Because they need more money to steal from you
1 Like
If not āfreeā, at least more fair.
As to how Medicare plans charge ā¦
The first problem is called āadverse selectionā. People would only ābuyā the higher premium/better coverage, only when they needed it.
The full explanation:
āThis term describes the tendency for individuals with a higher-than-average risk of needing healthcare to be more likely to purchase insurance. When this happens, the insurance company faces a higher-than-expected claims burden, which can lead to increased premiums or even financial losses.ā
Secondly, most of the Part B, Medicare premiums, written through their many different, state regulated, insurance companies, are āage ratedā, not community rated". This almost always allows an increase in premiums annually because, as we age, generally, we use more medical services.
Community rated explained;
"Premiums are the same for everyone in a specific geographic area, regardless of age or gender.
Pros: Premiums donāt increase due to age.
Cons: Can be more expensive initially than age-related premiums, especially for younger people. "
Neither way really solves the issues/ expense problem.
It could, in my opinion, be corrected by eliminating the ācadillac-likeā benefits that congress & many other government employees receive. Instead, requiring only the same medical plan choices & payment of the same Medicare premiums as Seniors . Youād see how quickly theyād reform the system.
1 Like
Ok, let me take a crack at this;
The frustration here is more than just emotional ā itās rooted in a fundamental policy flaw in how Medicare is financed and administered.
Yes, working Americans do pay into Medicare through payroll taxes (currently 1.45% on all wages, plus an additional 0.9% surtax on high earners). This funds Medicare Part A, which covers hospital care ā and indeed, most eligible seniors receive Part A without an additional monthly premium.
However, the confusion ā and the justified sense of double payment ā arises with Medicare Part B, which covers outpatient care, doctorsā visits, and preventive services. Unlike Part A, Part B is not funded by payroll taxes alone. Instead, itās funded roughly 25% by enrollee premiums and 75% by general federal revenue. So upon turning 65, even after decades of mandatory payroll contributions, seniors are required to pay a monthly premium ā currently $174.70 for most in 2025 ā for access to Part B.
That premium is not optional. If you refuse to enroll when eligible, youāre penalized with lifetime surcharges unless you have equivalent coverage. And for those collecting Social Security, the premium is automatically deducted from monthly benefits, which feels like being charged again for a system you already funded.
Worse, these deductions come on top of decades of under-indexed Social Security payments, meaning retirees are increasingly squeezed from both ends ā declining purchasing power and rising medical costs. And letās be clear: Medicare doesnāt cover everything. Many seniors pay for supplemental Medigap plans, Part D drug plans, or Advantage plans to get comprehensive coverage ā making Medicare one of the largest out-of-pocket cost burdens for the elderly despite its āearned benefitā status.
The policy failure here is twofold:
- Disconnect between lifetime contributions and post-retirement costs ā People are led to believe that Medicare will be fully covered by payroll taxes, but only a portion is. Thereās no transparent breakdown during working years to clarify that Part B and Part D will come with ongoing costs.
- Inflexible financing and outdated cost structures ā The Medicare model hasnāt adapted to the reality that seniors are living longer, with chronic conditions that require sustained outpatient care ā yet theyāre still shouldering more of the financial burden through fixed premiums rather than a progressive, risk-based model.
If Medicare is going to be a true earned benefit, then at minimum, Part B premiums should be substantially subsidized or waived for retirees below a certain income threshold. Alternatively, payroll taxes could be increased slightly during working years to pre-fund Part B, eliminating the perception (and reality) of a double-payment system.
Until then, the current structure effectively taxes workers once and charges them again later ā undermining the very idea of Medicare as a social insurance program and reinforcing distrust in the fairness of retirement policy.
Nothing is free. The question is, who pays for it?
My insurance company (life, health) finds claims are overall lower than average, because the people who get insurance with them are not risk-takers or people who refuse to work on their health by eating right, etc. The government requires them to charge the same as other insurance companies, so they donate heavily for various charitable projects. In fact, they donated shingles to re-do our roof, and the local church sent men, including the pastor, to put the shingles on the roof.
What this tells me is that Medicare is inherently unfair because it lumps prudent people in with risk-takers. Moreover, the protection of Big pHarma means too many people are taking toxic drugs and suffering the consequences, and it is the American people who have to pay for this.
I didnāt get Part B when I turned 66 because we could only afford to do that for one of us, and it was more important for my husband to have it. And we were right. But if the penalty for refusal to get Obamacare was ended, then the penalty for not getting Part B should also be ended.
I agree that people who are unlikely to use insurance are unlikely to pay for it. But it seems to me that the situation is a graphic illustration of why socialized medicine does not work. People donāt take care of themselves. Medicare is unlikely to be able or willing to distinguish between people who take care of themselves and people who donāt. Or for that matter, between people who really take care of themselves, and those who ātake careā of themselves by taking toxic pharmaceuticals. My own family is an illustration of that. My sister, six years younger than I, is a huge consumer of health care. I rarely need anything. I did have to spend some time in the hospital once. I donāt know how many times she has had to do that, and when she did, she spent much longer than I did. She is finally wising up, now that family members who influenced her have gone on to their eternal destiny. I opted out of pharmaceutical poisons right after I got married and I never looked back.
1 Like
I totally agree with you! However, it is optionalā¦ You can opted out. You just have to send in a signed request.
You the employee pay 7.65% of your wages/salary for Social Security and Medicare. Your employer matches that amount, thus a total of 15.3% of your earnings is contributed to your account.
Iām living the same way. Iām 69 and on no pharmaceuticals. I take good care of myself (exercise, eat keto, and stay on a good sleep schedule.) I use natural and herbal medicines when needed. I rarely get sick, Iām still strong and limber. A healthy lifestyle makes a huge difference in healthy and happy aging!
1 Like
Good for you! Even though we are forced to pay for othersā lack of proper self care, we benefit from better well being. I also enjoy a normal life. I have a couple of issues that are a nuisance, but they donāt stop me from doing so. My sister had to give up her driverās license. I still travel for photography, driving myself. And I still hike. I am 81 years old/young.