Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The New York Post is a tabloid, not a news organization or newspaper. It's not a source of reliable information.
I didn't read the article, but I have concerns about Medicare for All affecting Medicare. But who knows what hte effect would be.
There is zero chance that that plan would pass in our lifetime (even if one of the candidates who is pushing that becomes the nominee, which is doubtful). So there's no reason to say that "Medicare is in trouble," when there are just some candidates promising something that can't be passed into law, so they get votes. Candidates sometimes have big plans that have no real chance of becoming law.
Not all Democratic candidates want Medicare for All. Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar do not, as well as a few others. It's mainly Sanders and I think Warren who push that.
Most so called experts predict it will run out in 2034, but by then changes will more than likely be made to continue it on and on. It's very popular with the majority of the population.
Most so called experts predict it will run out in 2034, but by then changes will more than likely be made to continue it on and on. It's very popular with the majority of the population.
I believe 2034 is the year that the Social Security surplus will be exhausted. Medicare much sooner.
I think they won’t be reduced but Medicare Advantage is one way to reduce the load. But Medicare for all would definitely bankrupt the system, if Medicare for over 65 is already in trouble.
advantage plans only reduce the load if you don't fall in to their cliffs . they can end up costing 2x the amount of a medigap plan. many low to no premium are basically pay as you go
As with SS a simple approach is to increase the premium to the price point where it works. Problem is many Americans don't want to pay for someone else.
With wealth not income concentrated in the hands of so few ( top 30%) asking them to pay so much more than they currently do is probably not achievable.
don't forget we spend our working life time paying in to medicare for PART A .. part B is user and gov't funded on a sliding income scale with the highest earners paying 80% of the actual costs .
medicare for all would never survive without those people paying in for many many years first for PART A like we did . that is why now it is free to us . we paid for it over a lifetime of working first .
Hopefully all the refugees moving here will get high paying jobs and contribute to social security and medicare coffers.
According to the 2018 FAIR (The Federation for American Immigration Reform) study which a summary was published in the Washington Examiner most refugees enter the US and other countries with no financial resources and few marketable job skills. After they have settled for 5 years the majority of refugees that were able to obtain jobs, the average pay received from those jobs is $11/hour.
Hopefully all the refugees moving here will get high paying jobs and contribute to social security and medicare coffers. Even Japan is allowing non Japanese immigrants for that very reason.
The # of refugees coming into the U.S. is a drop in the bucket for our huge country.
But any worker, whether refugee or citizen or immigrant, must pay into Medicare for a certain length of time in order to qualify for it. Social Security, too. If they don't end up qualifying for it, SS and Medicare keep their taxes they and their employers paid into it.
A highly paid worker will qualify for those programs, and use what they paid into it, if not more. So the country actually comes out ahead with the lower paid workers who come here later in life.
Both SS and Medicare have been expanded over the years to pay for certain things for people who have not paid into those programs for years. That has a lot to do with the financial issues those programs are having. SS pays for disability, even though a worker hasn't worked long enough to qualify for it. Medicare pays for dialysis and some things for people who don't qualify to get regular Medicare.
SS also continues to pay a nonworking spouse, if the SS beneficiary dies. That should probably be looked at, since most spouses work these days, anyway. And maybe it's time to expect everyone to contribute to the economy by working, if they expect to get any SS benefit, whether theirs or their spouse's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
