Basic Medicare Premium to Rise 15% Next Year

Source: NY Times

WASHINGTON — The basic Medicare premium will shoot up next year by 15 percent, to $110.50 a month, federal officials said Monday.

<Cut>

About 12 million people, or 27 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, will have to pay higher premiums or have the additional amounts paid on their behalf. The other 73 percent will be shielded from the increase because, under federal law, their Medicare premiums cannot go up more than the increase in their Social Security benefits, and Social Security officials announced last week that there would be no increase in benefits in 2010 because inflation had been extremely low.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, urged the Senate to approve a bill, already passed by the House, to block the scheduled increase in Medicare premiums.

“We are in tremendously difficult economic times, and seniors are being hit particularly hard,” Ms. Sebelius said. “The last thing seniors need right now is a substantial increase in their Medicare premiums, and many seniors will see such an increase if no action is taken.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/health/policy/20health.html?hpw

Or so SSI tells us!

what a bunch of low life thieves they are.

Although I think our taxes should be at a level that simply pays for medical care and tax rates simply proportionate to what you make or how wealthy you are.

If the premium is $100, then taxpayers are kicking in $300 (75% of part B comes from the general fund, part A has no premiums) plus the 2.9% of wages paid as part of FICA which goes towards Part A.

The reality is that Medicare isn't cheap -- not that I disagree with a public plan, but cost controls are needed regardless.

Um, its cheaper than private insurance for this segment. Between low overhead and negotiated rates, its saves a tremendous amount per capita. Itd be difficult to get much cheaper than this, without going national single-payer.

supposedly going to root out to help pay for health care reform has not been addressed already. You don't need a reform bill to shut down that stuff.

I wonder if they ever realize how they sound to the rest of the country???

I have been paying into medicare fund since 1966. I have already paid over $50,000 for medicare coverage. (I know this because the SS Administration sends an annual statement once you reach a certain age)

I don't become eligible for medicare benefits until later this year.

Do you think $50,000 paid in advance and then $110 more each month is a good deal?

Also, this is just 80% coverage with a 20% co-pay and has additional deductibles as well and does not include medication. Its better than nothin' but it is not really a bargain.

BTW - if I had only worked 10 of the past 44 years and paid in only a few thousand dollars to the medicare fund the coverage and cost at 65 would still be the same.

You have been paying for everyone who gets medical coverage through medicare, just as others will pay for you when you have medicare, even if you never use it. You have also paid for many roads you've never driven on, space shuttles you haven't ridden in, etc.

unless we paid you off first.

now the question is, are you going to oppose that for example, college kids get to enroll in medicare because they haven't paid years of premiums while you have.

if something is a good thing, it's a good thing. you should support it.

i should also remind you that if you do oppose it on that basis, those kids you deny universal health care may just decide to vote your benefits away, regardless of how long you've paid in.

the current non-universal safety net (better for seniors than everyone else) is only kept in force by the consent of the governed, many of them not eligible for it (yet). they could take it away and there are more of them than you.

word to the wise.

Number one - I didn't set a standard. I just provided some facts and asked a question.

Number two - I made no comment about supporting or not supporting single payer for all. This past weekend I was cleaning out a file cabinet and found a paper I wrote in 1969 on the need for universal health care building off of the then new medicare program. What have you done lately?

Number three - I don't need a damn lecture from a punk like you for something I neither said nor inferred.

Your word to the wise is insulting.

Just for the record - I am and always have been for a single payer universal health care system for everyone.

but i was responding to another argument that you don't share actually, sorry. i didn't put *IF's* either, which would have helped.

but one item that you missed is that i said *cheaper and fairer* than health insurance and it's more reliable too.

I read your post and then read his. I had to go back and read yours again to be sure I hadn't missed something. Sure enough... you neither said nor implied most of the crap he attributed to you. That occurs a lot around here.

Your reply was a slam dunk.

a single-payer system would be paid for through TAXES. EVERYONE would be "paying" for it- so NO- it wouldn't be "free", and it really does our side a disservice to refer to it as such.

proportionate to one's income/wealth.

perhaps i should've said free of charge.

That was one of the guiding principles that was laid down when the UK was debating the passage of the National Health Service Act that created the UK's current universal care system.

because:
1) it isn't free.

2) the pukes would just pounce on that word- saying that our side is always expecting something for nothing.

almost always preferable. Your second reason, meh. Worrying about what the cons may say, will say, are likely to say or whatever is folly. They will always pounce and they will always say something ugly and at least partially untrue. Take that as a given, then forget about it.

As an aside, my observation is that worrying about what "they" will say is something Democrats do much more than cons. I wonder if it's hard-wired somehow into those with a liberal bent.

"our taxes should be at a level that simply pays for medical care and tax rates simply proportionate to what you make or how wealthy you are"

on edit: progressive taxation (the model used nearly everywhere else in the "first world") is obviously a better idea than "proportionate taxation" that you propose, but even proportionate taxation would be vastly superior to what is in effect egregiously regressive taxation at the heart of this sad, bad, cruel joke of a "reform"....

And I don't mean electing any Republicans.

What is it about "third rail" that Blue Dogs just don't get?

about the payment for optional part B. Part A, which pays for most services (including hospital costs) does not incur a premium charge.

Part B is the part that pays for physician services. The BIG problem here is that some people may choose not to purchase it if the rate goes up too much. If that happens, hospitals will still get paid, but the docs providing services both in their offices and in the hospital will not.

That would be very, very bad.

but all outpatient services (imaging, labs, etc.)

:(

I would gladly pay that and consider myself lucky.

I pay $67.20 in medicare taxes, and another $90.63 as my portion of my HMO cost. My company pays the rest, which is about $900 a month for health insurance.

They acted surprised when I told them to go fuck themselves. I would think they would be used to it.

discussion all about this can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x490207

Obama better forget the $250 bribe and get it done right.

Hawkeye-X

I wonder which ones are getting hit?

From medicare.gov:

The following is a listing of the Medicare premium, deductible, and coinsurance rates that will be in effect in 2010:

Medicare Premiums for 2010:

Part A: (Hospital Insurance) Premium

*
Most people do not pay a monthly Part A premium because they or a spouse has 40 or more quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
*
The Part A premium is $254.00 per month for people having 30-39 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
*
The Part A premium is $461.00 per month for people who are not otherwise eligible for premium-free hospital insurance and have less than 30 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.

Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium

Most beneficiaries will continue to pay the same $96.40 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 (or $170,000 or less for joint filers) will not have an increase in their Part B premium in 2010. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "Will my Medicare Part B premium 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. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "2010 Part B Premium Amounts for Persons with Higher Income Levels".

From medicare.gov:

The following is a listing of the Medicare premium, deductible, and coinsurance rates that will be in effect in 2010:

Medicare Premiums for 2010:

Part A: (Hospital Insurance) Premium

*
Most people do not pay a monthly Part A premium because they or a spouse has 40 or more quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
*
The Part A premium is $254.00 per month for people having 30-39 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.
*
The Part A premium is $461.00 per month for people who are not otherwise eligible for premium-free hospital insurance and have less than 30 quarters of Medicare-covered employment.

Part B: (Medical Insurance) Premium

Most beneficiaries will continue to pay the same $96.40 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 (or $170,000 or less for joint filers) will not have an increase in their Part B premium in 2010. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "Will my Medicare Part B premium 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. For additional details, see our FAQ titled: "2010 Part B Premium Amounts for Persons with Higher Income Levels".

http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/...

:dem:

I seemed to think my husband's premium would not go up and I was right.

I appreciate your quick response.

seems new people coming into Medicare and the wealthier folks will be paying more. Most people already on Medicare will not see an increase unless their income is quite high. Having an income $85,000.00++ for a single person seems high to me.

:dem: :kick:

the ones getting hit is anyone who is not yet drawing Social Security. I will turn 65 soon but am not drawing SS yet. I still work full time because my full retirement age is not until age 66. If I had opted to draw SS a little early I would not be charged the 15% increase.

JFTR - that is some pretty f**ked up public policy reasoning to penalize people over 65 who are still working because they have not yet reached their full retirement age. Maybe I should just call up SS and start taking my monthly disbursement early.

When I recently signed up for Medicare (you start 3 months before your 65th birthday) they time and time again pushed me toward taking SS now. It was sort of weird. I just figured it was because they want to save the money of billing you quarterly and it is much easier and more efficient for the government to take it from your SS check.

we will have to go through the usual fights with the new outfit in order to keep the meds she needs. Would our single payer system prevent this?

replacing the bullshit that goes on with private insurance with the bullshit that goes on with "public" insurance...same ole same ole...

You do know this board is only for Democrats, right?

agree 100%...

I havent been too impressed with anything that has been proposed. My bad.

but not by much.

should factor in heavily when computing the COLA for the aged and the disabled, not the cost of airfares or NYC co-ops.

Despite the recession, the costs of basics keep rising, at least in my area. I have no idea how people who are dependent upon OASDI are supposed to eat, let alone eat healthy, and pay their rent, especially if they are not in public housing. And then, here is the obscene cost of medications.

(For our too numerous DU con trolls: Yeah, yeah, I know. Serves 'em right for being irresponsible and getting disabled before funding their 401Ks.)

where we pay the same or more for a smaller amount then we did just a bit years ago. For just one example: we used to buy a 50 pound bag of dog food for around $12. Now we pay almost $2. more for the same brand in a 44 pound bag.

Our grocery bill is higher too. In talking with others getting Soc Security (retirement or disability) DH and I aren't the only ones asking where the heck these folks are shopping to get their figures... it's certainly not where we do and I'm uber careful with finding deals on food, etc.

As for RW lurkers... there but by grace go you and yours. Diseases and disabilities don't know a religion or political party.