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 ...
I guess the millionaire in Palm Beach could also ask, why should I even bother paying into this mandatory system, when I can pay for my own health care!
I see you are the AM's "fair haired troll" for the week.
They let anti-American folk like you stay so we don't become too much of an echo chamber.
Always interesting to have Liberal Socialists to smack around.
"Medicare to base fees on income"
Here comes the Bush raised taxes crowd.
Too many assumptions to make thay figure. And even then, it will be such a tiny payout that it might pay for 2 day's worth of gas for your car a month.
No one in their right mind expects for it to be around more than 5-10 years. And Medicare will go sooner.
What about equal protection under the law? The costs should be equal for everybody.
No, I'm a conservative but I'm facing reality - as is George Bush who also wants to reform entitlements and make them more competitive and effective.
If you're wasting your time fighting yesterday's battle that in 1935 FDR was wrong to establish SS -- have fun on the lunatic fringe!
First, it simply isn't conservative to state that wealth transfer is a desirable state. You might be "Republican", but if you believe in means testing you are most certainly not conservative. WRT effectiveness, you're wrong yet again. This particular program may last longer, but when the overall economic impact is measured policies such as the one you support will only damage society. It is most decidedly not "effective" in any sense of the word.
If you're wasting your time fighting yesterday's battle that in 1935 FDR was wrong to establish SS -- have fun on the lunatic fringe!
Could you point me to where I stated that I'm fighting that battle? If not, I'd point out that setting up a strawman argument will only discredit your position.
Punishment for those who dare to try to succeed.
In broad terms, I agree.
I personally am not depending on SS, and I'm 48.
Sigh.
There is no point in trying to argue with a Loonie Lefty.
The moonbats can't really "argue" anything.
I agree with much of what you say. Bush is bringing us economic and social chaos and endangering national security by failing to enforce our border.
I don't like the biggest entitlement since LBJ that Bush brought us.
But the fact is that in American social and political life Social Security is valued by the overwhelming majority of Americans -- they may be wtong but that's political reality.
Smart planning -- I am the same age and have been busting my hump for 30 years (actually, 35 years since my work as a teen was also taxed and SSI'd).
SSI is just a tax to subsidize sloth.
We had a chance to make it self-sufficient but chose not to. Better to let it die than to make it unfair.
Did they make contributions to Social Security? If so, for what reason would you deny them the meager return on their mandatory "investment"?
Does this mean I can deduct the extra money I pay from my income taxes as a 'charitable donation'?
I think we may agree on that point which is the one I've been trying very hard to make amidst the shouting.
Bush wants to introduce personal private investments into the Social Security Trust - I think the general principle of making these programs more competitive and efficient is very good.
If I'm not mistaken you'd agree.
I totally agree with you. Reminds me of a couple I know who not only are broke but their health (overweight, diabetes, etc) has been in the tank for their entire adult lives. They have already cost 'the system' hundreds of thousands of dollars. Every time I see them I say to myself, "I am one of those who is supporting these folks". Disgusting.
You're mistaken, but I apologize for my tone -- I see red when people say I should be penalized for working hard.
Like I said -- these are going to die of their own weight. They HAVE to. Better for them to die sooner than later.
But in NO circumstance should there be "means testing" of any kind. You paid in, you get out.
If anything, there should be REVERSE means testing -- the more you paid in, the more you get out.
Interesting that a cabal of cretinous traitor Republicans did this in 2003 and managed to keep it secret until now.
Thanks, guys.
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.