8 Democratic Senators introduce 'Medicare at 55 Act'

[leftstreet]

Senator Stabenow Announces Medicare at 55 Act
Thursday, August 03, 2017

U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) today introduced the Medicare at 55 Act, which provides an option for people between the ages of 55 and 64 to buy into Medicare. There are 1.4 million people in Michigan between the ages of 55 and 64, and many of them are burdened by high insurance premiums, unaffordable deductibles and limited options.


“People between the ages of 55 and 64 often have more health problems and face higher health care costs but aren’t yet eligible for Medicare," said Senator Stabenow. "If you live in Michigan, are 58 years old, and are having a hard time finding coverage that works for you, this bill will let you buy into Medicare before you turn 65. Our legislation is one way we can work together on a bipartisan basis to lower health care and prescription drug costs."

snip

Under the Medicare at 55 Act, an individual between the ages of 55 and 64 who buys into Medicare would receive the same benefits and protections as an individual enrolled under Medicare parts A, B, and D.

U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Al Franken (D-MN) co-sponsored the legislation.

https://www.stabenow.senate.gov/news/senator-stabenow-announces-medicare-at-55-act

[Lunabell]

1. Love it.

This is what we need.

[Catmusicfan]

2. Nice

[LisaM]

3. 8 DEMOCRATIC Senators.....

I think this is a great idea, in part because once people have something, it's a lot harder to take away.

[leftstreet]

4. ...

Duh! I should change the title to include that

[Hortensis]

160. It's a promise to the electorate. And a reminder of what they lost in 2016.

[a kennedy]

5. Damn, wish at least a couple repubs would jump on board with this......

now that could be some real bipartisanship.

[WhiteTara]

45. Turtlechin has to go before that can happen.

He has a lock on the GOP and they are all so terrible they rarely break step.

[George II]

61. Once it's formally on the docket (if McConnell will allow that) we might see some republicans, and..

...certainly more Democrats, jump on it.

[lark]

82. That is exactly the problem.

McTurtle is all politics all the time and cares zip for the American people. He will almost assuredly not let this come for a vote, it helps working class and poor and he won't have that.

[mcar]

6. A wonderful idea!

Thank you, Senate Democrats!

[Chasstev365]

7. So CLOSE!

[Trial_By_Fire]

8. Excellent! Questions thou...

What does 'buy in' mean? What would the cost be?

Hopefully, it will be affordable to buy in. And it is a great step for 'Medicare for All' although Medicare for All right now would be better!

[George II]

10. Everybody on Medicare "buys in" - they pay a monthly premium.

[Trial_By_Fire]

13. Not sure about that. Have you read the bill to know that?

I thought at 65, people just enroll and yes one pays a monthly charge.

The concept of buy in thou isn't definitely explained...

[George II]

17. "A monthly charge" is a premium.

[Trial_By_Fire]

21. Yes, I choose the wrong words. But, where is 'buy in' defined?

Can you link to the bill as you obviously already have done to know what that means.

[George II]

60. No, I "obviously" haven't read the bill, but I'm very familiar with how Medicare works....

...this is a proposal to expand Medicare to Americans 55 and over. No doubt it will work very similarly, if not identically, to the way it works for those 65 and over.

There are lots of details that aren't in the OP article. Why not find the bill, read it, and answer your questions?

[Trial_By_Fire]

62. You are the one making all the unsubstantiated claims...

[George II]

64. What unsubstantiated claim?

[BainsBane]

134. My, your new found interest in policy details

Is fascinating. Funny how it doesn't apply elsewhere.

I certainly agree the details in all policies matter. I'm sure you can locate information on it and tell us why it shouldn't pass. You know, because it's not sponsored by the right person.

[sheshe2]

141. I applaud these Democratic Senators

They independently came together as one to promote Medicare for all.

Thank you.

[Trial_By_Fire]

145. ...

[BainsBane]

146. We did see you stretching

To try to insist the bill was bad. I'm sure that will change the second Bernie gets on board. We have after all seen a remarkable upsurge of support for policies Clinton proposed during her campaign, the very ideas that weren't progressive enough until Bernie promoted them.

[Trial_By_Fire]

148. ...

[MiddleClass]

102. There is a problem, a bill like this would be one line 65 erased, writing 55

Yes, that will be that easy (oversimplified, but yes)

since George W Medicare premiums went from a simple $47.40 for every 1, 2 increases on some and not others, 3 times.

[pnwmom]

151. Actually, most people don't pay a premium for Part A. That's funded from the Medicare taxes

that come from workers' salaries.

So there is a valid question about how the costs would be paid for with younger recipients.

Most people don't pay a monthly premium for Part A (sometimes called "premium-free Part A'). If you buy Part A, you'll pay up to $413 each month. If you paid Medicare taxes for less than 30 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $413. If you paid Medicare taxes for 30-39 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $227.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html

[ToxMarz]

56. Yes but everyone working has been pre-paying into the "premium" their entire working lives

The "premium" reflects this and isn't anticipating all these people entering 10 years earlier. It can't be so simple that they just come in as if they were 65.

[George II]

59. I'm sure the premium for those between 55 and 64 will be higher than those 65 and over....

....it may be based on some actuarial formula. But the beauty of Medicare now and in the future is that premiums/costs are reduced because of the sheer number of enrollees. There are currently about 65 million people on Medicare.

[Borchkins]

87. I'm 54 and 5/6ths. I am ready to buy into Medicare.

It will surely be less than the amount I pay now for private insurance.

[MiddleClass]

105. There is superduper savings in Medicare

Private profit insurance companies only 36 cents of every dollar actually goes for healthcare providers.

Medicare 98 cents of every dollar actually goes for healthcare for our seniors.

Eliminate, midtown Manhattan office space dispenses – Baltimore, where Medicare is a lot cheaper.
Eliminate CEOs salaries, $40 million versus secretary of human services in White House $200 K
Eliminate profit-sharing, dividends, options, shareholders, advertising budgets, promotions
Eliminate profit period. Wall Street gone.

Don't believe me, sit down one day and read a prospectus for an insurance stock. Well hidden but there

yes, buildings that were built 100 years ago that the government owns and maintains all a lot cheaper.

It's a no-brainer, the problem is, no outrageous profits for investors, CEOs

[MiddleClass]

103. Actually yes it could. You prepay for hospital care, the premium is for outpatient care

Technically, hospital care becomes free at retirement, or 65 +. Even if you never worked.

Bringing that down to 55, is a win-win, a vast majority of people from 55 to 65 are way healthier on average than 65 to infinity. Most of them would be still working, still paying in, at a constant rate. So would reduce the cost per person. A lot will retire and work part-time, a lot start their own businesses.

Either way it would subsidize the current system, lowering costs, lowering premiums even further.

An actual win win win, win, win, win, win
insurance companies – remove their biggest loss driver, advancing age, health issues
Democrats – expanded entitlement, reduce bankruptcies, socially helping
Republicans – claim victory for straightening out healthcare
seniors/Medicare – stability
taxpayers – don't have the bailout
that 10 year age group – cheap premiums
Everybody wins.

Under 55, (and everybody else) battle is for 45 +
and then 35 +
and then Medicare for all is achievable for everybody.

The frog and the boiling water theory.
Throw a frog in boiling water will jump out.
Place a frog in regular water swims around.
Turn up the heat slowly to a boil.
Mission accomplished, gruesome as it sounds

[pnwmom]

152. It's not true that Part A is free even if you never paid Medicare taxes.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html

If you paid Medicare taxes for less than 30 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $413. If you paid Medicare taxes for 30-39 quarters, the standard Part A premium is $227.

[MiddleClass]

162. Thank you, I did not know that.

My friend worked off the books for years, I must warn him about that.

He's in his late fifties, and I don't know if he's got 30 or not

[pnwmom]

163. Yes, it would be a good idea for him to see if he can find a job that would let him accrue the

necessary number of quarters -- and if he could do that just working on a part-time basis, even.

The other possibility is that if he's married and filing joint returns with someone with enough quarters -- that would cover him, too.

http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-04-2008/ask_ms__medicare_9.html

A. Medicare is a big umbrella, covering several different aspects of health care. So strictly speaking, not having worked long enough to “qualify” means only that you can’t receive benefits for Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) without paying premiums for them. But you most likely qualify for Medicare Part B (which covers doctors’ services, outpatient care and medical equipment) and for Part D (prescription drug coverage) because these have nothing to do with how long you’ve worked.

Normally, you need to have earned about 40 “credits” or “quarters” by paying Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes while working — equal to about 10 years of work — in order to get Part A services without paying premiums. The premiums have already been covered by your payroll taxes.

However, if you don't have enough credits you may qualify for premium-free Part A services on the work record of your spouse, provided that you are 65 or older and your spouse is at least 62. In some circumstances, you may qualify on the work record of a spouse who is dead or divorced. Following the overthrow of the Defense of Marriage Act, people in a same-sex marriage can also qualify on their spouse’s work record if they live in a state that accepts same-sex marriage or recognizes the laws of other states that do.

Otherwise, if you’re 65 or older, you can buy into Medicare by paying monthly premiums for Part A hospital insurance. You can also join Part B and pay the same premiums as other people. In both cases, you must be a U.S. citizen or a legal resident (green card holder) who has lived in the United States continuously for at least five years.

The amount you pay for the Part A premium in 2014 is $234 a month (if you have 30 to 39 work credits) or $426 a month (if you have fewer than 30 work credits). These amounts usually change a little each year. If you continue working until you’ve earned 40 credits (about 10 years' work in total), you’ll no longer be required to pay Part A premiums.

SNIP

[MichMan]

31. Plus every single week in taxes deducted from paychecks

People pay for Medicare their entire working lives with a regular payroll deduction. In addition to 40 years or more of being taxed for Medicare, they also pay a monthly premium once they become eligible.

Essentially, you are prepaying for 40 years in order to make your monthly premiums cheaper when you retire

[George II]

37. My monthly deduction from Social Security is $121, it was $127 last year....

And many people don't understand how Medicare works or how it's administered.

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. Including the more you make the more you pay for part B.

[MiddleClass]

50. Monthly premiums are for outpatient, doctors and the like, hospitalization is free, + 1000 deduction

A year, I believe my monthly is 104, current retirees didn't get charged the last 2 raises in premium.

If there is no cost of living increase, a premium raise just doesn't apply to current retirees only future retirees.

Another hidden protection.


EDIT: now + 1300 deductible, sorry

[HockeyMom]

106. Hold Harmless Clause of SS

If your are having Medicare Premiums taken out of your check, your SS check cannot decrease when Medicare Premiums go up. When there is a COLA increase in SS, and Medicare Premiums go up at the same time, you will get less COLA or none in your check.

Nice law, though, isn't it?

[MiddleClass]

121. Hold harmless clause, thank you, I couldn't remember the name

I think when there's a Cost Of Living Allowance, the previous increase from previous years that were canceled do not apply at all anymore? Not withheld retroactively?

Such new Medicare recipients would pay the higher premium, where current enrollees see no retroactive increase from the year before?

I love it, it's harder for newer retirees as they pay more than us for Medicare. I miss the $47

[Tracer]

108. There's a bad surprise lurking in that hospitalization deductible.

In 2014 I was hospitalized in May and had to pay a $1,300 (not $1,000) deductible.

Unfortunately, I was also hospitalized in November of the same year.

Guess what? I had to pay the $1,300 AGAIN!

If you are hospitalized TWICE in a 90 day period, you only pay once. If you are hospitalized twice AFTER the 90-day period, you pay TWICE.

[llmart]

116. Your comments are misleading...

Medicare is not "free". I have $104 taken out of my Social Security check every month for Medicare (hospitalization) coverage.

[MiddleClass]

123. Medicare part A, as no premium for 65 +, but it does have, "ouch" $1300 deductible

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 05:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Her visit, unless it was the same issue–event, related to the first event. Same issue different event, another deductible.

But keep in mind somebody just mentioned 90 days, so they might have adjusted that.

$104, I believe, is the Medicare part B premium that pays doctors.

But Medicare or hospitals are "playing games" because some hospitals your own doctor. See you in the hospital and bills you accordingly under Medicare part B, so it does get confusing, which is why they didn't mention it.


Thank you, if I am misleading, please feel free to correct me, I want to be informative, not right.

If I'm wrong please point it out, I will put up a defense, and hopefully when I realize, I will admit I'm wrong

[Cicada]

89. Medicare spends a lot more than what it receives

I read that each Medicare recipient gets a product worth about $200,000 more than what was paid in. I get a drug infusion every 4 weeks for free. My monthly statement says the cost is &12500. The drug means I have normal mobility, no pain at all. Without it I would have pain in every step. So I am very great full. But I know general taxes subsidize me. In today's dollars I paid about $100000, counting my half and the "employer" half of Medicare tax. And I do pay $1200 per year as my Medicare premium.

This is a good thing - we have most of our elderly medical bills paid from general tax receipts. We all get this security which is extremely valuable to our peace of mind, and those who earn a lot pay more than the average share because of somewhat progressive tax.

But Medicare IS somewhat subsidized.

[MiddleClass]

111. You're mostly right. Medicare is subsidized. Everybody pays in from their paycheck

That goes into a giant fund, that pays Medicare recipients. Hospitalization. Medicare part a

Medicare recipients pay a monthly premium, which is 3 quarters subsidized. Medicare part B

Medicare part D is prescription drugs, which in general is minuscule with this argument

That premium goes into the fund, and all doctors are paid out of the fund. The 75 percent comes out of the above fund. The surplus is what you call the Medicare trust fund, which most people don't know goes back to the general government revenue fund with a treasury bond that's really just an IOU (nonnegotiable, can't self) and that's what makes up what we call the Medicare trust fund. There is been a surplus since the eighties, but in the last 3 years. The revenue has gone negative. There's something like 30 years left and then the tax payers have to start to pay the shortfall. (Technically, the taxpayers are on the hook to pay those treasury bills, i.e. the national debt)

But in 30 years, my age group (very last baby boomers) will be depleted. Thus returning the system to normalcy (10 + workers for every retiree). I think it's now 6 or 7 heading to 4. Baby boomers were a abnormal explosion in the population.

So Reagan and Bush balanced the checkbook, on future seniors back.

Almost forgot, Medicare's part B premium is simply cost divided by enrollees is a cost basis for each enrollee. By law, that is subsidize by exactly 75 percent. Means of premium is always 25 percent of that, guaranteed by general revenue (so technically it's a revenue generator for the general fund "taxpayers" If there is a surplus)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

68. There's no premium for Part A of Medicare.

There is for Part B.

When I first signed up for Medicare I was still working and had health coverage through my job, so I had no premium. A year later I stopped working and then had the Part B premium.

[forthemiddle]

90. You pay a subsidized amount for Medicare Part B

Part B covers outpatient services only. Part A, which covers the hospital and short term nursing home for rehab has no premium right now.
I cannot believe that would continue for a buy in program.
Also Medicare does not cover prescription drug costs, or eye care, or dental.

A couple of years ago a DU poster did some investigating and found out that the unsubsidized premium would be at least $600.00 a month per person, but I don't remember the exact details.

And although this shouldn't be a problem with 55 and older, Medicare covers no prenatal or obstetrics care.

[greatauntoftriplets]

130. Yup.

The government deducted a certain amount from every paycheck from the day I started working in high school until I retired. Between that (for which I still pay a monthly premium, deducted from my Social Security check) and my supplemental, providers have told me that I have excellent insurance. At present, the supplemental costs me $120 a month and Part D $64.60.

It's a lot of money, but I think it's worthwhile.

[George II]

132. I was nervous about our supplemental insurance once I (and then we) retired. Not knowing...

...what it might be, I budgeted about $5000 each for Medicare and supplemental insurance. I was shocked about how inexpensive it was.

Part A is $0, Part B is $121 each per month, and our supplemental insurance (including prescriptions) is $25 per month each. That's a total of $3500 per year for both of us combined, much less than I expected. We didn't get Part D though.

Our co-pays for the three prescriptions we have are $2.00 per month (blood pressure for each of us, Lipitor for me) But we get hit for less common prescriptions - when we had our cataract surgery we needed three - one was $30 (no big deal), one was $120, and one was about $250. But with coupons supplied by the doctor and "samples", the last two cost us only about $100.

Supplemental insurance varies depending upon where you live. We live in CT, where there is good competition. I would imagine that in urban areas it would be more expensive.

[leftstreet]

12. Yes, it's absolutely a start

I'm single payer public healthcare - all the way

But if politicians are at least willing to start these conversations, I give them kudos!

[leftofcool]

16. Your medicare cost now depends on how much money you make in retirement

Ours is 267.00 each held from our Social Security checks every month. The lowest you can pay now is 139.00

[Trial_By_Fire]

22. Thanks. I still have a few years to go for Medicare.

Reducing the age to 55 would be awesome!

[MiddleClass]

124. George Bush Junior did that to the higher earners, by reducing the subsidy

So he paid for his out-of-control spending on your backs. Sorry about that.

I don't know what the level is, but it is now affecting the substantially higher ups.

I do not know, but like the minimal alternative tax, started at the top, and now affects most in New York.

I remember thinking, somebody's getting screwed, sorry about that

[PoliticAverse]

51. 'What does 'buy in' mean? What would the cost be?' - Excellent questions. And without reading...

the actual bill we won't know that. But you have to understand that this bill is for PR purposes...
it's not intended to be an actual bill that will pass (there is 0 chance of the Republicans supporting
it this session).

[Trial_By_Fire]

54. It's a good thing for Dems to promote and message Medicare for All or single payer.

The time is absolutely prime for upgrading our health care. ACA is a great start.
The addition of Medicare for All ages 50-65 would be a great entry way into Medicare for All/Single Payer.

PR?..well yes and no. Messaging/promoting solutions is exactly how it is done.

Like Conyers HR676 and Sanders Medicare for All shows the American people that
Dems have solutions.

[leftstreet]

57. +1

Just getting it out there in the conversation is something!

I've been supporting HR676 for ages and ages - and yet no one ever knew what I was talking about.

You're right, the time is absolutely prime - for our needs AND as a political opportunity. The massive protests against ACA repeal were largely happening at GOPer events by their own constituents!

[workinclasszero]

9. Awesome!!

Go dems!

[ornotna]

11. Oh hell yes!

[Hoyt]

14. Excellent. Wish someone would come up with creditable estimate of premiums (buy-in)

under the proposal.

I think that would make a big difference in whether people get behind such legislation.

[leftstreet]

23. Yeah, I can't find any estimates yet

But definitely it needs to be part of the message

[MiddleClass]

33. $135, if you are below the mean income per person per month

Now that is subsidized by 75%, meaning without subsidy. It would be $540. If Republicans remove the subsidies.

Apply Obama care subsidies, it would be back down

[Hoyt]

38. Where is that from? Thanks.

[MiddleClass]

58. You're welcome, I'm on Medicare, (disabled)

New enrollees get the current cost. – Annual cost divided by number of enrollees = standard premium next year.

If a raise falls on the year. There is no cost of living, current enrollees don't get the cost increase only new enrollees.

Subsidize that 75 percent for 65 +, knowing Republicans, they would try to eliminate that subsidy for those before 65

. I must go now, but keep asking, I will answer tomorrow, Medicare is a godsend

[Hoyt]

63. I have Medicare too, secondary, still working. But I think your estimate is just Part B,

not including Part A (hospital) or drugs. Although your method is probably pretty good for Part B.

Plus, I have a feeling expanding Medicare to 55 year olds wouldn't have much of a subsidy in the real world. Factors that might lower the cost are that utilization would not be as much for 55 to 64 year olds compared to current Medicare population.

[MiddleClass]

96. Exactly, Medicare as a secondary is actually very rare, because it's optional. While you are working

Last edited Fri Aug 4, 2017, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)

At 65+, it becomes primary once you give up work.

Remember the days Medicare premiums were $47? eighties, nineties, tens, until Bush's second term.

I got to ask, if your Medicare increase, over the last 4 or 5 years. I don't know if you're protected from increases when there is no cost of living increase in Social Security. I don't think so.

Hospitalization would have to be negotiated (hopefully unwittingly slipstreamed down to 55) if not, you're right, there would be an extra charge for this 10 years to 65. Hopefully, when you're working you're still paying Medicare tax, while drawing the benefits. (That's why I did not bring up that part, because it gets confusing for people to understand).

Another question, as Medicare is a primary, you can only be responsible for 20 percent of what Medicare allows, no more. Even if Medicare does not allow (meaning 0 dollars) I was wondering which is doubtful, as a secondary does it offer that protection to you or your insurance company? I don't think it covers Medicare advantage, but I could be wrong by evidence is again anecdotal, and nobody really understood what I was asking.

Actuarially speaking, long-term stability, lower-cost per capita, lower expenses, will lead lower premiums

[TexasBushwhacker]

72. $540 is less than most 55-64 year olds pay on the exchange

Considering most 55-64 year olds are healthier than folks that are 65+, their claims will generally be lower, so their buy-in premiums should help to stabilize Medicare overall. Lots of 55-64 work full time for their employer provided health insurance. If they could buy into Medicare at a reasonable price, they may choose to work part time or do consulting work.

[MiddleClass]

97. Great points, Democrats will fight to bring the subsidy down to 55-year-olds making it $139

Going for that, would be a bill that would only require one line,

Erase 65 and replace it with 55 (file oversimplified, but right nonetheless) transferring subsidies.

The second part is one of the main reasons we need this bill, long-term stability, long-term lower expenses, long-term premium reduction (wishful thinking. I think , but possible).

Big picture, 10,000 feet, square footage in Baltimore is a lot cheaper than square footage in midtown Manhattan.

40,000 dollars the year is a lot cheaper than CEOs making $40million a year

[Hoyt]

104. Unfortunately, the $540/month only applies to doctor costs and a few other benefits.

Hospital and other facility costs are not included in that $540, nor are drugs. Somewhat of a mitigating factor is that the Part A Medicare taxes already paid might help reduce the premium for hospital costs, but I bet it's not a lot.

I really think we need a projection for what buying in to Medicare would cost for the 55 - 64 year old population. Until then, we don't know if we are talking about something that would even be affordable without tax subsidies. I'm all for subsidies, but the A-holes in Congress and the Prez are not.

[PoliticAverse]

52. "whether people get behind such legislation." - The less specifics the better...

as this bill is for PR purposes and not intended as an actual bill to pass (there is zero chance
of the Republicans passing such a bill this session).

[Hoyt]

53. This session maybe, but no advantage to pushing a loser pipe dream that I see.

[sandensea]

15. How 'bout Medicare at Birth!

When it comes to health insurance fleecing, we'll never do much more than beat around the bush until we enact Medicare for All.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

I'm just happy to see the Democrats stepping up with something, anything

The time is now to push for Medicare For All, but I'm not hopeful either party will do it

[MiddleClass]

34. Baby steps, you would have a full frontal, all hands on deck insurance war

Whereas 55 + you are taking an expensive age group of their books. They would love it, for it, support

[Johnyawl]

65. Exactly right, Middleclass!

That's the way to sell it to the republicans. If we take the high risk, high cost older people out of the insurance pool we don't have to have that hated mandate. They could repeal the mandate and claim victory! lol

[MiddleClass]

94. Now we are cooking, but we don't give up the mandate that easy, make them work for it

The only fault I had with Obama, is more of an understanding which I liked was he was more professorial than politician. Remember Obama care, I get this half, and you take that half, and everyone's happy. WRONG, Republicans, they took their half and then argued for half of what's left. One was an professor, the other a politician.

Dealing with Republicans, remember they are conservatives, debate what they would be getting and why it's good for them, don't even mention it would be good for everybody because they don't want that, they would look at it as what is it costing them. Hold the mandate, because insurance would be a lot cheaper anyway without the top 30 percent of cost drivers

[Voltaire2]

139. I'm fine with interim steps.

This should have been done as part of the great recession rescue package, it should be done now to relieve the ACA of some of its financial strain.

[yurbud]

19. this is the kind of thing that cam save the Democratic Party

[kimbutgar]

20. This is a GREAT idea and marketing point.

I look forward to other things the Democrats will introduce between now and 2018. Unfortunately they won't be inacted but at least it will show what the Democratic Party stands for.

There is energy now in the resistance. And the Democrats are paying attention......finally.

I could see a commercial with popular over 55 singers singing a song like they had when Obama was running,

[jayschool2013]

24. This was a part of Hillary's campaign

I just turned 55 and reached eligible age to retire from the state of Colorado. Had Clinton won and gotten this enacted, I would have slid into part-time employment and let someone younger take my position. Not a big deal for me, but think of all the jobs that could be opened if people between 55 and 65 were able to opt into Medicare.

[leftstreet]

25. That's true

I believe she also talked about a potential public option

Unfortunately, I don't know if either idea got much media coverage

[workinclasszero]

26. Yes it was

What could have been is hard to think about now as Trump and the republicans sell out and destroy America.

[JDC]

27. And no Joe Lieberman to kill it this go around!

[karynnj]

73. However, unlike 2009, there are not 59 other Democratic Senators

It was never tested by a vote, but if the other 59 were really in, Lieberman likely cost ACA big as that would have been a popular thing to do.

[JDC]

79. Yeah. Maybe Colins and Merkowski will step up

So Manchin can vote against it and make it a vote short again....taking a giant leap that it got to that point of course.

[MiddleClass]

28. That's great, people above 55 deserve to get the financial protections afforded seniors

That is the age that people lose everything because one spouse gets a serious illness.

Just when they have a problem to deal with, financial ruin, not the on top that.

If this doesn't catch fire, reintroduce, reintroduce, with Democrats in power, reintroduce

[smirkymonkey]

29. Hear, hear!

[tiredtoo]

30. In America

We all pay for each others healthcare.

[KentuckyWoman]

32. The timing could not be more perfect.

Now it's time to push and shove like there's no tomorrow.

[MiddleClass]

40. Push it now, if fails, push it again right before the election, when Republicans are running for the

Lifeboats

[extvbroadcaster]

35. I would love it

I'm almost 59 and could retire if not for healthcare costs. Who can afford big deductibles and $700 or more a month? I have friends that pay close so $1000 a month. If costs were just reasonable, like 300 or 400 a month I could handle it. It is hard to face your entire budget shot to hell each month for healthcare. What are you supposed to live on? I was hoping Hillary would fix obamacare. Instead the orange anus and the GOP are going to make me work until I am 65 at least. I'd love to retire and give my job to a young man. But no. I have to keep going. My mom and dad were both retired at my age. With pensions and healthcare. Thanks to the UAW, which has been gutted. My dad always voted democratic. He said the republicans did not want the working man to have anything. He was right.

[leftstreet]

43. Welcome to DU

The sad thing is, in all of Trump's vague campaigning about Obamacare/ACA bad! wrong! etc - he never once talked about a specific plan to make any improvements. Yet people who weren't getting any help heard him and cheered in spite of the vagueness

At least we're hearing some concrete ideas now.

Hopefully more

[raccoon]

88. Yeah, he sure had that right. I think that's been true since St. Ronnie. nt

He said the republicans did not want the working man to have anything. He was right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

36. Hope I live that long. 10 years to go.

[LovingA2andMI]

39. That's Our Senator....

Senator Debbie Stabenow. THANK YOU DEBBIE....oh and the Kid Rock Thing is BS. Senator Stabenow is LOVED in Michigan, she will Campaign Hard and she WILL BE RE-ELECTED!

[AllyCat]

41. Great news, but would be more affordable if

EVERYONE was able to buy in.

[leftstreet]

46. Yeah

I agree. And I'm actually pretty cynical that what we'll be hearing are half-measures to quell the TIDE of citizen protests that started with Trump's attempt at repeal

But, credit where it's due

At least the conversation is turning away from repeal to improvement

[AllyCat]

69. Right on!

[lindysalsagal]

42. Leaving only a 30 year gap between parental coverage and Medicare. Getting there.....

Fingers crossed.

[DesertRat]

44. Medicare buy-in at 55 was part of Hillary Clinton's platform but she didn't hype it much.

Link to tweet

[kellytore]

47. Buy in costs according to CBO could be high.

In a 2008 study, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the per-person premium for a “revenue-neutral” Medicare buy-in option (one that doesn’t cost the Government more) from age 62-64 would be $7,600 per person. Given increases in medical costs since then, the annual premium could be as high as $11,000 per person today. The only way to solve health insurance is to go to a universal payment system through the government. Even if it were to be a national sales tax, everyone would pay including young healthy individuals. If we could get the lobbyists for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies off the hill we could do what is best for everyone.

[leftstreet]

48. I didn't know the CBO had estimated it

Yikes!

[MiddleClass]

131. If you add in 55 61 , it would be way cheaper. Because 62 4. I'm assuming is because

Your leading in basically only who sign up for early SS withdrawal, usually those in bad health, laid off because of sick time, worn out coal miners, truck drivers, brick layers cannot handle because of advanced age.

That's my assumption if the Congressional budget office look into it. Probably a request from concerned Democrats. I say go everybody over 55, good or bad, (sorry for the derogatory word use) it would make the bottom line number a lot better. Which would make passage more likely.

Democrats got to stop thinking like Democrats and debate it in Republicans language while getting what you want without saying it. Conservatives conserve, basically self-centered work it.

[roamer65]

49. Make it available for employers to offer to employees.

[PoliticAverse]

66. Please, let's not tie Medicare to employers now, it is bad enough regular health insurance is. n/t

[roamer65]

110. It it already "tied" to many employers health plans.

Many companies have clauses within their health plans where those who reach 65, must enroll into Medicare and it is made it their primary payor. The employer plan, if offered, then becomes secondary.

If we go to Medicare at 55, then a large majority of these companies will slide that clause forward 10 years...to offload the costs of insuring middle aged folks.

[MiddleClass]

135. Making it more likely to pass. Fog and hot water

It's the path to Medicare for all.

Remember the rat cannot resist the cheese, the fish cannot resist the lure.

It's the capitalist way, greed drives efficiency, when there is no more efficiency to be had, companies turn to artificially boost in stock prices, leading to the stockholders devouring the company.

Fisher carriages.
Alexanders
Woollworth
the Wiz
Caldors
and now Sears.
Next
Macy's, Pennies, I forget the third.

They got the fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase per unit profit!
Just help them along…

[Old Crow]

55. Two words: FUCK YES

Maybe there's hope for this country yet. I have always thought the way to segue to national health care was to progressively step down the age cutoff for Medicare. First 55, then a few years later 50, then 45, etc. Minimal disruption to the economy and people's livelihoods.

[lordsummerisle]

67. k&r n/t

[LudwigPastorius]

70. Oh, hell yeah!

Of course it doesn't stand a chance, but at least it forces those GOP fucksticks to kill it. And, coming on the heels of their high profile, self-induced health care fiasco, it's going to make for tasty mid-term election fodder.

[BigmanPigman]

71. Yeah, this age group really needs it!

[FairWinds]

74. Where are the establishment "Dem" senators on this . . . ?

Answer: Hiding out in the bushes waiting to sabotage Medicare for All.

Primary Them

[SunSeeker]

75. Democrats showing they work for the people!

[Warpy]

76. Damn, is THIS overdue

The corporate expiration date for anyone who isn't well connected enough to be moved into one of the executive suites is 55 and has been for many decades. They cut people loose at 55, usually at the peak of their productivity, because acutarial tables tell them those folks are going to start to cost their insurance plans more money.

Clearly, our "best healthcare in the world" system has been insane for a very long time.

Republicans, of course, are dedicated to killing Medicare completely because it doesn't fit their dogma.

[Freddie]

77. Not only is this a great idea but

Getting most of the 55 - 65 group out if the private insurance pool would greatly reduce premiums for those under 55, thus encouraging more to sign up.

[ileus]

78. Forget buying into, we need to lower the age to 55.

8 years and I could retire.

[7962]

80. Hey, I could deal with that!!

[DeminPennswoods]

81. Monthy premium/cost info

Here is the current cost info for 2017: https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/index.html

AFAIK, the "hold harmless" clause only applies to enrollees who didn't get a SSA COLA and who are at or below the lowest income threshhold. When medicare costs rise, that cost is spread over all the remaining enrollees. It's my understanding that with the likely issuance of an SSA COLA in 2018, the cost will rise for monthly for the "hold harmless" enrollees and fall for the remaining ones due to medicare program costs now being spread over the entire enrollee population.

[CountAllVotes]

95. If you fall into this group

You get no COLA until you reach the cost of what Medicare costs (part B) now.

If you ever manage to find your way out of this hole, you may eventually see an increase in your SS but likely not ever again given the way things are going so you are indeed stuck and what you get now will likely be the story for the rest of your life as the cost of Medicare is going up more than the COLA is.

However, if you are RICH, you will pay more and rightly so.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html

I have for someone that pays over $300/mo. It means they are likely a millionaire if retired as they have a taxable income of over $160,000 likely due to dividends -- that is where this high income comes from as you do not get $160,000 a year from SS that is for sure. These same people are bitching away about the ACA! They got theirs and they think they pay too much!

[DeminPennswoods]

149. You don't not get a COLA

Everyone who is entitled to a COLA gets one. It may or may not cover whatever the increase in the medicare premium is, but to say one doesn't get a COLA is incorrect. IIRC, premium increases cannot exceed the COLA percent. For ex, if the COLA is 2%, the medicare premium cannot increase by more than 2%.

[CountAllVotes]

150. The COLA goes towards Medicare premiums

and as for you, you are out of luck unless they quit raising the premiums as to allow one to finally get the COLA which Medicare will suck up into what looks like indefinitely best I can tell.

[DeminPennswoods]

155. Cola does not go to "all premiums"

If for ex, your SSA is $1000, your medicare is $109 and the COLA is 2%, your new SSA is $1020, your new medicaide is $111.18, leaving you a net monthly gain of about $9.

Railroad retirement works a bit differently and beneficiaries may or may not get a COLA.

[CountAllVotes]

156. Well they sucked it all up last year

Neither of us got a red cent but our Medicare premiums went up. Myself to $105; spouse $104 still. He's a vet and receives a pittance. Shameful IMO.

We aren't expecting anything. The COLA (say 2% = ~$20 on $1,000) would cause me to pay $125 for Medicare and spouse would be paying $116 a month on his paltry >$600. Thank you for your service Sir.

We are still below the cost of $132 for new recipients and still living in poverty.

[obamanut2012]

83. Some folks could retire much earlier if this happned

[llmart]

119. Well, some could...

but let's be honest here. Health insurance is only one of the bills we're talking about here. Plus, Medicare covers only 80% of charges and you are responsible for the other 20% unless you get a more expensive supplement plan. Then there's the most likely scenarios of having all your other bills to pay. Just because people may get Medicate at 55 doesn't mean they don't have mortgages, car payments, no pensions, etc.

So yes, SOME people (those that are relatively well off) could retire early, but this alone isn't going to get most middle class people to quit their jobs. However, they could decide to just do part time. Again, it depends on all their other bills. Some dual career couples waited to have children until they were 40 and they'll still have teenagers and college to pay for at 55.

[MiddleClass]

140. You're right, that option with only be available for the comfortably situated

The huge part is protection offered to that age group for future medical diagnosis that would spiral you into bankruptcy, especially if you're like most people like their coverage, finally found out. It sucks. And then your employer lays you off because your spouse got a diagnosis and employer's cost of providing insurance went up.

Imagine, quietly eliminating the major reason 50-year-olds gets laid off after 30 years of perfect service, all while minimizing future bankruptcies and house foreclosures. Win-win.

[obamanut2012]

165. I said SOME, and you are wrong about well off

I know so many middle class pink and white collar folks, not rich at all, who would retire after their 30 years if they didn't need employer-based health insurance.

[llmart]

166. I guess it depends on how you define "well off"...

My definition is if you can quit your job over health insurance and still pay your bills, then in my mind you are well off.

Sometimes when people say they'd quit their jobs if they had health insurance, they just say that, but if it happened to them and they had to reassess their situation, they might not.

I know too many people who spent years saying they were going to retire at 50. The ones that did mostly regretted it and either got part time jobs somewhere or are bored to death at home.

[roomtomove]

84. Why not Mediare at birth.....?????? This is half-assed.......

eom

[leftstreet]

92. I don't disagree

Yeah, it's half-assed. It's also a potential shot-across-the-bow at forces pushing Medicare for All or any public healthcare plan

But credit where it's due - at least they're getting it into the conversation

To me, that this DU thread got you to join the conversation is a win

[Pacifist Patriot]

85. If you haven't read Franken's book, "Giant of the Senate" I highly recommend it.

Knew before clicking on the link he'd be one of the co-sponsors.

They tried this when negotiating for the ACA and it got sent to the chopping block. He makes an argument that this would lower premiums for both medicare and the exchange. The medicare group gains a healthier segment in their pool because 55-64 tends to be healthier than 64+, and the market place loses some of their most expensive segment being the oldest group in that pool.

I like it.

[NurseJackie]

86. Makes me PROUD to be a DEMOCRAT!!! I like how they focus on getting things DONE...

... rather than, well, you know.... I'll just leave it at that.

[dhill926]

91. good start....

[Wounded Bear]

93. I would go to 50 myself, but it's a great idea...

It would cover a lot of people, especially those who have been "aged" out of the job market.

[usrbs]

98. I just called my 2 MA Democratic senators, asking them to support this. n/t

[MiddleClass]

142. A personal thank you, we should all call

Politicians come up with their own angle, more of this less of that and they divide up all the support.

Calls for one plan, the simple plan, the most achievable plan, focuses support on that plan.

Believe me, it helps and reduces each one's special interest

[TryLogic]

99. They should probably include persons under 30, as a way of balancing the risk.

[leftstreet]

100. Yes

At which point it's practically Medicare For All, and that would great

[brooklynite]

101. Bernie Sanders not a sponsor?

Not good enough?

[NurseJackie]

112. Half a loaf is better than defiantly starving to death. I'll take half a loaf, please...

... and thank you.

[DoodAbides]

117. It is the very definition of progression. One step forward. nt

[Honeycombe8]

107. Yay! We have to start somewhere. nt

[DoodAbides]

109. I think this is a very very good move and can be well implemented in Blue states, with support.

I like this move. I think it is smart. I think it will pay off.

[KWR65]

113. Let's set up Medicare for all

We would all pay a 3% flat tax and each employer would pay $11k for each employee. If you want to not use it and buy your own health insurance then that would eliminate the 3% for you, but once you opt out there is no un-ringing the bell. Employers would not be able to opt out of the $11k per year otherwise they will pressure young employees to sign a waiver that would effect the rest of their life.

[llmart]

114. Oh, I am quite sure...

that Kid Rock has a much better plan in the works.

[leftstreet]

115. LOL

But of course!

[George II]

118. Thanks to these Senators who sponsored and co-sponsored it:

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Al Franken (D-MN)

[llmart]

120. Yes!

Debbie Stabenow is my Senator and she's terrific.

[NurseJackie]

122. AL FRANKEN totally ROCKS!! He's one of us... A *TRUE* DEMOCRAT (IYKWIM)

[George II]

136. And funny, too. Love that guy.

[NurseJackie]

138. I like his demeanor, his speaking style... and his homespun humor. He...

... is the kind of guy who's not "full of himself" and never feels the need to insult or put-down other liberals and progressives to elevate his own stature. His main concern is finding ways to benefit his constituents and our nation... not in lining his own pockets or trying to out-shine his peers.

All of our politicians could learn a less from him and should follow the excellent example he sets.

[NurseJackie]

125. Is this limited to "Democrats Only"? Are there any Independents or moderate Republicans interested

... in making some progress that benefits the American people? Now is not the time for any of our elected leaders to put personal pride or misplaced party loyalty above the real needs of our citizens.

I hope that others sign on, no matter that their affiliation may be.

[Eliot Rosewater]

127. I am bothered by how many Democrats didnt sign on, and one that is neither

who didnt sign on.

I expect the GOP to vote against my survival, they hate me.

As bothered as I am about the other Democrats, I will support them and vote for them (where I can) as if my life depends on it.

Does seem to be one name in particular missing.

[leftstreet]

129. I have no idea

Good question

I don't watch tv, so I don't even know if this is getting any attention

[George II]

133. Get it right - it's ALL or nothing for some!!!

[NurseJackie]

137. I know what you mean. I really don't understand why some take such PRIDE at...

... accomplishing NOTHING and making NO progress at all. And the irony is that down through the years, those all-or-nothing and no-compromise politicians have slowed things down... the exact OPPOSITE of what they've all claimed to have wanted. If you even mention the word "compromise" or the phrase "finding common ground" those politicians feel so put-upon that someone is actually asking them to make an EFFORT.

I mean, seriously now, ANYONE can sit there and say "no" "no" "no" all day long. When my children were toddlers, even THEY had that "skill". --- What we need from our politicians is maturity and courage... respect and courtesy... not pride and vanity.

Fortunately we have a handful of DEMOCRATS who are leading the way and setting a good example. I hope that others will follow that example.

[DownriverDem]

128. Excellent!

Sen. Stabenow is a hard worker for Michigan! Her opponent might be Kid Rock. We certainly don't need another rich guy who is clueless as to what we the people want and need.

[Scurrilous]

143. K&R

[bhowle]

144. How much $$ ??

So if you're under 65, how much will it cost to "buy in"?

[TheFrenchRazor]

147. sounds good. nt

[Not Ruth]

153. I would like to see Social Security match the 55 years old change

That would be amazing

[samnsara]

154. Any of them for Prez!

[leftstreet]

158. Sadly, no

A Google news search still only returns the HuffPo report and a local Michigan news site

[WinkyDink]

161. Man, this would have saved me about $70k in insurance payments to be a retiree in my former

Group Plan.

[demtenjeep]

164. I am 50 this would be nice for me

as currently I can't retire for another 7 years but this would definitely make retirement closer. With my illness I figured I would die in the classroom . With this, I might actually have a few years to enjoy.