Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

democrattotheend

(12,011 posts)
21. I wish I weren't
Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:49 PM
Jan 2013

I want to find a viable way to expand Medicare to those 55 and up without bankrupting it, because I think from a policy perspective it is worth doing. I don't think it would really save the system money but it could be done in a way that is revenue neutral, although it would not necessarily be the best option for everyone in that case.

I did have a couple alternative ideas:
- Letting people use the subsidies they would get to buy insurance on the exchange to buy into Medicare (at the unsubsidized rate) if they prefer. That would not cost extra for Medicare because the subsidies have already been budgeted
- Letting employers subsidize Medicare buy-in for employees over 55 if they do not provide group coverage in lieu of paying a fine
- Raising payroll taxes for everyone and having Medicare start at 55 and serve as primary coverage for those who have it while working. Younger people would pay more without getting immediate benefits, but they might see higher wages or lower premiums if their employer saved money on health insurance. Since the ACA, Medicare and Social Security are already structured as a subsidy from young to old, I would want to see numbers on this before I could really support it
- Having a graduated eligibility age for Medicare as with Social Security, where people could start getting Medicare at 62 but would pay a higher premium for Plan B or a higher cost-sharing percentage for the life of their participation or for a certain number of years. I know this would be a hardship for some people but it would at least enable people who lose their jobs to get necessary care earlier, and fewer people would die waiting for Medicare. It's not as progressive as some of the other proposals but it might be more politically palatable, and paying a slightly higher premium over a number of years might be easier than paying $600 per month between ages 62 and 65. It would be like a financing plan for early Medicare, except without the exorbitant interest rates that lenders charge.
-

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

People would be buying part B coverage upaloopa Jan 2013 #1
The current premiums for Part B are heavily subsidized democrattotheend Jan 2013 #4
Some people put off addressing medical problems Downwinder Jan 2013 #2
Any idea where I could get some numbers on that? democrattotheend Jan 2013 #24
I can only speak anecdotally. I don't know if there are Downwinder Jan 2013 #25
I have never researched this, but I have a couple of ideas JDPriestly Jan 2013 #32
I think you would have to do a reshuffle of the entire payment system Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #3
It makes sense when you look beyond the Medicare trust fund Warpy Jan 2013 #5
Please don't call me a Republican democrattotheend Jan 2013 #7
Easy. You assure solvency by having a full price buy in Warpy Jan 2013 #12
A larger, healthier pool would seem to lower the cost per participant TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #14
You just gave me a good idea democrattotheend Jan 2013 #23
Sure, it just has to be passed. TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #35
Well, how do other rich nations do it by having universal health care? CTyankee Jan 2013 #26
Of course I know that democrattotheend Jan 2013 #30
But you do understand you face a problem by segmenting this one demographic in the overall CTyankee Jan 2013 #31
One thing you might want to look at is the number of people in their 50s who have to rely on JDPriestly Jan 2013 #33
To bring Medicare up to the level of Medicaid requires (roughly): Downwinder Jan 2013 #34
Open Medicare to everyone regardless of age... Pilotguy Jan 2013 #6
In theory, I might agree democrattotheend Jan 2013 #9
The charge in Germany is over 14% of pay. Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #19
It would cost way more than that. Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #20
Hold on. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #8
That figure is for 55-64 year olds democrattotheend Jan 2013 #13
65 + is $800; the $600 is an actuarial cocktail napkin sketch Recursion Jan 2013 #37
I believe you, but it's important for me to understand the basis. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2013 #40
I would have jumped on $600/mo.... Faryn Balyncd Jan 2013 #10
That is great information, thank you democrattotheend Jan 2013 #15
Yes, the exchanges would offer some better options.... Faryn Balyncd Jan 2013 #17
The argument about Medicare's administrative costs is kind of misleading democrattotheend Jan 2013 #22
-_- JaneyVee Jan 2013 #11
Are you talking about lowering the age with buy-in? democrattotheend Jan 2013 #16
I don't think so Yo_Mama Jan 2013 #18
I wish I weren't democrattotheend Jan 2013 #21
Have you found anywhere a table that breaks down Medicare expenditure by age of the insuree ? n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2013 #27
No, but that's a good idea democrattotheend Jan 2013 #29
I am no expert on Medicare but it seems to me that you are making a case for Medicare for all CTyankee Jan 2013 #28
In theory I would probably support Medicare for all democrattotheend Jan 2013 #36
Yes, I can see that from what you've written. I was just commenting on the problems inherent CTyankee Jan 2013 #38
In case you missed it. PETRUS Jan 2013 #39
I did miss it democrattotheend Jan 2013 #41
No apology necessary. Hope it's helpful! PETRUS Jan 2013 #42
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How would lowering the Me...»Reply #21