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 ...
Geez, communism, liberalism, feel-goodism at its best...I can't top that. It isn't a problem that "I" created, only one for which I am fiscally responsible. Your conscience (liberalism) may tell you that I am at fault, but it is your forerunners, the ones who set up this scam in the first place, who are at fault. All for the want of votes. A true conservative could NEVER decry actions/feelings for want of fairness.
I've paid the maximum SS payments since the early 80s, I'll never see a fraction of it back...I guess that's my contribution to society's welfare.
BTW, re: "we all know this" that's qualified to this forum, right? Because, most people don't know it...to them, Government is someone else because THEY certainly aren't paying the tab for it.
A slow simmer is going on now, don't you think? I smell a tax revolt in the air at some point...but are there any real Americans left and do they have spines to do something about it? Sounds like a new political party is needed given both the existing parties are continually drunk on the taxes collected and the power it gives them. Our freedoms continue to diminish; I pray daily for sanity.
And socialists steal.
False dichotomy. Warren Buffet's (and Jimmy Buffet's) medical bill should be paid by those that put the money into the system: WARREN (and Jimmy) BUFFET! And it WAS!
Do you think if you added up all the contributions that Warren Buffet put in and subtracted all the usage he does (assuming he went 100% Medicare) that he would somehow TAKE more than he CONTRIBUTED?
My God! Was I asleep when the DU Coup happened here at FR? We are now saying that those who contributed more should get less? And somehow that those who contributed less are somehow now SUBSIDIZING those who contributed more?
Up is down? Green is red? Liberal is Conservative?
Where the heck am I??
Because people with money shouldn't be living off taxpayers.
I see. People with money AREN'T taxpayers.
Or did I miss the /sarc tag?
I missed the implicit /sarc, didn't I?
Sorry -- I have been assailed by socilaists so much that I shoot first and ask questions later.
Welfare strikes again. The moral of the story is that if you save to take care of yourself, you will be financially punished. Deadbeats will be rewarded as usual.
Because the millionaire already paid for it. The real question is why should the deadbeat get free care on behalf of those that chose to take care of their own future?
It's past time to abolish the whole social security and medicare program.
Thanks, amigo.
I thought I was all by myself here.
Exactly! The scumbags have once again painted a target on the backs of the hard-working and successful.
No. I'm dead serious. You said, "Why should he be penalized for being thrifty and productive?" I say, only in a welfare state--where government handouts are considered entitlements--can the lack of a handout be viewed as a "penalty".
Implying that only people without money should be living off taxpayers.
Okay. If I read you right, then I think you're at the wrong site.
Not a problem. I think that too few people have taken a good look at how the entitlement scam really works.
It's not a "handout" if one has paid for it - it would be more properly considered as a return on investment, though forced payment probably doesn't fall under the heading of investment either. Who is more deserving of the money that the government has confiscated from part of the constituency - those that actually paid the money or those that are looking for a free ride?
LOL. I don't approve of anybody living off taxpayers. But I particularly disapprove of having my income taken away and given to those who need it less than I need it. It's my money. Enough already. If you can live without it, please do so.
It's subsidized. Medicare is currently costing taxpayers over $350 billion a year. Premiums "paid for it" amount to about 1/10 that amount. That's a handout.
That is what I meant -- it was a proper reply by you.
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.