Michael Tavoliero: Open the door to freedom by restoring senior citizens’ choice and dignity

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

For America’s over-55 population, nearly one-third of the nation, the tragedy is not that we have aged, but that federal policy has stripped away autonomy just when independence and wisdom should matter most. Our retirement yields and healthcare access are bound by statutes and regulations that force us into dependency. 

Medicare becomes the default path with no private health insurance available after 65, Social Security contributions are locked into Washington’s terms with pitiful investment returns which make to impossible to afford a living, and savings in 401(k)s and IRAs are constrained by Required Minimum Distributions and tax penalties which control the horizontal and vertical of the last years of our living and will never allow us to manage our lives independent of the government. While Social Security, Medicare, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) directly lock seniors into statutory pathways, Obamacare reinforced that dependency by tightening federal control over insurance markets, limiting senior autonomy in both pre-65 coverage and post-65 Medicare options.

As Must Read Alaska commenters from my Aug. 20 column, “The slow surrender of senior independence to government dependence,” point out, this dependency is not natural. From every imaginable angle, it is artificial and pretentious. It is manufactured through decades of political design, producing seniors who worked hard yet face diminished dignity in their later years.

Why can’t we, seniors, the largest voting block in the United States, tell Congress there is a simple principle of senior choice and dignity? Isn’t the real path forward one where Americans reclaim freedom of choice between public and private healthcare, regain autonomy over their own retirement savings, and secure dignity in care, where decisions are made by patients and doctors, not by distant bureaucrats in Washington, DC?

To actualize this vision, reform must begin with a comprehensive statutory audit of all laws that restrict senior independence, from the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) to Medicare and Medicaid (42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq.) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.), nicknamed “Every Rotten Idea Since Adam”, and the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.). 

Next, Congress should enact principles-based reform: repeal mandatory minimum distribution rules, eliminate penalties for early retirement access after age 55, and allow seniors to waive Medicare without forfeiting Social Security benefits. As commenters noted, freedom should not mean abandonment of a safety net. It means having the right to opt out when individuals can provide for themselves.

A central question arises: Why should the 55-and-under generation be compelled to shoulder the costs of older Americans through rigid federal programs that appear only to benefit state and federal bureaucracies, when the over-55 population is perfectly capable of generating its own prosperity? 

Seniors represent the most experienced, capital-rich, and entrepreneurial segment of society. If given the same freedoms, tools, and resources that the private sector offers younger Americans, the over-55 generation could sustain itself, invest in future growth, and even contribute to reducing the fiscal burdens now passed down to younger workers. Federal policy, however, locks seniors into dependence, stripping away the opportunity to build wealth and turning them into recipients of mandated subsidies. This not only undermines seniors’ dignity but also stifles the ability of younger generations to focus their contributions on building their own success, wealth, and prosperity.

The methodology of reform is clear: flexibility mechanisms to let individuals and states innovate, sunset reviews to prevent outdated laws from calcifying, and a legislative roadmap. I really don’t care what Congress calls for just align retirement and healthcare policy with liberty and do it now!

This is not about dismantling programs that protect the vulnerable; it is about liberating the majority who can and should direct their own lives.

The over-55 population represents 103 million Americans, nearly 30% of the electorate. We are not powerless, but we have surrendered power by accepting dependency. As one Must Read Alaska comment wisely observed, “If we do not demand freedom, we will never receive it.” The time has come for seniors to lead, not as wards of the state, but as citizens insisting on reforms that respect the dignity of a lifetime of work. Federal policy change is not complicated. It requires an act of Congress, a presidential signature, and the collective will of seniors who refuse to accept bureaucratic control as the price of aging.

Fiscal Realities at a Crossroads

In 2023, the federal government paid out $1.38 trillion in Social Security benefits, representing a staggering 22.5% of all federal spending. On average, retired workers aged 66–70 receive $2,178 per month, though many, especially those relying solely on Social Security, fall short of financial stability. Meanwhile, those aged 55–64 hold a median net worth of $364,270, far above younger.

This disparity raises a vital question: Why should younger generations finance older citizens who, given the freedom and tools of the private sector, are well-positioned to support themselves?

Freedom Awaits: The Senior Choice and Dignity Paradigm

Senior choice and dignity pivots on three core principles. By Congress passing simple reform, freedom of choice allows seniors to choose between private and public healthcare and retirement mechanisms without penalty. This is the foundation of Ameritacracy. Our country respects autonomy by ending forced withdrawals and limitations on the personal control of retirement savings. Dignity in care means ensuring that healthcare decisions are made by seniors in partnership with their providers, free from bureaucratic constraints.

A Path to Reform

1. Statutory Audit

Task the GAO and DOGE with auditing federal policies like the Social Security Act, ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and the Medicare framework to identify laws restricting freedom after age 55.

2. Principled Reform

• Social Security: Let payroll contributions be optionally directed into personal accounts.
• Medicare: Permit waivers for Medicare enrollment without forfeiting eligibility.
• Retirement Savings: Repeal Required Minimum Distributions and eliminate penalties for post–55 access.

3. Freedom Mechanisms

Introduce opt-out options. If seniors can demonstrate equivalent private coverage or savings, they should not be forced into government programs.

4. Sunset Reviews

Require ten-year sunsets on all senior-targeted statutes so outdated policies don’t calcify.

5. State and Community Pilots

Promote local innovation by allowing states to test diverse retirement and healthcare models under federal waiver authority.

Conclusion: Let Freedom, Not Bureaucracy, Define Aging

Restoring senior dignity and choice isn’t radical. It’s the realization of American liberty. It honors elders’ independence, unburdens younger generations of structural inequity, and creates a meaningful legacy for public policy. With calculated steps, legislation, audits, reforms, and flexible opt-outs, America can transform aging from enforced dependency into empowered autonomy. At the same time, we relieve the younger generations of an unfair fiscal burden, ensuring that both seniors and the under-55 population can thrive, each with the freedom to generate their own success, wealth, and prosperity.

Michael Tavoliero: Coincidences or conspiracies?

Michael Tavoliero: The slow surrender of senior independence to government dependence

Michael Tavoliero: Why HB 57 missed the mark on education reform

Michael Tavoliero: Coolidge’s Code, the ethics lesson some of Alaska’s leaders forgot

Michael Tavoliero: Alaska’s future under bureaucratic drift — the quiet surrender