Are you worried that Medicare will run out of money?

[swampwiz]

SCARY STUFF:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-crisis-almost-185009238.html

[seattlecyclone]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no law of nature stating that Medicare and Social Security can only be funded from the revenue of one particular tax. A law of man is what set this system up. A law of man could change it so that these programs are funded similarly to the rest of the federal government programs: from a variety of taxes and debt as needed. By allowing funding to lapse for social security or Medicare, Congress would essentially be saying that these programs are a lower priority than everything else the federal government does, as we are willing to take on debt to fund most things but somehow we can't do so for senior citizens. Is that a wise prioritization? That's for the voters and their representatives to decide. As for me, if something has to be cut I'd choose war over seniors.

[DreamFIRE]

SCARY STUFF:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-crisis-almost-185009238.html

Not worried, but I expect there to be changes.  Look for the eligibility age to be increased 5 years and for Medicare to be turned into a voucher program that gets you a coupon discount on a high deductible healthcare plan.  Means testing will kick in, so you won't even get the discount if the government thinks you can afford it on your own.

[soccerluvof4]

I agree with ^^.... I do not think in anyway it will be gone but how it is subsidized and how its paid out will change. The whole system has been broken for so long that its going to take going broke before its addressed like everything else sadly

[stoaX]

Not worried either.  Somewhere in the back of my mind I have vague memories of scary articles saying that social security and medicare will run out of money in the 1980's, in the 1990's, in the 2000's...

While financing these programs is a serious subject to be concerned about, I agree with the others that changes will be made to keep it going.  Or they will someday be replaced by a universal income arrangement and / or national healthcare scheme.

[Exflyboy]

Not worried.. Having a sizable stash will put a buffer between the FIRED types and the poor souls who will retire on Social Security as their sole means of support.

Either that or simply retire abroad to somewhere cheaper.. Like ANYWHERE as far as HC is concerned.

[Telecaster]

SCARY STUFF:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-crisis-almost-185009238.html

You posted this same link recently.  Maybe go back and read the previous thread and see if there is something you can expand on. 

[mm1970]

I find these posts...interesting.  This one and the other down below.

I was reading this:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-crisis-almost-185009238.html

The article says that means-testing will have to put in place.  So what this seems to mean is that folks who had splurged during their earning years will get the full benefit, but the "badasses" who scrimped & saved and have a nice nest egg will get the benefit reduced away.  As for myself, I had a feeling this would eventually come out, so I didn't bother building a big enough nest egg (of course if my stock market investments soar, I won't be sad!) just so I could be assured of getting the complete benefit.

[Sibley]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

[soccerluvof4]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

yes! so true

[DreamFIRE]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

The politicians address that issue by simply stating that nothing will change for "current" seniors and those near retirement.  Younger people are only concerned about immediate gratification and not programs for support in the distant future, that is, until they are older themselves, and find it's too late and that they are screwed.

Even on this forum, I've read many comments from members a long way from FRA that state that they don't factor in SS in their projections and will consider it a bonus if they actually get something.  Those people aren't going to fight (or vote) nearly as hard to keep it as seniors and those who are much closer to receiving it.  So you just have to exclude them from the changes.

[mm1970]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

The politicians address that issue by simply stating that nothing will change for "current" seniors and those near retirement.  Younger people are only concerned about immediate gratification and not programs for support in the distant future, that is, until they are older themselves, and find it's too late and that they are screwed.

Even on this forum, I've read many comments from members a long way from FRA that state that they don't factor in SS in their projections and will consider it a bonus if they actually get something.  Those people aren't going to fight (or vote) nearly as hard to keep it as seniors and those who are much closer to receiving it.  So you just have to exclude them from the changes.

BUT: SS =/= Medicare

End of life medical care is EXPENSIVE.

[wenchsenior]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

The politicians address that issue by simply stating that nothing will change for "current" seniors and those near retirement.  Younger people are only concerned about immediate gratification and not programs for support in the distant future, that is, until they are older themselves, and find it's too late and that they are screwed.

Even on this forum, I've read many comments from members a long way from FRA that state that they don't factor in SS in their projections and will consider it a bonus if they actually get something.  Those people aren't going to fight (or vote) nearly as hard to keep it as seniors and those who are much closer to receiving it.  So you just have to exclude them from the changes.

BUT: SS =/= Medicare

End of life medical care is EXPENSIVE.

Right.  And there have been a lot of discussions on this board where younger members (IMO) dramatically underestimate the costs associated with healthcare and aging that they are likely to incur.  Young people feel fairly bulletproof (I certainly did, despite being born with a chronic endocrine condition) and usually have only vague ideas of how costs associated with aging are paid for, until they are forced to deal PERSONALLY with their own grandparents or parents needing care.

Also, plenty of younger people mistakenly assume that Medicare = 1) free healthcare; 2) Medicare covers long term care or in home care, dental work, etc.   If you are lucky, you learn better via grandparents when you are still in your 20s or 30s.  If you don't learn until you deal with your own parents, you could be in your 40s or 50s before you are forced to face the realities of those costs and start worrying about how you will manage them. 

By that time, it might be too late for your vote on those programs to matter as much.

[DreamFIRE]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

The politicians address that issue by simply stating that nothing will change for "current" seniors and those near retirement.  Younger people are only concerned about immediate gratification and not programs for support in the distant future, that is, until they are older themselves, and find it's too late and that they are screwed.

Even on this forum, I've read many comments from members a long way from FRA that state that they don't factor in SS in their projections and will consider it a bonus if they actually get something.  Those people aren't going to fight (or vote) nearly as hard to keep it as seniors and those who are much closer to receiving it.  So you just have to exclude them from the changes.

BUT: SS =/= Medicare

End of life medical care is EXPENSIVE.

Right.  And there have been a lot of discussions on this board where younger members (IMO) dramatically underestimate the costs associated with healthcare and aging that they are likely to incur.  Young people feel fairly bulletproof (I certainly did, despite being born with a chronic endocrine condition) and usually have only vague ideas of how costs associated with aging are paid for, until they are forced to deal PERSONALLY with their own grandparents or parents needing care.

Also, plenty of younger people mistakenly assume that Medicare = 1) free healthcare; 2) Medicare covers long term care or in home care, dental work, etc.   If you are lucky, you learn better via grandparents when you are still in your 20s or 30s.  If you don't learn until you deal with your own parents, you could be in your 40s or 50s before you are forced to face the realities of those costs and start worrying about how you will manage them. 

By that time, it might be too late for your vote on those programs to matter as much.

Exactly - this goes right along with the point I was making.

[swampwiz]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's no law of nature stating that Medicare and Social Security can only be funded from the revenue of one particular tax. A law of man is what set this system up. A law of man could change it ...

This sounds like what one of the contestants in "The Hunger Games" said about "The Tournament".  (As that is popular with young folks, I doubt that many folks here have seen that series of movies.)

[swampwiz]

Senior citizens are the most reliable voters. You mess with their health care, and you're going to have all the grannys and old coots coming after you with pitchforks (I just like that imagery). A politician will defund Medicare at their peril, and will likely be looking for a new job next election. Or earlier if there's recalls.

Interestingly, this is happening even in the flawed democracy of Russian, after the government raised the age of pensions (i.e., during the communist times, everyone worked for the government, so everyone's pension is from the government), the pitchforks started coming out.

[TheWifeHalf]

No, I don't worry because I save the worrying part of my brain for things I can do something about. Like Social Security I assume it's not going to be there, so have lived accordingly.

[frugalecon]

SCARY STUFF:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-crisis-almost-185009238.html

Not worried, but I expect there to be changes.  Look for the eligibility age to be increased 5 years and for Medicare to be turned into a voucher program that gets you a coupon discount on a high deductible healthcare plan.  Means testing will kick in, so you won't even get the discount if the government thinks you can afford it on your own.

Means testing already exists under Medicare. Part B premiums are much higher for people with higher AGIs. (Let me introduce you to IRMAA: https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html)

[DreamFIRE]

SCARY STUFF:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/medicare-crisis-almost-185009238.html

Not worried, but I expect there to be changes.  Look for the eligibility age to be increased 5 years and for Medicare to be turned into a voucher program that gets you a coupon discount on a high deductible healthcare plan.  Means testing will kick in, so you won't even get the discount if the government thinks you can afford it on your own.

Means testing already exists under Medicare. Part B premiums are much higher for people with higher AGIs. (Let me introduce you to IRMAA: https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs/part-b-costs.html)

You missed some key points in my comment and seemed to only notice the words, "means testing".  I wasn't talking about means testing the current Medicare Plan B benefits but moving Medicare to a voucher based system, which recipients could use to purchase private insurance (this is something the republicans have promoted for years).  The means testing I mentioned as part of that would be related to you losing the voucher completely (as I mentioned previously) if your income and/or assets exceeded a threshold.

Under current Medicare, Medicare Part A is free if you have enough work history.  Only Part B is relevant to what you linked to, although that's a pretty small price to pay for the additional income required to trigger it.  Despite that, you would be a lot better off under the current Medicare system than what I outlined, which would be bad for all seniors and would drop all benefits for wealthier seniors.

[EnjoyIt]

NO!

[pecunia]

Congress would essentially be saying that these programs are a lower priority than everything else the federal government does, as we are willing to take on debt to fund most things but somehow we can't do so for senior citizens.

The opening statement did get the wheels turning.  Not just about Social Security, but about what is done for people.  I guess I worry more about health care, long term survival , good roads, drinking water and sewers a lot more than I worry about what the government seems to worry about.  A lot of government effort is done for national security and to thwart terrorists.  I haven't actually seen a whole lot of terrorists in most places I've lived, but have talked to a lot of people who could use a little help with their lives.  I guess this whole environment thing ought to be paid attention to as well.  That fits in with the long term survival.

Instead of helping the people who need help, it looks to me that the government wants to take the help that is given away.

Senior citizens vote so you'd expect that Social Security would not be taken away.  However, corporations also vote with their dollars to our representatives.  This could sway the elected officials to make changes for the corporations benefit rather than for Seniors.  It's pretty easy to lie to old people and tell them that you are making changes for their best interest.  Another thing that can be easily done is just to ignore the issues of older Americans.  That is don't even mention pertinent issues in the media.  Out of sight and out of the minds of the senior citizens.  This makes it so much easier to please those corporate sponsors.

[Exflyboy]

Don't forget the "valuable" Government effort (so they tell us) to thwart Communism!

[DreamFIRE]

Senior citizens vote so you'd expect that Social Security would not be taken away.

Not taken away for current seniors and maybe those closing in on SS, but that consequence can be largely avoided by simply excluding cuts to Medicare/SS for that demographic, as mentioned by a couple of us earlier in this thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/are-you-worried-that-medicare-will-run-out-of-money/msg2078691/#msg2078691

[PDXTabs]

The US medical system, including medicare, is dysfunctional. The whole thing is untenable and headed for eventual collapse or major overhaul. So yes, medicare as we know it will fail or get cut or get fixed. I can't tell you when, how, or what the precipitating event will be. My plan is to FIRE outside of the US to not have to deal with this (and other) issues.

[pecunia]

Not taken away for current seniors and maybe those closing in on SS, but that consequence can be largely avoided by simply excluding cuts to Medicare/SS for that demographic, as mentioned by a couple of us earlier in this thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/are-you-worried-that-medicare-will-run-out-of-money/msg2078691/#msg2078691

Definitely.  The politicians have been talking about medicare and Social Security "reform" for some time.  "Reform" is a very ambiguous term.  The hearing should sharpen and the brain should engage when such dialogue emerges.  In the past I believe there were more politicians who had the best interests of their full constituency in mind.  Today's politicians have special interests in mind.  It may be time to clean house (and Senate).

[EnjoyIt]

Not taken away for current seniors and maybe those closing in on SS, but that consequence can be largely avoided by simply excluding cuts to Medicare/SS for that demographic, as mentioned by a couple of us earlier in this thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/are-you-worried-that-medicare-will-run-out-of-money/msg2078691/#msg2078691

Definitely.  The politicians have been talking about medicare and Social Security "reform" for some time.  "Reform" is a very ambiguous term.  The hearing should sharpen and the brain should engage when such dialogue emerges.  In the past I believe there were more politicians who had the best interests of their full constituency in mind.  Today's politicians have special interests in mind.  It may be time to clean house (and Senate).

republicans and democrats alike.