Now that that is said - to my point!
As the title says: SOLUTION!
Start with a question. How many people who are retiring within the next few years have children?
Would it be safe to presume that at least 60% do? I think so! (have no proof to back this up)
In 1967 long-run forecasts estimated that Medicare would cost about $12 billion by 1990. In reality, it cost more than $98 billion that year. Today it costs $500 billion. (SOURCE)
With that quote in mind and the point that most retiring people have usually several offspring why can't the cost of $500 billion dollars be offset by allowing the parents to be added to their kid's group insurance?
If they have 3 kid's with employment based heath coverage - the cost of the parents coverage gets divided by all three policies - so what would an added set of parents possibly cost? ... most policies cost several hundred a month for full family coverage ...
Wouldn't it be reasonable to take that burden off the government and put it in the hands of those who have the need and benefit of the coverage?
what the heck is all that stuff and Part "B" costing an additional price of an insurance policy as it is?
The increased cost of a group policy is almost all paid right there with the part B cost to the elderly