Government run health care

[momoffuzzyfaces]

To make things even more fun, we on Social Security won't be getting even a tiny cost of living raise for the next two years, but we have the honor of paying higher Medicare premiums.

What really makes me mad is Congress will get their big fat yearly raise, they can spend billions for the banks, auto industry, and big businesses AND probably mess all our lives up with the new health care they will force us to have. But give us a teeeny raise? no way!


And if that wasn't bad enough, they want to tax junk food, one of our only remaining affordable comforts. Who will determine what is a junk food? Will we have a junk food tzar? If they tax cookies will they also tax the flour, sugar, and other ingredients so we can't even make them ourselves? Inquiring mind needs to know. I need a cookie!

[pomtzu]

To make things even more fun, we on Social Security won't be getting even a tiny cost of living raise for the next two years, but we have the honor of paying higher Medicare premiums.

I heard that there will be no increase in Medicare premiums in 2010 since there will be no cost of living raise for SS. Where did you hear that there will be an increase? Geeze - I certainly hope not!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

I heard that there will be no increase in Medicare premiums in 2010 since there will be no cost of living raise for SS. Where did you hear that there will be an increase? Geeze - I certainly hope not!

It's been on several of the news channels last night and this morning. Local channels as well as Fox and CNN.

It was also on Yahoo yesterday. The ones of us who pay Medicare premiums will actually have a smaller check because of the increase in premiums.

[Grace]

The rise in Medicare premiums will NOT affect everyone. In an article from the Dallas Morning News, there is this -

Three in four Medicare beneficiaries are protected by a "hold-harmless" provision in the law that ensures that their Medicare premiums won't go up any more than their Social Security benefits, said Kaiser policy analyst Juliette Cubanski.

So next year, if they get the same amount from Social Security, they'll pay Medicare the same $96.40 per month they do today.

That won't be true, however, for the remaining 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, Cubanski said. They include:

•Higher-income beneficiaries whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for couples in 2009.

•New enrollees who didn't collect Social Security benefits or weren't covered under Part B a year earlier.

•Low-income individuals whose Medicare Part B premiums are paid by Medicaid.

Source

[pomtzu]

The rise in Medicare premiums will NOT affect everyone. In an article from the Dallas Morning News, there is this -




Source

I'm safe!! Thanks Gretchen.

[Edwina's Secretary]

If it makes you feel any better (it won’t) it is not just retirees getting the squeeze.

I am beginning the insurance renewal for one of my clients. Right now we are looking at a 12% increase in medical premiums.

Employees share the cost of the premiums.

The current economy has been rough on manufacturing companies and with 0% rise in CPI – 0% will probably be what the raises are this year (as in 60% of companies.)

With the help of our broker we may get the increase down to 9% (I hope.) That will include carve outs – insurance speak for reducing benefits.

So people making $9 - $12/hour will pay more for less coverage.

And the company will either have to lay off more people or if possible, pass the increase along to the customer who pass it along until eventually the consumer – you and me – will pay for it.

We pay for each other's medical care one way or the other. Medicare, private insurance, veterans or the uninsured. There are just a whole lot more hands taking something off the top with our current system.

[lizbud]

If it makes you feel any better (it won’t) it is not just retirees getting the squeeze.

I am beginning the insurance renewal for one of my clients. Right now we are looking at a 12% increase in medical premiums.

Employees share the cost of the premiums.

The current economy has been rough on manufacturing companies and with 0% rise in CPI – 0% will probably be what the raises are this year (as in 60% of companies.)

With the help of our broker we may get the increase down to 9% (I hope.) That will include carve outs – insurance speak for reducing benefits.

So people making $9 - $12/hour will pay more for less coverage.

And the company will either have to lay off more people or if possible, pass the increase along to the customer who pass it along until eventually the consumer – you and me – will pay for it.

We pay for each other's medical care one way or the other. Medicare, private insurance, veterans or the uninsured. There are just a whole lot more hands taking something off the top with our current system.

Sorry, I missed this earlier. Costs go up & up for everybody.

[lizbud]

The rise in Medicare premiums will NOT affect everyone. In an article from the Dallas Morning News, there is this -

Source

So, am I right in thinking only those with Medicare part D will be affected?
Only those who signed up for the Medicare Drug coverage?

[Grace]

So, am I right in thinking only those with Medicare part D will be affected?
Only those who signed up for the Medicare Drug coverage?

That's the way it sounds to me. But it doesn't definitively say that all will be affected. Guess we need to do more investigating.

One final note for the majority of beneficiaries who may think they've dodged the bullet: The hold-harmless provision doesn't apply to Medicare's prescription drug coverage. So some seniors may still get a smaller Social Security payment next year if their drug premiums increase.

[sasvermont]

What Drop In Benefits?
The Phony Flap Over Social Security COLAs


By Chuck Blahous
Tuesday, August 25, 2009

"Millions of people face shrinking Social Security checks next year," The Post reported Monday, "as officials project that benefits will stay flat for the first time in a generation." The New York Times reported earlier this year that the lack of a Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in 2010 "will be a shock to older Americans" and quoted an AARP official lamenting that "Most seniors have never been through a year in which there was no Social Security COLA."

But this controversy is more smoke than fire.

Like other Americans, seniors are suffering through the economic downturn. Unlike other Americans, however, most seniors are benefiting from multiple technical quirks of law that protect their income stream.

First, there is the current Social Security COLA. Automatic COLA increases were established in 1975 in an effort to protect seniors' purchasing power. In January, Social Security began paying its largest COLA since 1982, 5.8 percent. But this adjustment has since surpassed national measures of the cost of living.

The 5.8 percent boost was based on the high price increases of last year, especially in food and fuel. Since then, prices have subsided. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Consumer Price Index subsequently declined by 4 percent. By law, COLAs can never be negative. So benefit payments are exceeding inflation, and seniors will simply pocket this 4 percent increase in real purchasing power for the indefinite future, until prices once again exceed their 2008 levels and further COLAs resume.

Meanwhile, most seniors stand to benefit from a provision in the Medicare Part B premium formula. Under normal circumstances, the Part B premium is indexed so that one-fourth of program cost increases are passed on to beneficiaries, three-fourths to taxpayers. Part B also has an "income-relating" feature, which requires higher-income seniors to pay more for their benefits.



A "hold harmless" provision, however, ensures that for most beneficiaries (those not subject to income-relating), the dollar amount of their Social Security check (minus the Part B premiums) will not diminish from one year to the next. In a year without a COLA, therefore, the majority of seniors will receive Medicare Part B coverage of increased value, with the larger bill passed on entirely to others.

Third, the February stimulus legislation provided $250 checks to most Social Security recipients. Though some working seniors will need to return these checks because of their interaction with the "Making Work Pay" tax credit, non-working seniors will keep them.

Taken together, these features of law mean that taxpayers are providing substantial additional income protections for most seniors, well beyond inflation.

If our policies for seniors existed in an ideal world, benefits would be adjusted upward when prices go up and downward when prices go down. The intended burden-sharing of Medicare Part B premiums would not shift with price swings in the general economy. Alternatively, the nation's most powerful organization for the elderly would responsibly explain to its members that the deviations from these ideals are largely working in their favor.

But this isn't an ideal world. Accordingly, Congress is being pressured to "do something" about the COLA issue, which would translate into further costs facing taxpayers and increased payments to the seniors benefiting from these technical quirks.

There is nevertheless a potential problem in all of this. Medicare law provides for the premium relief provided to those "held harmless" to be made up by those not so protected. This could result in large unintended premium increases for a minority of seniors, and in more costs shifted to taxpayers through Medicaid.

The Obama administration entered office talking about tough choices and fiscal responsibility. These issues shouldn't be particularly tough. Helping Congress defuse this unnecessary political problem would be a modest threshold test of such responsibility.

The administration should either publicly push back on the misrepresentation of the situation or propose an alternative revenue-neutral distribution of beneficiary premium burdens. Providing this cover -- instead of shifting further costs to taxpayers -- would send a positive signal to lawmakers looking for administration seriousness on bigger fiscal issues, such as the unsustainable growth of entitlement spending generally.

Seniors, like all Americans, are feeling the pain of our economic difficulties. If, after due deliberation, Congress and the administration decide that taxpayers should shoulder still more burdens and seniors less, then so be it. But let's not dress that decision up in the guise of correcting a nonexistent inequity.

Chuck Blahous, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as deputy director of the National Economic Council from 2007-09 and executive director of the President's Social Security Commission in 2001. His book "Social Security: The Unfinished Work" is due to be published next year.

[lizbud]

That's the way it sounds to me. But it doesn't definitively say that all will be affected. Guess we need to do more investigating.

Well, I did read that private insurance costs will go up & employers
will past that along to their employees.Some say could be as much as
20% increase. Some employers might decide to drop insurance altogether.