforms that it would fail miserably on price, and in my view, it has. If anything, it has accelerated the rise in healthcare unaffordability by years.

If I want fast, high-quality diagnostics and top-tier healthcare, especially for surgery, I would choose to have it done where I live rather than in Europe or elsewhere.

 

[DangerousNachos]

Glad to hear that you have the requisite background to support your cause. And I’ll acknowledge that coverage of previously excluded pre-existing conditions resulted in more claims, it’s still not the primary force behind the increase in premiums. Your statement that insurance premiums were lower because of additional coverage is misleading at best.

As far as not being actuarially priced, I can only respond with insurance companies had 3.5 years after passage of the law to plan. I have a hard time accepting that actuarial planning didn’t occur, including the pricing in of claims that had previously been declined.

@TripleLindy, I cannot find the specific statement you're referring to, but I would clarify that insurance companies were able to charge lower premiums when they could be selective about whom they covered. My apologies if I didn't say it that way or if that was somehow misleading.

I would further submit, from personal experience with enrollments, that many were eligible for coverage and subsidies but still didn't take coverage because they "didn't need it." They didn't go to the doctor or take medication, so why pay for insurance? The adverse response was equally true. "Finally, I can get coverage to start taking the medication I need but couldn't afford," or "I can go get the procedure I've been putting off." I'm unaware of any dataset tracking what people were diagnosed with, or procedures and prescriptions that were needed but deferred, that insurance companies could use to base premiums on. That's the actuarial gap I was describing.

We would agree, I think, that a healthier nation leads to lower healthcare costs. I saw this firsthand while working with a large employer that upgraded its wellness benefits and implemented incentive plans, such as stop-smoking programs, gym memberships, and stress management programs. We did see a drop in medical, Rx, and workers' comp claims. Healthier, happier workers lead to lower costs in the long run.

But I'm not here to overhaul it all. I've identified a specific group that I believe is particularly vulnerable to upcoming economic and technological changes in the workforce, and I believe I have a solution that can work for them. And if there's some relief in that part of the population, maybe that relief is felt more broadly.

I will again offer you a big thank you for taking the time to respond. If what I say, or don't say, or the way I say it, brings you pause or questions, then I am sure others would have the same. This constructive feedback is very valuable.

 

[DangerousNachos]

It was just a simple example for GenXguy, and all the numbers were purely illustrative.
In reality, any workable solution would need to be far more thoughtful and comprehensive.
We must try and close all loopholes for the providers and consumers.

Bottom line: I’m still waiting to hear a viable plan for fixing the U.S. healthcare system. Since the ACA was implemented, I’ve repeatedly said across different platforms that it would fail miserably on price, and in my view, it has. If anything, it has accelerated the rise in healthcare unaffordability by years.

If I want fast, high-quality diagnostics and top-tier healthcare, especially for surgery, I would choose to have it done where I live rather than in Europe or elsewhere.

@FD1000 You may still be waiting for a plan to fix the entire U.S. healthcare system, and honestly, so is everyone else. That's not what I'm offering.

What I am offering is a specific solution for a specific group facing a specific problem. The broader debate about ACA failures, pricing loopholes, and system-wide reform is real and worth having, but it's a separate conversation from whether workers aged 55 to 64 deserve a viable coverage option when they're ready to leave the workforce and currently have none.

The Medicare Bridge doesn't fix everything. It fixes one thing. And sometimes that's enough to start with.

 

[MichaelB]

@FD1000 You may still be waiting for a plan to fix the entire U.S. healthcare system, and honestly, so is everyone else. That's not what I'm offering.

What I am offering is a specific solution for a specific group facing a specific problem. The broader debate about ACA failures, pricing loopholes, and system-wide reform is real and worth having, but it's a separate conversation from whether workers aged 55 to 64 deserve a viable coverage option when they're ready to leave the workforce and currently have none.

The Medicare Bridge doesn't fix everything. It fixes one thing. And sometimes that's enough to start with.

I hesitate to use the word “solution” in this case. Health care insurance is expensive primarily because health care is expensive. Thats where we need solutions. Once health care insurance is available to everyone, which it now is, the only way to reduce the price and make it more affordable is with some combination of limiting service and subsidizing price. Moving people into a more heavily subsidized program isn’t a solution.

I do agree that allowing younger cohorts to enroll in Medicare has one great advantage. They now have a large provider network, no insurer shenanigans, and a single risk pool, slightly tweaked by zip code.

I think we should remove the subsidy from Medicare, invite (or require) everyone to join, then give people health care subsidies based on need. I know, easy to say.

 

[DangerousNachos]

I hesitate to use the word “solution” in this case. Health care insurance is expensive primarily because health care is expensive. Thats where we need solutions. Once health care insurance is available to everyone, which it now is, the only way to reduce the price and make it more affordable is with some combination of limiting service and subsidizing price. Moving people into a more heavily subsidized program isn’t a solution.

I do agree that allowing younger cohorts to enroll in Medicare has one great advantage. They now have a large provider network, no insurer shenanigans, and a single risk pool, slightly tweaked by zip code.

I think we should remove the subsidy from Medicare, invite (or require) everyone to join, then give people health care subsidies based on need. I know, easy to say.

@MichaelB Fair pushback on the word "solution", though I'd push back gently on the framing. The problem I identified was never the cost of healthcare broadly. It was access to coverage for a specific cohort at a specific life transition point. Within that narrower definition, I believe "solution" is the right word. The Bridge solves the problem it was designed to solve.

If the standard is fixing American healthcare costs entirely, then I know of nothing that qualifies as a solution, including the ACA, Medicare itself, or any proposal currently on the table.

What strikes me about your preferred model is how closely it aligns with the Bridge's underlying logic. A large risk pool, negotiated pricing, and subsidies based on need rather than employment status. We may disagree on scope, but I think we're looking at the same structural problem from different angles.

One question for clarification. What subsidy are you referring to when you think a subsidy from Medicare should be removed?

 

[ncbill]

As we've discussed, 'based on need' would really mean based on income.

Because the federal government here in the USA is setup to track that, but not assets.

So we'd all be playing the 'manage mAGI' game for the rest of our lives, not just until age 65?

 

[JustOneMoreYear]

The current administration wants states to handle Medicare and the ACA subsidy cliff is back in 2026. I don't see Medicare eligibility age being lowered anytime soon.

 

[NomDeER]

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.

You are proposing that people with lower incomes (including many without health insurance themselves) make it financially possible for older people to retire early. If someone can afford to not work (as long as they have health insurance), I can just imagine how someone working a low-wage job without health insurance would feel about that.

What I am offering is a specific solution for a specific group facing a specific problem. The broader debate about ACA failures, pricing loopholes, and system-wide reform is real and worth having, but it's a separate conversation from whether workers aged 55 to 64 deserve a viable coverage option when they're ready to leave the workforce and currently have none.

It's not really entirely separate. For one thing, you are proposing that people who can't afford health insurance themselves and/or are not as well off (maybe even have to work after age 65 to pay for rent and food) subsidize the insurance of more affluent people so that those more affluent people can retire earlier.

Second, what has happened with the ACA and Medicaid suggests that your proposal would not be enacted. I don't think there's much chance that any program that increased the number of people with access to affordable health insurance will pass. I also don't think that an increase in taxes for purposes of health care would pass. In fact, the president recently suggested that federal funds should not be spent on things like health care.

We have seen the federal government reducing access to affordable health care. The original proposal for the ACA included a public option that would have made insurance more affordable, but it couldn't get the votes needed. Immediately after the ACA was enacted, states sued to make sure they didn't have to take federal funds and offer expanded Medicaid to low- wage workers. This didn't just reduce the number of people who would be insured but also generally increased the costs of health insurance for everyone else.

Although efforts to outright kill the ACA failed, more and more steps have been taken to deliberately increase the cost of the ACA and to decrease the number of people getting insurance through the ACA or Medicaid. This has negative impacts on people who do have access to health insurance.

Meanwhile, relatively little is being done to actually constrain the high costs of American health care itself.

 

[Onda]

Although efforts to outright kill the ACA failed, more and more steps have been taken to deliberately increase the cost of the ACA and to decrease the number of people getting insurance through the ACA or Medicaid. This has negative impacts on people who do have access to health insurance.

Meanwhile, relatively little is being done to actually constrain the high costs of American health care itself.

Enhanced subsidies cost roughly $25–35 billion annually. Against the scale of recent spending 200B tied to rapidly emerging overseas pressures (based on feelings in someones bones and stomach), their cost appears relatively modest, especially given that they helped millions keep affordable health coverage.

 

[DangerousNachos]

You are proposing that people with lower incomes (including many without health insurance themselves) make it financially possible for older people to retire early. If someone can afford to not work (as long as they have health insurance), I can just imagine how someone working a low-wage job without health insurance would feel about that.


It's not really entirely separate. For one thing, you are proposing that people who can't afford health insurance themselves and/or are not as well off (maybe even have to work after age 65 to pay for rent and food) subsidize the insurance of more affluent people so that those more affluent people can retire earlier.

Second, what has happened with the ACA and Medicaid suggests that your proposal would not be enacted. I don't think there's much chance that any program that increased the number of people with access to affordable health insurance will pass. I also don't think that an increase in taxes for purposes of health care would pass. In fact, the president recently suggested that federal funds should not be spent on things like health care.

We have seen the federal government reducing access to affordable health care. The original proposal for the ACA included a public option that would have made insurance more affordable, but it couldn't get the votes needed. Immediately after the ACA was enacted, states sued to make sure they didn't have to take federal funds and offer expanded Medicaid to low- wage workers. This didn't just reduce the number of people who would be insured but also generally increased the costs of health insurance for everyone else.

Although efforts to outright kill the ACA failed, more and more steps have been taken to deliberately increase the cost of the ACA and to decrease the number of people getting insurance through the ACA or Medicaid. This has negative impacts on people who do have access to health insurance.

Meanwhile, relatively little is being done to actually constrain the high costs of American health care itself.

@JustOneMoreYear You’re right that the current political environment makes this unlikely in the near term. I’ve acknowledged that throughout this thread. The goal right now is to plant a seed, not to pass legislation this week.

@NomDeER The equity concern is worth taking seriously, and I won’t dismiss it.

But I think the framing matters. This isn’t primarily about affluent people choosing early retirement. The group I’m focused on includes displaced workers, caregivers, and the “benefits spouse”, who are often in working and middle-income households, who remain employed primarily to maintain coverage. In that context, this isn’t about subsidizing early retirement. It’s about removing a structural constraint that limits mobility for a very specific population.

On the funding side, Medicare is already structured to be income-sensitive through both payroll contributions and premium adjustments at higher income levels. The Medicare Bridge would follow that same framework.

And on the broader point, I agree the current environment is not favorable to healthcare expansion. But policy design and political timing are separate questions. I’m focused on whether the idea itself is sound.

 

[DangerousNachos]

Enhanced subsidies cost roughly $25–35 billion annually. Against the scale of recent spending 200B tied to rapidly emerging overseas pressures (based on feelings in someones bones and stomach), their cost appears relatively modest, especially given that they helped millions keep affordable health coverage.

Worth adding to the subsidy discussion:

Medicare reimburses providers at materially lower rates than private insurance. When individuals in the 55–64 cohort shift from ACA Marketplace plans into Medicare, their care is priced within that lower-cost framework.

That changes the math. It’s not just about removing a higher-cost age group from the ACA risk pool. It’s about processing their claims at a structurally lower price point.

That puts downward pressure on the cost of covering that population, which has implications for overall subsidy levels.

 

[Onda]

For US good and affordable Healthcare the real question is not “why is there no solution,” but “why are the solutions blocked?”

The solutions are well known; the system is just too fragmented and too profitable for too many players to make cost control politically easy.

 

[NomDeER]

But I think the framing matters. This isn’t primarily about affluent people choosing early retirement. The group I’m focused on includes displaced workers, caregivers, and the “benefits spouse”, who are often in working and middle-income households, who remain employed primarily to maintain coverage. In that context, this isn’t about subsidizing early retirement. It’s about removing a structural constraint that limits mobility for a very specific population.

This is how you started out framing the issue in your original post:

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.

If you would retire at 55 if not for the health insurance, then the odds are very high that you aren't a low-wage worker and aren't struggling. But, you are proposing that everyone, including the person flipping your burgers at McDonalds or greeters at Walmart, pay more so that a "very specific population" can stop working and have health insurance. The people who would benefit may not be super rich, but most of them aren't poor either. I don't understand why you are suggesting that people with lower incomes shoulder this burden rather than increasing the FICA cap or increasing other taxes, whether that's taxes on things like cigarettes and tanning beds or higher income earners. (Of course, there's also the option of lowering expenditures on things that are being prioritized. But, I don't think any of this is politically feasible.)

Being the "benefits spouse" or being a caregiver or being displaced is not limited to people 55+.

I do think that it is more difficult to find a new job or career if you are over 55. And there are people who are not going to be displaced by AI but have will have difficulty finding jobs as they age because they have done primarily physical work. Many of these people are poorer. I think those poorer, jobless older people may be the ones who would need the 55+ coverage the most, especially since the impending Medicaid cuts are going to hit them hard. But, if the powers that be were willing to cut them from Medicaid, I don't think they have any interest in covering them through the expansion of Medicare.

 

[TripleLindy]

For US good and affordable Healthcare the real question is not “why is there no solution,” but “why are the solutions blocked?”

The solutions are well known; the system is just too fragmented and too profitable for too many players to make cost control politically easy.

I agree that solutions exist and that profitability of corporations adds lobbyist pressures that our corrupt politicians won’t ignore. Fragmentation could be overcome.

Unfortunately, the real issue is the division. Right and wrong no longer matter - it’s beat the other guy using any method possible, law and ethics be damned. Solutions are no longer the goal.

 

[DangerousNachos]

This is how you started out framing the issue in your original post:


If you would retire at 55 if not for the health insurance, then the odds are very high that you aren't a low-wage worker and aren't struggling. But, you are proposing that everyone, including the person flipping your burgers at McDonalds or greeters at Walmart, pay more so that a "very specific population" can stop working and have health insurance. The people who would benefit may not be super rich, but most of them aren't poor either. I don't understand why you are suggesting that people with lower incomes shoulder this burden rather than increasing the FICA cap or increasing other taxes, whether that's taxes on things like cigarettes and tanning beds or higher income earners. (Of course, there's also the option of lowering expenditures on things that are being prioritized. But, I don't think any of this is politically feasible.)

Being the "benefits spouse" or being a caregiver or being displaced is not limited to people 55+.

I do think that it is more difficult to find a new job or career if you are over 55. And there are people who are not going to be displaced by AI but have will have difficulty finding jobs as they age because they have done primarily physical work. Many of these people are poorer. I think those poorer, jobless older people may be the ones who would need the 55+ coverage the most, especially since the impending Medicaid cuts are going to hit them hard. But, if the powers that be were willing to cut them from Medicaid, I don't think they have any interest in covering them through the expansion of Medicare.

@NomDeER I think the key distinction here isn’t rich vs. poor, it’s constrained vs. unconstrained.

This proposal isn’t about enabling early retirement for people who are financially set. It’s about people whose decisions are being driven by the need to maintain health coverage, displaced workers, caregivers, and the “benefits spouse.” For that group, this isn’t a preference. It’s a constraint.

The Bridge doesn’t means-test who can use it. It simply creates an option that doesn’t exist today for that age cohort. There’s also a workforce effect that gets overlooked. When someone over 55 can step away on their own terms, that can open positions for others who need them. Mobility works both directions.

On cost, a 55-year-old facing the individual market encounters structurally higher premiums than younger workers in the same position. That gap doesn’t disappear with income changes and becomes more acute when subsidies are reduced. And as displacement accelerates, the challenge for older workers isn’t just finding the next role. It’s maintaining coverage in the transition.

Many people in this community have successfully managed health coverage in the years before Medicare eligibility. The goal here is to make that transition less dependent on workarounds and more a matter of choice.

 

[NomDeER]

Many people in this community have successfully managed health coverage in the years before Medicare eligibility. The goal here is to make that transition less dependent on workarounds and more a matter of choice.

I am well aware of the challenges that 55+ face in obtaining health insurance as I am in that group. But, that's not a reason for having lower-income people who can't afford health insurance themselves be the ones to pay for it. If you're working a low-wage job and don't have health insurance but have health problems, you're not really going to feel better about an increase in your taxes because you know that the premiums you can't afford are lower than the premiums older people pay.

When someone over 55 can step away on their own terms, that can open positions for others who need them. Mobility works both directions.

You were talking about AI displacing people's jobs. I don't think younger people are going to step into those jobs. Of course, some of the people would retire for other reasons and open up jobs. But, that doesn't seem to be a good reason to limit the access to people over 55 or to make lower income people pay for that. There are all sorts of job implications resulting from health insurance problems. (How many people don't leave their jobs to start their own business because they want the security of their current health insurance?) I don't think the 55+ should be singled out.

I don't question that it is too hard for people 55+ to retire because of the cost of health insurance. But, I don't think solutions to health insurance problems should be limited to that age range or be paid for by people who can't afford to retire or who are younger and can't afford their rent and groceries much less their own health insurance.

 

[GenXguy]

Medicare and the different parts and supplemental need to become affordable for people 65+ over the long term before bringing younger people into the mix. Medicare is going up considerably faster than regular CPI that the 4% rule is based on that people are calculating for their nest eggs to see them through retirement.

Paying hospitals lower reimbursement rates doesn't magically lower healthcare costs. It has to be made up for somewhere. Many healthcare facilities have closed and are closing up as it is.

On the topic of health care, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been an amazing success story for many of us early retirees that couldn't have retired in our 50's without.

It looks like there's a current proposal to put in a reconciliation bill that would fund CSR (cost sharing reduction) for silver plans and eliminate silver loading. That actually means subsidies would drop across all plans but would save the gubment over $30 Billion, IIRC. The idea is to cut domestic programs and increase defense spending. Keep your fingers crossed that doesn't happen.