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 ...
The entire medical profession warned the CONgress and LBJ that the law, with it's blank check approach to Socialized Medicine would trigger greed and inflation in medical costs for generations and eventually become a monster that could consume the resources of the entire federal government.
But what the hell... Who listens when there are votes to be bought and legacies to be built and busts and buildings named after chicken poop politicians to be built to contain rows of them?
To collect any Social Security whatsoever in your retirement, you must turn 62 before 2017, which makes you at least 51 now. You therefore don't qualify for Social Security benefits; however, you always will qualify to pay 15% of your income in Social Security taxes. Medicare soon will collapse and cease to accept new retirees; the taxes, however, will remain eternally. You also should anticipate severe tax increases circa 2011 after the Bush tax cuts lapse and more tax increases if and when Democrats regain the House of Representatives. You belong to the "rich"--people who actually work for a living rather than collecting benefits as a professional welfare recipient or as the spouse of a billionaire heiress.
Your employer unfortunately must compete with Chinese slave labor while paying extortionate and confiscatory American taxes and avoiding regulatory troubles. The factories simply cannot afford to pay the benefits that your father receives. I don't want to sound like a "doom and gloom" Democrat economist, but you need to prepare for an extended period--six months to a year--of unemployment (without compensation or severance) through savings. You also might want to retire someday. To do so successfully, you must save and invest the tiny portion of your income that the government actually lets you take home.
Your best investment vehicle probably is the Roth IRA (if you qualify). After contributing the maximum to that account (roughly $4000/year, which may vary considerably), you probably want to consider other investments. The Congress may confiscate private income and holdings at any time via the "income tax." I know that these goals probably stretch your budget, but you need to work to include them. You also might have children, housing and food expenses, utilities, excess taxes, and debts to pay. But you will not retire comfortably like your father unless you pay your own way. And if Social Security still gives you benefits, it's better to get more than you need than to need more than you have.
And I have a counter proposal: How about allowing US citizens to opt out of having a large chunk of their paycheck being taken out in the form of SS and Medicare? Granted, they wouldn't be entitled to benefits, but in about another 10 years or so the benefits will be whittled away to nothing.
Then the next question is: Where the heck did all that money go?
They tell us the SS Trust Fund has been raided by the politicians. They say they're only "borrowing" from it but that's their euphemism for theft.
I think your idea for private investment isn't too far off from what Bush wants. When SS was originally established by FDR in 1935 certain parties could opt out. But now the whole plan is based on mass participation.
I say as long as we're stuck with it - let's do the best we can to reform it in the direction of personal and private investment accounts and options.
The same could be said about state Medicaid programs. 26% of the Illinois budget goes to Medicaid payments. 2 out 5 births are covered by Medicaid in Illinois. It is down right astonishing that so many people can be that irresponsible.
Unlike Social Security, there is no cap on earnings on which Medicare taxes are paid. For example, this year the most anyone pays for individual Social Security taxes is $7206.30 because he only pays the tax on the first $94,200 he earns. There is no cap on Medicare taxes. If Microsoft paid Bill Gates $100,000,000 this year, his Medicare taxes would be $1,450,000. (The Medicare tax rate is 1.45% for individuals and 2.9% for the self-employed.)
The classical rate determination methods for REAL insurance programs determine premiums based on many things: age, sex, lifestyle (smoking for example). Income for income's sake isn't a variable (unless by virtue of having money it has been proven you live longer).
Because someone has 'more' money is no reason to charge them more than someone with 'less' money simply because they can afford it. Extend that line of thinking to the hot dog line at a ball game, because it makes just about as much sense.
This flawed logic of 'we'll go bankrupt' or 'it's only right they should pay more, because they have it'is rooted in envy, jealousy and laziness.
The only plan that is 'fair' is 'equal' treatment. Income-based rates are neither.
it's bush's fault. call George Will and tell him that we need to fix that prescription drug plan. Maybe dropping all the changes that will pay for improving health care system like medical savings accounts and indexing medicare payments. Oh the horror of the Republican congress and their evil spending.
Talk about a quagmire, LBJ's war on poverty plus MediCare.
A better question would be, why is everyone required to participate in this immense Ponzi scheme?
I have my own health insurance which I pay for and always have. Medicare is an added burden which is layered (no choice on my part, either) right on top of it. I can't opt out. My own insurance is better, but Medicare is the primary payer. I must still maintain my regular insurance because Medicare has so many gaps.
Medicare is the national and universal socialized medical system we always say we objected to having. It is forced on young and old and required for all at 65.
This mediocre system is going to bankrupt us all!
Why, WHY!!! did I see/hear about this only in the Free Republic, long after the vote ... I guess I should be wondering what was going on behind the news of Katrina one year later and all the deaths in Iraq, etc. I should have known the news media wouldn't cover a REAL story, just the political ones ... and the SAME ones over and over and over. Why wasn't I informed of this aspect of the bill when the bill was going through? The media let me down on this one, shame on them AGAIN. If we don't KNOW about it, we can't SCREAM about it. And this one makes me want to scream!
I had a friend who refused to work but complained that she didn't have health care until she was 65. Fortunately, she didn't get sick. Are you interested in paying for someone who is able and 35 who chooses not to work? I don't think so. Our safety net should be for those who lose life's lottery and cannot fend for themselves, not those who try to game the system.
I knew about the SS cap but not that there wasn't any for Medicare. It seems there should be - what do you think is the best solution?
If the millionaire in Palm Beach or anywhere for that matter isn't eligible for the Medicate "benefit" Why is he being ask to pay the tax???
I assumed the program is structured roughly on the same principle as the progressive income tax.
I don't believe the graduated income tax is fair or just either. Basically, if you are a family making 25-30K per year, you don't pay any federal income tax. In some cases, EIC actually gives you back taxes you never even paid. That comes from you and me. THe only taxes the lower income people in this country pay are local sales tax,possibly state income tax, and federal payroll taxes (what the 'poor' call SS, medicare, etc.). Progressive is a dubious term. What it really means is 'penalty'.
Why is the government involved in health care anyway? Honestly, kill Medicare and Medicaid. The free market will resolve everything.
I guess you do not know what the term life's lottery means. It describes the FACT that there are some who cannot be part of the hard-working category. There is nothing attractive in your hostility to them or in trying to take candy from babies, as it were.
No one has ever made 'investments' into a Medicare program, like we have for Social Security. It is simply an entitlement that had crept in over the years. I believe it should be means tested.
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.