Posted on 09/09/2006 6:10:49 PM PDT by lauriehelds
After 41 years of charging most older Americans the same price for the same care, Medicare will require affluent seniors to pay higher monthly premiums for coverage of doctors' visits, diagnostic tests and outpatient hospital care beginning in 2007.
A little-known provision of the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act calls for an estimated 1.5 million seniors to face higher premiums, from 10 to 55 percent over the next three years, if they have income of at least $80,000 a year, or $160,000 for married couples. Seniors taking in more than $200,000 and couples making more than $400,000 will see their so-called Part B premiums rise the most.
The move, designed to help shore up Medicare's shaky finances, has enraged many because it was adopted without public debate. A Republican-led conference committee added the measure to the Medicare bill even though neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate version contained it.
Medicare, the national health plan for the elderly and people with disabilities, faces an uncertain future because of rising healthcare costs, a growing number of beneficiaries who utilize more services and a dwindling tax base to support the program.
The premium increases are expected to boost revenue by about $7.7 billion from 2007 to 2011, and $20.8 billion from 2007 to 2016.
(Excerpt) Read more at miami.com ...
Huh? How does that work?
Get ready for every thrifty American who saved and invested properly for retirement; this will apply to social security benefits eventually as well. Watch as the government screws you out of all your S.S. benefits along with your Medicare benefits to assist those who didn't bother to invest/save properly. Suckers all. Although we didn't have a choice about paying these so called benefit taxes. I never counted on receiving them anyway as part of my retirement planning. The greatest Ponzi scheme ever developed by an elected government. Makes me wanna cry, at least for those who were responsible for their financial condition anyway. Another tax you'll never see the benefit from.
It only makes sense to apply a means test to this entitlement. Why should a millionaire in Palm Beach pay the same premium as a poor person? The fact is that unless some such criteria are applied to entitlements (including social security) the plans will go bust and no one will collect anything!
Happens frequently.
If the House and Senate pass bills with different provisions, the bills then go to Conference Committee for reconciliation. The committe is composed equally of Senators and Congressmen.
In Conference, provisions may be amended, added or stricken.
Once a single bill is approved by a majority of the Conference, the revised bill then goes back to the House and the Senate for an up-or-down vote -- it cannot be further amended or modified.
Anyone born in 1950,or later,who thinks their retirements will be *nearly* as comfortable or secure as that of their parents is stark raving mad....crazy!
Why should he be penalized for being thrifty and productive?
You realize this is a Conservative forum, right? I am sure you will be more comfortable at your normal DU home.
Actually, I wish the federal gov. would just close the SS program altogether. What part of the US Constitution gives the federal government the right to collect an "insurance premium" for said purposes in the first place?
Thanks for that excellent description of the process.
With those ad hominem and personal attacks in lieu of a rational reply DU is where YOU belong.
Which part didn't you understand? I can use smaller words if you need me to.
Agreed. I've been paying my share of S.S. taxed for 34 years, I let them keep the money if they let me earn and keep everything else until I retire. Ain't gonna happen. I have to support all the other knuckleheads who have lived beyond their means since day one, and, well, ain't that the American Way for the past 50 years......
Might as well. No one under 50 will ever see a dime of it. It is NOT part of my retirement planning.
I turn 62 next month and have applied for early Social Security "benefits" precisely because I question if the benefits will be around when I turn 65.
I can see which part of your screen name applies to you. By the way, do you think Bush and the Republicans who want to reform social security and medicare and are considering means testing are part of DU?
Well, there are two schools of thought on this one. The first would state that punishing society's most productive members acts as a disincentive to further productivity, and should be avoided. That's often known as "conservatism".
The second states that we should expect society's productive members to support everyone else through means of government-enforced wealth transfer. This is the school to which you belong, which goes by the name of "liberalism".
It's the difference between the US and France:
In the US, citizens are supposed to be Equal under the law. So the premium that must be paid to particpate in a a government program like Medicare should be the same for everyone.
In France, they seek an Egalitarian society, in which everyone exists on an equal plane. Achieving this requires punishing people who work hard and make valuable contributions to society, and it requires rewarding lazy people who sap society's strength.
Why should they pay the same for gas?
Why should they pay the same toll on the Sawgrass Parkway?
Because they are buying the same thing, that's why!
' If they are they are betraying the base. But it wouldn't be the first time.
You seem to confuse Conservatives with Bush-bots.
Again, why should someone who paid in not get out what they put in? Only a Lefty Socialist would suggest that it people should be punished for thift and success.
And if that includes the current crop of Republicans (hardly a Conservative in the lot of 'em), then so be it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.