Obama offers to means test medicare

[ugonow]

to get deal done----"WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama formally acknowledged on Friday that he would support a plan to means-test Medicare as a part of a deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

“I have said that means-testing on Medicare, meaning people like myself -- I’m going to be turning 50 in a week, so I’m starting to think a little bit more about Medicare eligibility -- but you can envision a situation for somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays would be appropriate. And again, that would make a difference,” the president said at a press conference. “What we are not willing to do is restructure the program in the ways we have seen coming out of the House in recent months.”

The comment was the first public acknowledgment from the White House that the president would support changing the payment structure of the entitlement program. Prior to Obama’s remarks, multiple sources in both parties told The Huffington Post that the administration was making it clear to debt ceiling negotiators that such a structural change to Medicare was on the table.

The proposal is not entirely controversial among health care economists. But it will rankle a good chunk of the president's own party, which has sought to keep Medicare's structure as a basic insurance program. Medicare premiums for doctors and for prescription drugs are already means tested. Making top earners pay even more -- while potentially sound policy -- opens the program to the politically potent charge that it is becoming health care welfare for lower income Americans. "www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/obama-medicare-means-testing_n_899839.html

[privateinvestor]

Obama offers to means test medicare

Yes but didn't both Chris Van Hollen and Nancy Pelosi say that Social Security and Medicare are off the table? So could it be Obama is mistaken because aren't Medicare patiens already subject to Means Tests..??

[ugonow]

Are premiums based on inciome? I didn't know that.Paul Ryan said his plan for medicare included means testing also.

[privateinvestor]

There’s Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee:


“We will not balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries, and we will not support cuts for Medicare beneficiaries. We do believe that there are ways to save additional funds. For example, on Medicare, one way to do that is to get a better deal for the Medicare program for the prescription drug industry. There are ways to generate additional revenues to help the Medicare solvency issue without slashing benefits to Medicare beneficiaries.”


There’s even the AARP:


“AARP urges all lawmakers to reject any proposals that would cut the benefits seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work,” said Barry Rand, the organization’s CEO.


The point, of course, is that not all entitlement cuts are created equal. For Democrats, there have consistently been two lines they’re unwilling cross: (1) privatization is out of the question; and (2) no benefit cuts. For Republicans, the list of demands is far more ambiguous. GOP leaders have said “Medicare cuts” are a necessity, but they haven’t said what kind of cuts they expect.

With Medicare, Dems could, for example, cut payments to the pharmaceutical industry, alter reimburse rates, do more to link provider payment to outcomes, etc. Politically, Dems think this shifts the burden back to the GOP: “You said you wanted Medicare cuts or you’d deliberately cause a crisis. Well, here are some Medicare cuts we can accept. Is it a deal or are you really that eager to punish seniors?”

With Social Security, this is far trickier. Cutting the program without affecting some benefits is practically impossible, so if Dems simply take Social Security benefit cuts off the table, the program itself is probably pretty safe.

The bottom line, though, remains the same: the more Democrats and seniors’ advocates talk about protecting entitlement programs’ “benefits,” the more it narrows the scope of the negotiations to structural changes.





www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_07/all_about_the_benefits030733.php

[privateinvestor]

Jul 16, 2011 7:54:06 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Obama offers to means test medicare

Yes but didn't both Chris Van Hollen and Nancy Pelosi say that Social Security and Medicare are off the table? So could it be Obama is mistaken because aren't Medicare patiens already subject to Means Tests..??

2010 Part B Premium Amounts for Persons with Higher Income Levels



Most Medicare beneficiaries will continue to pay the same $96.40 Part B premium amount in 2010. Beneficiaries who currently have the Social Security Administration (SSA) withhold their Part B premium and have incomes of $85,000 or less ($170,000 or less for joint filers) will not have an increase in their Part B premium for 2010. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: Will my Medicare Part B premiums increase in 2010?

For all others, the standard Medicare Part B monthly premium will be $110.50 in 2010, which is a 15% increase over the 2009 premium. The Medicare Part B premium is increasing in 2010 due to possible increases in Part B costs. If your income is above $85,000 (single) or $170,000 (married couple), then your Medicare Part B premium may be higher than $110.50 per month.

Social Security will use the income reported two years ago on your IRS income tax return to determine your premium (if unavailable, SSA will use income from three years ago). For example, the income reported on your 2008 tax return will be used to determine your monthly Part B premium in 2010. If your income has decreased since 2008, you can ask that the income from a more recent tax year be used to determine your premium, but you must meet certain criteria.

The chart below shows the Part B monthly premium amounts based on income. These amounts change each year. There may be a late-enrollment penalty.




Table 1: Part B Monthly Premium






Beneficiaries who file an individual tax return with income


Beneficiaries who file a joint tax return with income



Your 2010 Part B Monthly Premium Is


If Your Yearly Income Is




$96.40 if beneficiary has SSA withhold in 2009

$110.50 for all others


$85,000 or less


$170,000 or less




$154.70

(increased by $44.20 due to IRMAA)


$85,001-$107,000


$170,001-$214,000




$221.00

(increased by $110.50 due to IRMAA)


$107,001-$160,000


$214,001-$320,000




$287.30

(increased by $176.80 due to IRMAA)


$160,001-$214,000


$320,001-$428,000




$353.60

(increased by $243.10 due to IRMAA)


Above $214,000


Above $428,000







Table 2: Part B Monthly Premium
Beneficiaries who are married, but file a separate tax return from their spouse and lived with his or her spouse at some time during the taxable year



Your 2010 Monthly Premium is

Beneficiaries who are married but file a separate tax return from his or her spouse




$96.40 if beneficiary has SSA withhold in 2009

$110.50 for all others


$85,000 or less




$287.30

(increased by $176.80 due to IRMAA)


$85,001-$129,000




$353.60

(increased by $243.10 due to IRMAA)


Above $129,000


If you are having trouble paying your premiums, you should call your State Medical Assistance (Medicaid) office to see if you qualify for some help. Some states refer to the Medicaid office as the Public Aid office, the Public Assistance office, or the State Medical Assistance office.

INCOME RELATED MONTHLY ADJUSTMENT AMOUNT (IRMAA)

The Internal Revenue Service supplies your tax filing status, your adjusted gross income, and your tax-exempt interest income to the Social Security Administration to determine if you have an income related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA). The Social Security Administration will add your adjusted gross income together with your tax-exempt interest income to get an amount called the modified adjusted gross income (MAGI).

The income-related monthly adjustment amount is effective from January 1 through December 31 each calendar year. The Social Security Administration will refigure your Medicare Part B premium amount again next year when the Internal Revenue Service updates the information.


Additional information about the Medicare premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance rates for 2010 is available in the October 16, 2009 Fact Sheet titled, "CMS Announces Medicare Premiums, Deductibles for 2010" on the www.cms.gov website.

[ugonow]

I was not aware medicare was already means tested.Do Obama and Ryan know this?Why are they both suggesting to means test medicare? And why is medicaid needed?

[privateinvestor]

Jul 16, 2011 8:10:13 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I was not aware medicare was already means tested.Do Obama and Ryan know this?Why are they both suggesting to means test medicare? And why is medicaid needed?

Stop asking me politically incorrect questions....I am just passing through here to decide if I want to become a member of this P&M Message Board...my thing is Athletics NOT Politics in case you were wondering..

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

This is politican genius. If Obama can trap Republicans into voting for entitlement cuts AND tax increases, he will guarantee his re-election.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 16, 2011 8:29:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

This is politic an genius. If Obama can trap Republicans into voting for entitlement cuts AND tax increases, he will guarantee his re-election.

Bur Hey c'mon now so far Repubs are NOT falling for that so called "trap" or maybe "crap" is a better word to describe that.

[ugonow]

Well, it could make some room for loopholes and subsidies.

[privateinvestor]

Here's what I think will happen...there will be NO compromise for the Debt Reduction because both sides are so far apart and the dems and repubs are all split on taxes and spending cuts amongst themselves so Obama will go with the McConnell "Hail Mary" to avoid a default and we will be back to square one in the congress debating taxes and spending cuts....and remember you heard it here first by an Apolitical member of this board who is just passing through as a favor to Moonbeam to liven things up around here..

[ugonow]

I hope you are wrong,I don't like McConnels plan at all.

[privateinvestor]

Jul 16, 2011 8:41:58 GMT -5 ugonow said:

I hope you are wrong,I don't like McConnell's plan at all.

Excuse me but when have I ever been wrong about anything

P.I. (Infallible Democrat)

[djAdvocate]

this is part of the $4T deal that the GOP stupidly rejected. as a result, it will probably not happen. unfortunately.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 8:39:43 GMT -5 @privateinvestor said:

Here's what I think will happen...there will be NO compromise for the Debt Reduction because both sides are so far apart and the dems and repubs are all split on taxes and spending cuts amongst themselves so Obama will go with the McConnell "Hail Mary" to avoid a default and we will be back to square one in the congress debating taxes and spending cuts....and remember you heard it here first by an Apolitical member of this board who is just passing through as a favor to Moonbeam to liven things up around here..

i think that this is precisely what will happen. but remember, this is pretty much what Obama wanted a month ago: to not make this issue a political football. we all know who loses in this: the American people. but who won?

[handyman2]

In my view both sides have already lost the trust of the American public. You take well educated people and put them in office thinking they can use their brain power and come up with workable solutions. Instead all we get is a childish game of-I double dog dare you day after day. I am for one totally disgusted with the whole bunch. It is not time for the Democrats this or Republicans that. It is time for elected officials to represent every American to do what is best for all regardless of party affiliation.

[ameiko]

I'm not a big fan of means testing SS or Medicare since we were forced to pay into it all our lives. I prefer instead an increase in the age limit that affects all equally rather than punish those who have succeeded.

That said, perhaps some increases in fees or premiums might not be outside the realm of possibility, as well as decreasing the increase in SS payouts as one pays more. I suspect however that not enough people will have the resources to be means-tested without causing a great deal of hardship so it probably won't help much.

[ameiko]

Jul 16, 2011 10:03:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is part of the $4T deal that the GOP stupidly rejected. as a result, it will probably not happen. unfortunately.

You mean the 4 Trillion that Obama has refused to elaborate on?

He is just tossing numbers out there. Even assuming that there are real cuts, there is ZERO stopping him and the other Democrats from agreeing to 4 Trillion in cuts and no new tax hikes.

Heck, what he should do it agree to the 4 trillion in cuts and then make an appeal to all the liberals out there to put their money where their mouth is and send more money to the government. First stop? Warren Buffet should concede the tax write offs he's gotten for his investments in his charitable trusts since he's one of the biggest loudmouths of the "rich" paying more.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 17:11:42 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Jul 16, 2011 10:03:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is part of the $4T deal that the GOP stupidly rejected. as a result, it will probably not happen. unfortunately.

You mean the 4 Trillion that Obama has refused to elaborate on?

he elaborated on it. just not in front of you and me. it is actually well known to anyone who was in those meetings, and is fairly well leaked at this point.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 17:11:42 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Jul 16, 2011 10:03:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is part of the $4T deal that the GOP stupidly rejected. as a result, it will probably not happen. unfortunately.

You mean the 4 Trillion that Obama has refused to elaborate on?

He is just tossing numbers out there. Even assuming that there are real cuts, there is ZERO stopping him and the other Democrats from agreeing to 4 Trillion in cuts and no new tax hikes.

yes there is. THEY are stopping them from doing it. compromise means that both sides give up something they want to get something they want. it doesn't mean that Democrats bend over and get reamed by the GOP simply because the GOP doesn't want to compromise.

sorry, but i don't buy the childish argument any more. if the goal is cutting the deficit, than BOTH sides should take some electoral hurt for it. not one.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 17:11:42 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Jul 16, 2011 10:03:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

this is part of the $4T deal that the GOP stupidly rejected. as a result, it will probably not happen. unfortunately.

Heck, what he should do it agree to the 4 trillion in cuts and then make an appeal to all the liberals out there to put their money where their mouth is and send more money to the government.

actually, i don't think the president or congress appeal to anyone on this matter. we, as a nation, are behaving like petulant children. we want all the good stuff, but we don't want to pay for it. well too f-ing bad.

and i don't see why ONLY liberals should have to pay taxes. that makes no sense whatsoever. everyone benefits from government. there are just as many conservative retirees as there are liberal ones, for example. maybe more.

it is really a shame that the me-ism of the 60's is now so prevalent in conservatism. i always thought it was something that made them better.

[mmhmm]

Frankly, I've got no problem with means testing for Medicare and/or Medicaid. For that matter, I'd have no objection to means testing for Social Security. I have to start drawing next year, as I'll turn 70 in February. Do I really need it? No, I don't. Could I do with less of it to help those who do need assistance, or to help reduce the debt? Yes, I could. Could something catastrophic happen that might mean I did need my SS? Certainly, and it should be available to me should such an event take place; however, when I don't need it it could be applied elsewhere and do some real good.

[handyman2]

MMHM: You paid it so it is your money so take it and if you don't need it give it to charity. It just might lower your tax burden.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2011 22:53:42 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

MMHM: You paid it so it is your money so take it and if you don't need it give it to charity. It just might lower your tax burden.

if you don't use it, medicare IS charity.

[mmhmm]

My tax burden isn't all that dreadful, handyman. There are those who really need the help Medicare gives them. I don't, at this time. No reason to use up the funds that can be there for others.

[mmhmm]

If you have enough to live a comfortable life without the additional funds how, exactly, are you being punished?

[privateinvestor]

Jul 16, 2011 23:07:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 16, 2011 22:53:42 GMT -5 handyman2 said:

MMHM: You paid it so it is your money so take it and if you don't need it give it to charity. It just might lower your tax burden.

if you don't use it, medicare IS charity.

Yea but don't forget when you die Medicare does help to pay for some of your funeral expenses...so don't knock it ...

[kent]

Jul 16, 2011 7:59:10 GMT -5 ugonow said:

Are premiums based on inciome? I didn't know that.Paul Ryan said his plan for medicare included means testing also.

They sure are based on income and I posted something about means testing quite awhile ago (not many replies). I'm paying a little over $230 per month (single).

[kent]

Jul 17, 2011 6:33:20 GMT -5 Lady Gaga Gaga Snerd said:

The problem with "means testing" is it is yet another way to punish responsible people who have tried to live a frugal and reasonable life within their means and a way to further reward those who didn't.

Yes and no. I lived within my means and saved for retirement but there are others that had to squeeze to make ends meet. As such, I'm a bit conflicted. On one hand, let those that failed to prepare suffer the consequences but, on the other hand, we should help those that couldn't prepare due to low paying jobs or some other reasonable factor.

It would be an easy decision if you could somehow isolate those that spent their lives doing nothing to prepare for the future but that's not practical.

[ameiko]

Jul 16, 2011 17:22:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 16, 2011 17:11:42 GMT -5 ameiko said:

You mean the 4 Trillion that Obama has refused to elaborate on?

He is just tossing numbers out there. Even assuming that there are real cuts, there is ZERO stopping him and the other Democrats from agreeing to 4 Trillion in cuts and no new tax hikes.

yes there is. THEY are stopping them from doing it. compromise means that both sides give up something they want to get something they want. it doesn't mean that Democrats bend over and get reamed by the GOP simply because the GOP doesn't want to compromise.

sorry, but i don't buy the childish argument any more. if the goal is cutting the deficit, than BOTH sides should take some electoral hurt for it. not one.

How is standing by your principals childish? And, again, WHY are you and others demanding and insisting that some sort of compromise is needed?

I work in a variety of areas, including tech. When we have a problem, we don't COMPROMISE, we FIX IT!

Despite the brainwashing, there is ZERO compromise required but just the right steps to be taken. As I commented, if you had 4 kids and someone wants to kidnap only one of them, do you accept their compromise? NO! You bash their damn skull in!

We can not accept more tax hikes because that will only hurt the economy, raise little if any revenue (it might even bring in less) and it's NOT tax rates but SPENDING that is the issue as I hate pointed out and proved multiple times.

This is why I hate arguing with liberals: they never listen to facts.