Posted on 04/13/2021 4:35:44 AM PDT by gattaca
March 23, 2021
The Honorable Ted Cruz U.S. Senator, Texas 127A Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Cruz:
On behalf of the over 2.3 million members of the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC), I am writing in support of your bill, S. 275, the Retirement Freedom Act. This timely piece of legislation restores the rights of seniors to make important decisions that will have lasting effects on their personal health care choices and retirement security.
Under current law, Medicare and Social Security benefits are unnecessarily linked. When individuals turn 65, they must enroll in Medicare Part A if they (1) wish to continue receiving their monthly Social Security benefits if they took early retirement, or (2) claim their Social Security benefit at the Normal Retirement Age (NRA). While Medicare is meant to give security and freedom to its beneficiaries, the linkage of Social Security benefits to Medicare benefits restricts seniors’ ability to opt out of Medicare Part A. The Retirement Freedom Act severs the link between Medicare and Social Security by allowing seniors to opt out of Medicare Part A without jeopardizing their eligibility for Social Security benefits.
S. 275 also rectifies another issue with current law. Right now, if an individual chooses to withdraw from Part A in favor of a private insurance plan, they are required to pay back their previous expenses covered by Part A, as well as all Social Security benefits they have received. The looming threat of costly repayments is an unnecessary penalty that keeps seniors in a plan they may not want. The Retirement Freedom Act eliminates the financial burden of withdrawing from Medicare Part A and protects seniors’ access to their Social Security benefits.
As an organization committed to representing seniors, AMAC remains dedicated to ensuring senior citizens’ interests are protected. We commend you, Senators Cruz and Paul, for this senior-oriented and commonsense legislation. AMAC is pleased to offer our organization’s full support for the Retirement Freedom Act.
Sincerely, Bob Carlstrom President, AMAC Action
IF WE GOT A PRIVATE SECONDARY INS, THE 20 YRS HUBBY SPENT IN THE USN IS CANCELED. While there are some areas that need fixing why would we choose to lose the benefits he earned? Bad enough each year Medicare/Tricare cuts services, medicines, and Spouses don’t qualify for some services or procedures.
Better that you Decouple SS TAX INCOME FROM BEING PART OF EARNED INCOME THAT IS TAXED BY INCOME TAX, INCLUDE PENSIONS TO. Lower the Out of Pocket Medical deductions that Obumber raised.
Bankrupt nations find it impossible to keep their commitments.
I find it hilarious that vets complain about small changes in Tricare as it’s the end of the world, yet they have zero idea the true cost of healthcare outside of their community. Nor do they understand most of America that paupers their pensions doesn’t have one.
But it was promised...
Nor do they understand most Americans that pay their pensions doesn’t have one.
bookmark
If I was in Congress I would offer two amendments to the bill Cruz is behind (S. 275).
My first amendment would abolish the Medicare Part D enrollment penalty.
When you do join Medicare, if you do not at that time also take Medicare Part D (the prescription drug coverage), then should you chose to enroll in Medicare Part D at a later date, you could pay a penalty.
The penalty amount is an amount that will be added to the monthly premium, as long as you are enrolled in Medicare Part D. The amount of the penalty is equal to 1% of the monthly Medicare Part D premium (whatever it is at the time) times the number of months you could have been enrolled in Medicare Part D and chose not to be.
Medicare does not make a big giant effort to warn folks of the penalty.
The penalty can be a lot, depending on how many months someone goes between starting Medicare Part A and a delayed start of Medicare Part D.
In my case the penalty amount was possibly going to be substantial. Instead of the basic $33.06 monthly Medicare Part D premium, I was going to have to pay more for the monthly premium than I was/am paying out of pocket - per month - for all the drugs I currently use.
In my case I escaped the penalty because there is an escape clause. The escape clause is, to avoid the penalty, you have to have had some other prescription drug plan coverage during all the months you did not have the Medicare Part D. In my case my Veterans health benefits - which I am enrolled in but rarely use anymore - counted as a qualifying plan.
However, the penalty makes no financial sense whatsoever. The penalty escape clause makes mincemeat of the idea that the penalty is meant to retrieve monies that would have gone to the Medicare regime - if you had been enrolled from the start of eligibility Medicare Part D - because you escape the penalty by having paid monies all that time to ANY PLAN OUTSIDE OF MEDICARE.
The Medicare Part D enrollment penalty should be abolished.
My second amendment would abolish income tests now used to decide your Medicare Part D premium. I don’t know when this income test was added, but here is what it now amounts to:
If you are single and your income is:
> $88,000 & < $111,001 add $12.30 to monthly premium
> $111,000 & < $138,001 add $31.80 to monthly premium
> $138,000 & < $165,001 add $51.20 to monthly premium
> $165,000 & < $500,001 add $70.70 to monthly premium
> $500,000 add $77.10 to montly premium
The five income brackets for couples covered by Medicare (that incur the same premium increase [per person] as for singles) and filing joint tax returns are:
> $176,000 and < $222,001
> $222,000 and < $276,001
> $276,000 and < $330,001
> $330,000 and < $750,000
> $750,000
For married couples with both enrolled in Medicare Part D but filing separate income tax returns, the penalties are steeper.
For joint income:
< $88,000 no penalty
> $88,000 & < $412,000 add $70.70 per month
> $412,000 add $77.10 per month
No ask you, would a private commercial insurance company charge individuals different premiums, for exactly the same levels of coverage, based on their incomes??
The income test for the Medicare Part D premium should be abolished and one uniform premium rate established.
But then it would not be “fair”.
I have heard conflicting information about whether you have to be signed up for Medicare in order to begin getting Social Security payments. I am fully employed and have health coverage through my employer, so I am still paying into Medicare and Social Security but not signed up to use Medicare or to get Social Security payments. I have been warned I could have to pay a penalty for not signing up for Medicare when I turned 65 (but don’t know how large that might be).
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.