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 ...
Just because someone happens to disagree with you, doesn't make them a 'troll', 'fair haired child', or a 'DU'er'. Just means they don't agree with you. We allow differences of opinion here, don't we?
Drugs....The new restless leg syndrome really gets me. If my leg didn't twitch or ache occasionally at my age, I'd be worried.
I reserve the "Troll" appalachian for those who espouse socilaist/communist/DNC ideals, such as means testing to get our own money back.
Of the fact that is is an entitlement primarily subsidized by those that work the hardest means we should penalize those hard workers when the time comes to receive it?
Conservative forum --- CONSERVATIVE.
As for your definition of 'life's lottery,' you may be speaking of the unemployable 5% (full employment is typically something better than 95%, with the remainder being unemployabe). Regardless, 'life's lottery' is a Democrat code word and it's meaning (if you are correct as you think you are) has been subverted. When that term is used today, it is a metaphor for saying that "well-off" people never worked for their gains.
It is not government's job to caretake the unemployable; it never was until the Roosevelt years and LBJs "Great Society" . Prior to that, it generally fell on the auspices of the good will of the people -- something that is remarkably strong today, given the attacks on it.
Medicare will thus price more affluent senior citizens out of the program, because free enterprise will offer a better program for less money. So Medicare will be stuck with only the poorest and sickest, which will only hasten the demise of the program. Good riddance to another failed nanny state program that should never have seen the light of day. Our medical bills would never have become this inflated without the government's meddling in medicine.
I was born into poverty. I worked my butt off to get what I have and where I am. There was no "Life's lottery" for me and probably this is true for 95% of FReepers.
Those who chose not to plan should no turn around and expect to have anything more than a minimal subsistance life.
Bad things happen, sure -- to a tiny, tiny percentage of people. Most people's problems are of their own making.
Actually this is just an extension of the inequity of the Medicare tax. Someone making 20K annualy pays $290 for Medicare. Someone making $5 Million pays $72,500 per year into the Medicare fund. Now when the millionaire retires, he probably will not be eligible for Medicare, or will have to pay ridiculous premiums with high deductibles.
It is not hostily, madam. It is a sense of fairness and protection of MY heirs. Would that the parents (families) of the 'babies' from whose mouths I suppposedly am snatching the candy, defend them.
"Hostility" is rather best described by the taking of something from one to give to another, based on how good it makes you feel, or whose vote you need. Plain and simple...
What is the difference in the 'government' subsidizing the LIEs (low income earners) and the high income earners who won't be eligible for the benefit under means testing? They are actually one in the same. Go take a look at what income groups pay the lion's share of taxes and you'll see the LIEs HARDLY even dent their fair share of taxes due.
I completely agree that as presently structured the income tax is not truly fair or progressive. I only used that anology as a paradigm or general principle of application.
In fact, as presently structured the income tax falls disproportionately on the working middle class.
Part of the problem is that the volumes of the tax code are too complicated. Even tax lawyers and accountants can have different understandings and interpretations of the same article.
Even though the top 10% of wage earners pay more than half the TOTAL revenue collected they have the means to exploit the various loopholes and protect assets from taxation. A perfect example of that is Warren Buffet who supports the infamous "death tax". What he doesn't say is that his millions are shielded from this by trust and deferred shelters.
On the other hand, the lower incomes pay virtually nothing but, as you indicated, payroll taxes.
I think the most equitable tax program I've heard is the Steve Forbes flat tax. But I think the 16th Amendment should be repealed as a sine qua non before any alternative tax goes into effect.
By the way, a basic principle of traditional common law is that the people should be able to comprehend any laws to which they are subject. The tax code egregiously violates that principle. In any case, no matter what the future brings, it's utterly disgraceful not to simplify the present code which looks like it came from a Kafka novel.
If you don't like the idea of government subsidizing this, then how can you argue they should continue to subsidize it for the richest? The only way out is probably gradual, as many depend on it now because that's the way things are.
Why should he be penalized for being thrifty and productive?
Why should Warren Buffet's medical bills be paid for by poor working stiffs? Nothing conservative about that.
I do not know what that percentage is, but it may include all people born severely retarded and almost everyone over 90.
It doesn't mean intolerant of differing opinions, however. THAT is what DU is.
Conservatives DISCUSS, DU'ers DISS.
What a convoluted piece of logic that phrase is! It is not subsidizing by the government to be forced to pay out 'fair'payments to EVERYONE who has contributed (even, those who've contribruted MORE than their FAIR share). I am only asking for EQUITY....
It is not the government subsidizing ANYTHING; the subsidizers are the middle income and high income earners, period. The government robs the more wealthy in Medicare because they can - just like they do with graduated taxes, EIC for the poor, and all of the other LIE programs at ALL levels of government. Wealthy people have something to lose and poor people don't, the big difference? Poor people are likely to vote for those that give them money. .
Fair Taxes. I generally agree with one caveat. The most effective laws are laws that have no exceptions. I'm not a fan for taking a hard line on taxes, whatever, and then making 'exceptions' for 'this' group or 'that'.
Look at it this way. This is a problem of our generation. We are talking about how to pay for the medical care of the boomers who could have provided for it differently but did not. Is it preferable for us to figure out how to take care of it on the benefits side, or should we just raise taxes on our children and grandchildren? I think those are the choices.
Just wait till they come for the 401Ks.
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.