Would expanding Medicare to younger Americans improve or hurt the program?
Answered by 32 licensed agents
People pay into Medicare all their working life. If Medicare added younger Americans, who have not contributed for as long as others, would likely increase the cost for existing and new Medicare beneficiaries. I am sure you can get a different answer from who ever you ask, so this is my opinion. Many economists debate your big question.
Expanding the Medicare program to younger Americans COULD be a good thing, but like most things, the devil is in the details. That's really a political hot potato issue... there are a few scenarios introduced where it may make some sense.
The answer to that is probably above my pay grade and I assume would have to be very political in nature. Therefore I won't express an opinion at this time. Sorry! :)
Medicare is extended to younger Americans if they qualify for a disability. After being declared disabled for 24 months they would qualify for Medicare Benefits. It would not be cost effective for a younger American to be on Medicare until they reach 65.
It could be great in theory, but there’s a risk. If younger people with health issues join the Medicare Supplement pool, it could drive up premiums for everyone. It all depends on how it’s structured and who’s allowed in.
Medicare is funded by a portion of the wages/salary you earn during your working years.
If younger Americans were to be included, it would dilute the money that is available for each and every Medicare eligible person.
Perhaps an ideal situation is to rid the country of the Affordable Care Act and replace with a system for non-Medicare eligible very similar to the Medicare System but not pulling money from the Medicare system.
The answer, unfortunately, is both. Adding younger people to Medicare would potentially improve the program because, by adding younger people, the risk pool should get more healthy which would improve claims pressure on the Medicare system. Conversely, adding younger people to Medicare would potentially hurt the program because there would be more of a financial squeeze on an already tightly budgeted program and the reimbursement rates to providers would reduce (compared to commercial insurance) which could result in longer wait times for care and a narrower network of providers that participate in the Medicare program.
Off the top of my head, with the added younger generation being a part of it, the money infused into the system will help Medicare since they wouldn’t have the need for the healthcare appointments like their parents do. But don’t hold me to this, since “it ain’t gonna happen”!
We are insurance agents and cannot answer questions or give opinions about the economics of expanding Medicare. This is way beyond our scope of appointment.
I don’t believe it would hurt the program. It may even help. Younger Americans with presumably less health issues would spread out the costs and hopefully allow benefits to not decrease, as well as give younger folks who need reasonably priced health insurance an alternative.
It would be great for under 65 but the cost would be the issue. As over 65 pay in but do not collect until 65 or later, there is ample time for growing the funds to cover it.
To do that for everyone, would force a large increase in payroll taxes I would assume and possibly raise the cost for Part A and B.
This is my opinion, no factual data analysis to support it.
It could help or hurt depending on design. Expanding to younger people could bring in more funding, but if not properly financed, it could strain the system and increase costs.
It's never too early to be educated on how Medicare works. It's always changing and the more you know the better prepared one will be. Not to mention the younger generations have parents that will eventually age into Medicare and they'll be able to advocate for them.
Expanding Medicare to younger Americans has potential benefits and drawbacks for the program, the healthcare system, and taxpayers, depending on how such a policy would be designed and implemented.
Logically making Medicare available to younger individuals would vertically end up bankrupting Medicare’s trust funds a lot sooner that the scheduled date of 2033, where if the U.S. Government does not do something fast will cause those receiving SS and/Medicare to be reduced by about 21%-23% and today - no one can afford to lose that much of their Social Security and pay more into Medicare’s I.R.M.A.A.
also know as the Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount where everyone pays into based on their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). We are in for a rude awakening in 2033.
Medicare is available to all those American citizens that are eligible. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any current evidence concluding that young Americans currently enrolled are improving or hurting the program.
This the question that truly relates to “universal care”. Its impact would depend on whether there is cost sharing and at what level. From there, many of the benefits of Medicare could be provided for the younger generation with minimal premium cost plans without tapping into social security funds.
This would be "Medicare for all", and it would not work. To qualify for Part A Premium free you need 40 working credits. Don't have this, the monthly premium will range from $285-$518 per person, premium depending on credits. Part B is funded per Medicare.gov:
Funds authorized by Congress
Premiums from people enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare drug coverage (Part D) Other sources, like interest earned on the trust fund investments.
We, the public, pay Part B premium of $185.00 (for most) this determined by your income/ taxes 2 years back. The $185.00 is 1/4 of the total premium per person.
The cost "per person " for Part A&B would be ridiculously high if we had Medicare for all.
Lowering the eligibility age from 65 to a younger age, such as 60, or creating a "Medicare buy-in" option that allows younger, non-eligible individuals to purchase coverage through Medicare. While these proposals, supported by figures like President Biden, aim to expand access and lower costs.
This also present significant challenges, including shifting costs to taxpayers, potential impacts on Medicare program finances, and complex design considerations regarding benefits, premiums, cost-sharing, and provider payments.
I feel that including persons under the age of 65 in the pool of medicare eligibles would hurt the program. It would dilute the services seniors receive and would lend itself to the socialization of healthcare.
It's a great question—and one that gets a lot of attention. It could have both positive and negative effects, depending on how it's done. On one hand, bringing in younger, generally healthier individuals could help stabilize long-term finances by balancing out costs. It could also improve access to care for people who currently struggle with high insurance premiums or go without coverage.
On the other hand, Medicare is already facing funding challenges. Adding millions of people without a clear plan to pay for it could strain the system. It could also impact provider access or current beneficiaries if payments to DRS and hospitals are stretched too thin.
Any major change would need to be carefully planned and funded to ensure it strengthens, not weakens, the program.
My role is to help individuals navigate the system as it exists today and prepare for changes if and when they happen.
It would depend on so many things. How much do you mean when you say younger? 5 years, 10, 20? It would be met with mixed results. You would have young healthy people contributing to a system that is designed for the senior market. It may steer health care to a prevention model instead of a pill treatment model, but would the younger generation be willing to contribute the income required? Especially when the have heard for years, how Medicare and Social Security are not secure programs. We may be able to lower the age, but I don't think more than 5 years would be realistic without seeing some in depth info.
Expanding Medicare to younger people would add a lot of healthier enrollees, which sounds like it could help — but the funding math doesn't really work out that way. Medicare is already stretched thin in terms of funding and resources. I think the priority should be strengthening the program for the seniors who rely on it now before expanding it further.
In my opinion this would hurt the Medicare system. Although younger Americans typically have less health expenses, medical costs are always increasing no matter the age and the weight of adding an additional class of Americans would ultimately increase seniors expenses. And part of the younger generation working is that they are paying into not only Social Security but also Medicare. You couldn't pay in and then collect too. I hope this answer helps.
Currently, younger Americans are already able to access the program if they meet certain requirements due to a disability with at least 24 months on SSDI, End stage renal disease or have ALS. From the numbers listed from the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as of this post, 90.2% of enrollees are over 65 and 9.8% are under 65. Most people may not know that younger Americans have access to Medicare if they meet the requirements and you have to ask yourself, have you noticed that about 10% younger population make a difference to the program currently? Now if your questions is in reference to everyone getting access regardless, then what would be the point of all the other programs we currently have established for the younger population with regards to health care? It would be messy if that happened to say the least and yes, many programs would then be hurt.
