Sherrod Brown Wants Medicare Buy-In at Age 50 as an Option Now

quote:

---

It’s a no brainer politically

---

Except for the fact that Medicare is already broke at its existing level.

Laugh all you want amigo but Medicare Buy-In for 50 and above could swing an election the Democrats way especially in the face of no plan?

Ready for this

80% of Voters believe it’s a good plan
Including 70% of Republicans

The number one issue in 2020 will be Healthcare and killing Obamacare won’t be an option. Republicans need to grab the intitative and frame the debate.

quote:

---

Medicare Part A is in financial trouble (consists of impatient hospital insurance) because there is no ongoing funding mechanism to support the program.

---

You got some numbers to support that?

quote:

---

The rest of Medicare is solvent but allowing people to buy into Medicare who are younger and more healthy helps the program.

---

I don't think so. Giving the option to 50 year olds to opt into Medicare screams adverse selection. You're also opening up private plans for cream skimming, doubling down on the problem.

No mechanism besides Medicare taxes cut out of paychecks. Goes without saying but my bad

quote:

---

LINK /

Hospital insurance

The report is an annual exercise designed to review the health of the nation’s biggest health insurance program. It looks in detail at each of Medicare’s pieces, including Part A inpatient hospital insurance; Part B coverage for outpatient hospital care, physician services, and the like; Part C Medicare Advantage plans; and Part D drug insurance.

Those “going broke” headlines are all about Part A Hospital insurance (HI), which accounted for about 40 percent of the program’s $710 billion in spending in 2017. HI mostly is funded by the Medicare tax that is withheld from worker paychecks and paid by the self-employed. And that tax—as well as other smaller sources of revenue– is not sufficient to pay the bills. It hasn’t been for years.

---

quote:

---

I love how Obamacare being so shitty makes healthcare a huge issue in our elections now. Obamacare worked perfectly. Break our healthcare system and make the government take over.

---

Healthcare has always been a big issue and access is only getting harder & more expensive. Might as well live in reality that Obamacare is here to stay. Medicare for all is way too expensive but allowing 50-64 year olds to buy in could lower our premiums and hopefully give us better coverage. Here’s the thing. Older voters under the gun will vote for a Democrat who come forward with this type of plan vs the status quo. It’s the type of policy position that could neutralize it even give Trump an advantage on healthcare in 2020.

quote:

---

No mechanism besides Medicare taxes cut out of paychecks. Goes without saying but my bad

quote:
LINK /

Hospital insurance

The report is an annual exercise designed to review the health of the nation’s biggest health insurance program. It looks in detail at each of Medicare’s pieces, including Part A inpatient hospital insurance; Part B coverage for outpatient hospital care, physician services, and the like; Part C Medicare Advantage plans; and Part D drug insurance.

Those “going broke” headlines are all about Part A Hospital insurance (HI), which accounted for about 40 percent of the program’s $710 billion in spending in 2017. HI mostly is funded by the Medicare tax that is withheld from worker paychecks and paid by the self-employed. And that tax—as well as other smaller sources of revenue– is not sufficient to pay the bills. It hasn’t been for years.

---

Essentially, the article is saying that funding isn't there for all four parts no matter the revenue source.

quote:

---

Thing is the ACA has too many older sick people in the pool. The theory is by moving 50-64 year olds (voluntarily) into Medicare Buy-In it should lower the price of plans in ACA. LINK quote: Theoretically, adding a relatively younger group to Medicare's membership -- the spritely 55-to-64 set -- could cushion Medicare's finances by diluting the risk pool. In a 2009 paper on the possibilities, the National Center for Policy Analysis said 57 percent of people ages 55 to 64 who buy their own insurance report excellent or very good health, and the same went for people in that age group who get coverage from their employers. Another 13 to 14 percent reported poor health. Contrast that with this statistic from the Kaiser Family Foundation: In 2011, 27 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries were in fair or poor health.

---

Methinks these Senators didn't have decent healthcare economists advising them along the way. And for the record, KFF is an advocacy group, not a neutral nonpartisan source.

I'll explain it more clearly: giving the option to a wider (mostly already subsidized) group is the very definition of adverse selection for risk pools. The vast majority of Americans in the 50 - 64 age range are still in their earning years (and thus covered). The group that would be opting in for this would be less than ideal, to say the least.

For Medicare, it's about controlling costs. It's always been about controlling costs, and it will always be about controlling costs as long as the program exists. All they're doing is kicking the proverbial can down the road - and probably making the actuarial pieces worse - by adding a group that is predisposed to poorer health. That's patchworking with an extra revenue source that probably won't cover the additional costs.

My individual Medicare premiums are almost $500/mo plus my supplement.

I can't to see what my new premiums will be.

quote:

---

80% of Voters believe it’s a good plan
Including 70% of Republicans

---

God damn we need poll tests.

quote:

---

The rest of Medicare is solvent but allowing people to buy into Medicare who are younger and more healthy helps the program.

---

I haven't thought much about this and haven't done the research but I would imagine the younger and healthy would not be the ones to switch to Medicare. Just a guess, though.