Obama Publicly Backs Means-Testing Medicare

[fascisthunter]

Source: Huffington Post

“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.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/obama-medicare-means-testing_n_899839.html

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. This really burns me up --->

"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."

That sentence.

Actually, it's people in the top brackets that have impoverished our country.

[fascisthunter]

2. and now they get to not pay

while receiving tax cuts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

4. A bunch of rich pigs at the trough. nt

[Honeycombe8]

43. Did you understand the OP? They don't "not pay." The wealthy will pay more...

for the same Medicare benefits.

[fascisthunter]

52. yes I did.... the end game is NOT TO PAY

have a nice day

[Honeycombe8]

53. I thought we wanted tax hikes for the wealthy? (we already pay for Medicare and Soc Sec)

I guess I don't get why people are upset with what seems to be a tax hike for the wealthy.

[fascisthunter]

54. yes "we" do, and means testing gets the wealthy off the hook

all while Obama allows their tax cuts to be extended.

[Honeycombe8]

55. I don't see how means testing gets wealthy off the hook. They pay more for

the same benefits (after already paying more in taxes previously).

Isn't that what a tax hike for the wealthy is?

He didn't mention anything about that being tied to the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire (and they better).

[fascisthunter]

56. They should pay more, since the use more of our commons

yet they don't want to pay for the very country that made it possible for them to gain so much while others have so little. Pay up or leave is what I say.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. If he retired today... assuming he'd be old enough..

...he'd pay more in Medicare premiums, based on his projected income, just from his pension, than someone making $50,000 a year.

Because Medicare is already means-tested.

[Autumn]

5. He must realize that.

Right?

[jberryhill]

8. Yeah, but most Republicans don't

So offering them something that is not a change in policy might sound like a good deal to them.

After all, they've banned federal funding for abortion, what, about five times now?

[DURHAM D]

14. Apparently not.

[JDPriestly]

18. I'm on Medicare, but I did not know this.

That explains why some people I know pay so much more for their supplementary Medicare insurance than I do. I have actually expressed the doubt that they really have to pay so much. This explains it.

[Honeycombe8]

44. Wow. Complicated stuff. But it seems to be stretching the definition of

"means testing." He's talking about, say, ME paying more, because I paid higher taxes for Medicare years ago. And ME paying more for SUPPLEMENTAL (meaning private ins.) Medicare.

That's not really what is being discussed right now, is my understanding. What's being discussed is someone having to pay more for the core Medicare benefits, if you have more $$$$? That's different.

But even if were the same, that's a tax raise on the wealthy, right?

[blueclown]

6. Medicare is already means-tested!

Part B and Part D are already means-tested.

[Honeycombe8]

46. That's not what they're talking about right now, is my understanding.

But even if it were, does it matter to you if Congress wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, does it matter to you that we all already pay a progressive tax rate? No, it doesn't. So why would it matter that some parts of Medicare become means-tested, when other parts are already means-tested? It's a tax raise on the wealthy, right? That's what we "common folk" want. Right? Better than making poverty-stricken grandma get less healthcare. Isn't that the logic?

[Major Hogwash]

49. They don't want the facts to get in the way of their bitching about Obama for any reason.

When the facts do come out, they flatout deny it, or say something like "that's not how I understand it", like that means a damned thing in real life.

[madrchsod]

7. how about putting people BACK TO WORK!

the more people WORKING means more MONEY into the SYSTEM.


but no,we can`t have JOBS cause that would mean we would DEMAND more WAGES to BUY things that WE MAKE.

[deacon]

16. Ever since the GOP got in things started to backslide. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

20. Ah, things were made much worse by the health care reform bill

Here's a write up about it.
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8126.pdf

The really significant thing is that inflation-indexing was removed in the 2010 health care reform bill. That means that in 20 years, 85K will still be the means-tested limit. Assuming 2% annual inflation, that means a single person with a retirement income in 19 years equivalent to 60K today will be paying hundreds more a month for their Part B and Part D premiums. In 28 years, a person with a retirement income equivalent to 50K today will be paying those same high rates.

In 2011, 1.2 million of the 2.4 million beneficiaries paying the income-related Part B premium will also pay
the income-related Part D premium. Together, Medicare Part B and D premiums are estimated to range from
$206 to $471 per month. By 2019, an estimated 4.2 of the 7.8 million beneficiaries paying the incomerelated
Part B premium will also be paying the income-related Part D premium – which together are
estimated to range from $299 to $683 per month in 2019, depending upon income.

[Honeycombe8]

47. We can still address jobs, even though we also address other things. I just wish

they'd get on with the jobs part.

Although I can't imagine what they would possibly agree on that would help with jobs. All the Republicans want are tax cuts, which they keep saying will create more jobs (which we all know is THE BIG LIE....we've lost millions of jobs while living under decreased tax rates for the mega wealthy). And the Dems want another stimulus, which I can't imagine them getting, esp since they stuffed the last one with pork that had nothing to do with jobs.

What a mess.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. They can pay for health care from their Social Security cuts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1499062&mesg_id=1499062">"Time for old folks to eat their peas and catfood."

[eridani]

10. If he means shifting the existing means testing to lower income levels

--fuck that. Currently an individual has to have an income of morethan $85K to have higher premiums, or more than $170K per couple. That is such a tiny fraction of the elderly population that there are virtually no savings involved.

You could save a lot by fucking over people of modest means, though, like couples with incomes of $30K-$60K.

[Yo_Mama]

24. This already passed in the health care reform bill

They removed inflation indexing. A lot of people with moderate incomes will be paying higher Part B and Part D premiums.

[eridani]

26. Yes, but dropping the means test limit from $70K to

--say, $60K would hurt a hell of a lot more.

[Yo_Mama]

30. That's what they did by dropping the inflation indexing!

If inflation is 2% annually, which is the Fed target, in 28 years a retiree with the equivalent of today's 50K will be paying the higher premiums. If inflation is 2.5%, in 23 years a retiree with an income equivalent to 50K in current dollars will be paying the higher premiums.

For a retiree with an income of 60K, in 19 years at 2% the retiree will be charged the higher premiums. At 2.5%, such a retiree will be paying the higher premiums in 16 years.

At 2% inflation, a retiree with a current income of 70K will be paying the higher premiums in 11 years, and at 2.5%, that same retiree will be paying the higher premiums in 9 years.

Current twelve-month CPI is 3.6%. I am using CPI-U because we are discussing higher-income retirees. CPI-W (CPI for lower income workers) is currently 4.1%.

Since one of the ways we expect to escape some of the impact of our debt is with higher inflation (the Fed purposely pushed the six-month inflation up to 3.8 percent annualized through its bond-purchase program, and they had set a target of 4%), it's very possible that the actual intervals could be considerably shorter than I have calculated above.

It DOES give the government a heck of an incentive to drive inflation up!

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Luckily, though, the story already says he doesn't mean dropping the threshold to lower levels

so you didn't have to complain about that at all, since you had read the story already, hadn't you?

UPDATE : 1:30 p.m. -- An administration official sent HuffPost the following statement in order to point out that President Obama was not advocating lowering the income threshold at which Medicare beneficiaries would be asked to pay higher premiums.

Currently, Medicare premiums for doctors and for prescription drugs are already means tested, meaning that couples making over $170,000 or singles over $85,000 (about 5% of Medicare beneficiaries) already pay somewhat higher Medicare premiums.

What the President referenced today was his openness, as part of a potential big deal, to asking Medicare recipients over those high-income thresholds to pay modestly higher premiums. At no point did the Administration express openness to raising premiums on Medicare beneficiaries below those income levels.

(Note that the Affordable Care Act already included a nominal freeze of those high income thresholds through 2019, resulting in modestly greater means-testing for high income Medicare beneficiaries).

And that was updated on Friday, so it was in there when you wrote your post.

[provis99]

11. means-tested programs are highly unpopular and easy to defund.

I guess that's why he's doing it.

[awoke_in_2003]

12. "so I’m starting to think a little bit more about Medicare eligibility"

he lost me right there- he will never need medicare, as neither will any other politician.

[JDPriestly]

19. Fact is, Obama does not know what he is talking about.

He doesn't know that Medicare is already means tested as the link at the post above shows.

Clearly, his advisers haven't told him.

This slip should be the final slip of his presidency.

What a mistake he has been. Do you suppose he would resign if we asked him very politely.

He is going to be a big liability for the Democratic Party in 2012 after this goof.

[Yo_Mama]

23. It did shake me up

I was trying to figure out whether he knew or was just spinning. Either way it doesn't look good.

Did he not even know what was in the bill he signed?

He's either out to lunch or quite dishonest, and the bit about the Social Security checks not going out was pretty much the same deal. He's either too dumb to trust or he just lies when he feels like it.

This does raise an interesting question. Are we talking about MORE Medicare cuts? Because there are more Medicare cuts in the health care bill than just the means-testing, and those other cuts are very large also!

If you cut Medicare any more, it won't be worth a flip in 20 years anyway. It will be fake insurance.

[Major Hogwash]

51. President Obama is too stupid to read??

Seriously, he's a Constitutional scholar.
He's smart enough to know what is in the bills he signs!!

[cstanleytech]

27. I believe he was using it more as example because of his income

which exceeds most of us here probably by a good margin (or atleast I know it exceeds mine by a few million) and that people of his income level clearly dont need as much coverage as say someone who doesnt clear above $30,000.00 after taxes.

[awoke_in_2003]

39. I had the same reaction...

when Mitt Romney told someone he was unemployed, too. These people do not live in reality.

[cstanleytech]

41. True enough but

I dont know about you but if it came down to Obama or Mitt for president I'd probably vote for Obama.

[awoke_in_2003]

50. oh, no doubt...

it just makes me sick to my stomach when I hear some of the things our politicians say.

[Walk away]

42. Just because he won't need it doesn't mean he isn't going to get it.

I guess that's the other side of the argument. I'm not sure here I stand on this. I'll have to hear a lot more from both sides.

[OHdem10]

13. I hope some discerning journalist will check this out. Up until

Now, and I just talked with another Republican who confirms it:

Means testing has meant Those who can afford their own retirement
and health care--do not need Medicare and SS--could opt out.

Because this would mean a large number of affluent dropping out
of the program, it would no longer be a social insurance program.
It would become a Welfare Program. Also it would probably fail.
With salaries going lower and lower) For this reason, Liberals
in the past have fought means testing.


All I am saying, the President does not seem to be saying this
but he is saying Means Testing. Therefore, make sure the Republicans
have the same understanding of Means Testing.

Since its inception, people have paid into this program. Rich pay more
because they earn more, the poor make less and pay less.
This is progressive pricinples. SS Medicare and some parts of
Medicaid. This is not means testing.

[JDPriestly]

21. Problem is that Medicare and Social Security do not just

insure individuals who eventually get it. It also insures the government against having to pay for the very expensive costs of seniors' survival and medical needs at the end of life strictly out of the general funds.

Also, it preserves the dignity of ordinary and low-income seniors who have worked all their lives and are not wealthy in their final years.

Means-testing Social Security and making it seem like begging to apply for it would discourage seniors from applying. And that would be devastating for our society.

It is outrageous that a Democrat has so little understanding about the lives of ordinary and poor people -- absolutely outrageous. He has no business posing as a Democrat.

[RBInMaine]

15. GOOD ! Taxes should be progressive, and so should certain programs. RICH = Pay Some More Since You

Can AFFORD it.

[JDPriestly]

22. The rich already do which explains why some people I know

pay quite a lot for supplemental Medicare while I do not.

I have wondered about this. So, it is in a sense means-tested already.

I can't imagine having enough income as a retired person to have to pay the higher rate.

Very few retired people have incomes of $65,000 or $85,000 per year. (I think.) You would have to have a lot of investments or cash to get that sort of income each year.

[cstanleytech]

28. "in a sense means-tested already."?

That is a bit confusing to me atleast, it either is or it isnt already.

[JDPriestly]

32. Here you go.

What’s new or important in Medicare for 2007?

What You Pay for Medicare—See the 2007 amounts on pages 101–104.

Part B Premium—If you file an individual tax return and your yearly income is above $80,000 (or $160,000 for a married couple filing a joint tax return), your monthly Part B premium will be higher than the standard premium amount. For more information, see page 11.

. . . .

As of January 1, 2007, Your Part B Premium is Based on Your Income Most people will pay the standard monthly Part B premium. However, some people will pay a higher premium based on their modified adjusted gross income. Your monthly premium will be higher if you file an individual tax return and your annual income is more than $80,000, or if you are married (file a joint tax return) and your annual income is more than $160,000. These amounts change each year. For the 2007 premium amount in your income range, see page 101.

If you file an individual tax return and your income is above $80,000, or if you are married and file a joint tax return and your income is above $160,000, 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 2005 tax return will be used to determine your monthly Part B premium in 2007. If your income has decreased since 2005, you can ask that the income from a more recent tax year be used to determine your premium, but you must meet certain criteria. At the end of each year, Social Security will send you a letter if your Part B premium will increase based on the level of your income and to tell you what you can do if you disagree. For more information about Part B premiums based on income, call Social Security at 1-800-772-1213. TTY users should call 1-800-325-0778.


http://www.mymedicaresupplementinsurance.com/Medicare_and_You_Handbook_2007.html

I just learned this today from DU. It explains why some people pay more than I do.

[Yo_Mama]

29. Imagine It. Health care reform removed the inflation indexing

Currently you start paying higher part A and part B premiums at $85,000 MAGI (that's modified Adjusted Gross Income - they add back in a lot of exclusions from taxable income).

In 20 years it will still be $85,000. In 40 years it will still be $85,000. This means that if inflation were 2% annually (Fed target), in 28 years a person making the equivalent of today's $50,000 in annual income (includes non-taxable) would be paying more for Medicare. If inflation were to be 2.5% annually, in 23 years that same person would be paying more for Medicare.

Last year only 5% of Medicare beneficiaries paid the higher premiums. By 2019, about 14% or around one-sixth of retirees are expected to be paying the higher premiums. By 2030 it will be at least 35% - perhaps even half.

[JDPriestly]

31. Stealing from the poor to give tax breaks to the rich.

There are so many ways that they could raise taxes so that it would help rather than harm our economy. A one cent value added tax could be imposed along with returning to the inheritance taxes we used to have. Inheritance taxes are the best taxes. They do not disturb pay incentives to work hard. In fact, they discourage idleness in the children of the very, very rich. Wise parents, regardless of how wealthy they are, do not just leave their many millions to their children.

Children who never have the challenge and satisfaction of earning their own way (even if their path is made less treacherous by the generosity of their parents and grandparents) are much happier in the end, I believe. This is especially true if wealthy parents set an example of service and generosity to the community.

I am not suggesting that draconian inheritance taxes should be imposed, but we do need pretty hefty inheritance taxes on those with large fortunes.

One of the first things that our Founding Fathers did was to end the special inheritance rights of first-born sons. It is a part of our tradition that through our laws, we prevent the formation of an aristocracy. We are very close to establishing an aristocracy based on wealth and property ownership at this time.

It is quite difficult to get the right balance -- to preserve the healthy, creative capitalist system without letting it slide into a monarchy supported by an aristocracy of money and military power. Very difficult.

And that is one of the great challenges of this time -- to protect the economic basis for democracy without leaning too far in one direction or the other.

Allowing the state, the government to possess repressive economic power is quite a threat, but so is allowing an elite group of individuals (even if numbered in the thousands) to possess that kind of power.

We are on the edge and could go too far in either direction. Right now, we are in more danger of moving too far toward repressive oligarchy, but that can change in a very short time as it has in revolutions in various country. The conservatives are playing with fire. They seem, however, too ignorant and too greedy to realize it.

[RBInMaine]

36. SS contributions are capped at the first $106,000 of income. RAISE IT. Next, yeah, what I'm saying

is that those who are very well off should pay in more and don't need as much of a benefit. It should be reasonable, but the rich, and I'm especially talking millionaires and up, need to pay considerably more in taxes and should pay more for their benefits. The goal is to decrease the burden on lower and middle income earners as we are the engine of demand in the country.

[JDPriestly]

17. He just lost the election with that remark.

Baby Boomers were present at the beginning of the Medicare program and have paid into the insurance fund their whole working lives.

It should not be means-tested.

Obama thinks he will always be rich.

That is something that no one, no one, can assume.

Medicare is an insurance plan that nearly everyone needs at the end of life.

Rare is the person who dies suddenly without having had a lengthy illness, operations and out-of-control medical costs.

This is just an abominable statement on Obama's part. Just abominable. He is no Democrat. I bet he never really was.

I always asked but never found out whether anyone had researched the Hawaiian voter registration records to find out whether his grandparents were Kansas Republicans. I always suspected it.

[exboyfil]

34. Part of the problem is the paltry amount

that is paid into Medicare should never have guaranteed the type of benefits we see today. A better solution would have been a total pool involving all the population taxed at a reasonable percentage throughout your lives (about 15% of income like the Germans, but with our current spend it would be closer to 20%).

Those of us who are saving for retirement, as we see the bar lowered for means testing, will start to think it is better to retire earlier and enjoy our saved money before we are overly penalized for it later. Right now both Medicare and Social Security are income means tested. I assume we will eventually go to asset means testing like Medicaid as well. Those who think they have avoided means testing and taxes by doing Roths are going to be in a rude surprise later.

It is getting harder and harder to argue where saving for retirement makes sense. Most folks are going to be one illness away from being destitute under Medicaid. Even upper middle class people will not be able to save/purchase Long Term Care insurance to head off the eventual Medicaid nursing home situation. Those attempts to start LTC programs have fallen short as expenses have outstripped the insurance and have forced closing of such funds or dramatically modifying it for new contributors.

[JDPriestly]

38. I am also thinking that means-testing Medicare (any more than it is)

and Social Security would just discourage saving.

Also, I would like to point out that if you look at the list comparing the debt to GDP ratios of various countries, the countries with high ones are the countries with things like high immigration rates, extensive transportation systems, universal education at least to a certain level, scientific study, etc. Many of them are importer rather than exporter nations. They have disciplined populations and orderly systems of law but do not necessarily have oil or gold.

So a high debt to GDP ratio seems to be a silly way to judge the economic worth of a country, especially if the country has a sophisticated infrastructure. Most people prefer to live in countries with sophisticated infrastructures.

[Retrograde]

40. Bingo! What's the point of building up a nest egg

of saving for your retirement (pension? what's that?), of being frugal so you'll have something after you lose your job in your 50s or 60s, only to be told you now have too much, so say goodbye to that plan you've contributed to that was supposed to help with your medical expenses? It's a simple step from means testing on income to means testing on assets.

I'm still seething from Obama's seemingly casual suggestion of means testing Medicare last night.

[JDPriestly]

45. Also, Obama claims $5 million in assets now.

Granted, he might be able to make that grow into a lot, a lot of money (especially with the connections he has cultivated on Wall Street).

But there is no guarantee.

Inflation could eat into that so that its value was quite a bit lower than he thinks.

And, if he loses on investments and his capital diminishes back to "only" $5 million when he really retires, at today's interest rates, he would get a return of maybe 1.1%. That would be an annual income from his capital that is not that great -- maybe $60,000 or thereabouts per year.

Of course, he would plan to invest so as to get a better return. But that's counting your chickens before they hatch.

Means-testing Social Security and Medicare is a terrible idea.

Older people tend to be proud. The current Medicare system is too complicated for many seniors. No. Don't balance the budget on the backs of the elderly.

And if jobs were plentiful, more seniors would be working, and even more would be earning good salaries.

Focus on jobs and getting out of our trade agreements, and our debt will become at least manageable if not vanish.

We have the debt because it costs a lot to maintain our sophisticated, industrialized infrastructure -- and we spend far too much on the military.

As for the infrastructure, think of the costs of the floods and the damage payments to people for losses in the floods. Every year we have some huge disaster. Should we just let people handle their own problems when the Missouri River floods, or should government get into the act and try to avert the worst damage?

Tightening the belt more than it is will mean some really ugly decisions have to be made. It is much easier to just make it a bit harder to squeeze junk from around the world into our ports. Much easier and much safer and much better for Americans in the end.

[exboyfil]

35. Who your parents/grandparents were should not matter

"I always asked but never found out whether anyone had researched the Hawaiian voter registration records to find out whether his grandparents were Kansas Republicans. I always suspected it."

Why does it matter what his grandparents were? My grandparents were Democrats, my parents were Republicans, and I am nothing except disgusted with both parties, and it started before Obama was even elected.

The only criticism I have given to Obama on this board has been regarding his Peace Prize which should have never happened. Bush gave him a steaming pile, but I find what he is doing lately to be incredibly odd. I don't understand why we didn't do an endzone dance after Osama was put down and get the hell out of Afghanistan for example. As far as domestic issues and taxes???? What on earth is he doing?

I don't think it has anything to do with who his grandparents or parents were though.

[JDPriestly]

48. Obama talks in the language of a Republican.

He certainly did not learn that language from Michelle. Where does it come from? He falls for every Republican theory. He does not seem to have grown up in a culture of Democrats. It is his vision of the world that troubles me. Where did he get it?

[Faryn Balyncd]

25. The people hurt by means testing won't be those with $1.7 M income, but the MIDDLE CLASS

"means-testing on Medicare, meaning people like myself"


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/obama-taxes-income_n_850649.html


Trying to make it sound like means testing will only be something that effects those with incomes over $1 M/yr is less than honest.... Like the Alternative Minimum Tax, means testing will end up hitting primarily the middle class.

[boppers]

33. Care to define "middle class"?

Alternative Minimum Tax only affects the wealthy, as it starts at $72,450 for married couples. That's the top 30% of earners in the country, not the "middle", at least as I learned the concept of "middle".

[daleo]

57. Middle could be defined as 25th to 75th percentile

In which case there is some overlap. It depends on definitions, which tend to be flexible.

[fascisthunter]

37. a Pox on those working against us

this is life and death we are talking about. I'm afraid by the time I am old enough, there will be nothing but an option to gamble my money on the market, in hopes I win. Screw that and screw those who think this is just about politics. It's about people's livelihoods.

When the poor come out for justice, I will not blink an eye for them for I have seen enough of their callousness.