Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Medicare Part D was not funded. You pay a small copay but as has been noted for the past ten years, Medicare participants don't pay anywhere near what Medicare Part D costs.
That's because they aren't related. What is "paid into" Medicare Part D has no bearing on the government's ability to issue Medicare Part D as a benefit.
That's because they aren't related. What is "paid into" Medicare Part D has no bearing on the government's ability to issue Medicare Part D as a benefit.
Very true.
"Ten years ago this week, Republicans enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state since the creation of Medicare in 1965 by adding a huge unfunded program providing coverage for prescription drugs to the Medicare program.
Except for trivial premiums paid by recipients, the entire cost would fall on taxpayers.
...despite their oft-repeated opposition to new entitlement programs, they got behind the new drug benefit, now known as Medicare Part D, and made sure there was no cost-containment provision.
Through 2012, Medicare Part D added $318 billion to the national debt (see “General Revenue” on Page 111 in the 2013 Medicare trustees report). That same report projects that Medicare Part D will add $852 billion to the debt over the next 10 years."
Only if you ignore that it was in response to this:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent irresponsibly-borne children
As if children who didn't ask to be born need to undo their existence. If you want to blame their parents, fine. But you ask for compassion for seniors while attacking a child for the circumstances of their birth?
As I've said - again - I would be happy to cover my own children's education. They are my children.
So, why don't you?
Quote:
Medicare Part D was not funded. You pay a small copay but as has been noted for the past ten years, Medicare participants don't pay anywhere near what Medicare Part D costs.
What about all the other Medicare tax people paid for decades? People have already shown you the numbers. Their contributiions have already been in the hundreds of thousand of dollars for a benefit that doesn't even start until one truns 65.
This has actually been studied, and these are the findings:
Quote:
"For an average-wage-earning, two-income couple turning 65 in 2010, the pay-in, pay-out ratio for Social Security by itself will actually be slightly negative —- the couple will have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive only $579,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. (Remember, the couple didn’t literally pay out $600,000; that’s the current value of what they paid out over the years, plus an additional 2 percent they may have gotten had it been invested.)
And even so, the Social Security shortfall will be more than evened out by the extra dollars the couple gets back from Medicare. The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in."
BUT, here's the problem with those calculations: the return on investment from 1950 to 2009 was actually around 11%, not the 2% figure cited, and the article even warns about that:
Quote:
"...a 2 percent interest rate is tacked on top of that to mimic what would have happened to those dollars had they been put in a personal savings account. (Of course, using another percentage would make a difference.)"
So even the figures quoted abovesubstantially underestimate the total value of an average income earning couple's payroll tax contributions paid throughout their working lives.
Actually, they paid MORE than enough. The problem is that the federal government is an extremely poor steward of the payroll tax revenue they collected. That's the government's fault, not seniors' fault.
My question to you is why do so many of us understand all of this, while you simply have NO clue and have been falsely asserting that seniors have been paying ridiculously low Medicare taxes throughout the span of their working years?
This is why so many of us are so hesitant to let the federal government touch any other aspect of our lives. They simply do a really crappy job of everything they touch.
BUT, here's the problem with those calculations: the return on investment from 1950 to 2009 was actually around 11%, not the 2% figure cited, and the article even warns about that:
My question to you is why do so many of us understand all of this, while you simply have NO clue and have been falsely asserting that seniors have been paying ridiculously low Medicare taxes throughout the span of their working years?
From your own link: "The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in."
You keep doing this. You use Social Security data to justify Medicare expense. You hope no one notices, then you treat it as fact. You do this when you post this:
"For an average-wage-earning, two-income couple turning 65 in 2010, the pay-in, pay-out ratio for Social Security by itself will actually be slightly negative —- the couple will have paid $600,000 in lifetime Social Security taxes and will receive only $579,000 in lifetime Social Security benefits. (Remember, the couple didn’t literally pay out $600,000; that’s the current value of what they paid out over the years, plus an additional 2 percent they may have gotten had it been invested.)"
Why do you need to use Social Security data instead of Medicare data? Because Medicare doesn't pay for itself. If it did, you would be pasting that all over the place.
They are working on a $200 BILLION dollar doc fix now which will result in a cost of $4000 for every current Medicare recipient. That's just this time. You add all the other fixes, Medicare Part D, 75% of Medicare Part B and Medicaid, and you have a bunch of senior citizens getting far more health coverage than they paid in.
This is not about Social Security. Stop treating Social Security numbers like they are Medicare numbers. If it's a mistake, admit it. If it's deliberate, you're fooling no one.
Only if you ignore that it was in response to this:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent irresponsibly-borne children
They are. How is it not irresponsible for a parent to bear a child they have inadequate means to support, fully expectaing to unfairly place the cost of that burden onto others who had no choice in the matter and didn't even get to have the 5-10 minutes of fun during conception?
If you can't afford to have a child, use your Medicaid to get free contraceptives (both women AND men), or go to PP, a free clinic, or the county health department family planning clinic. How hard is that? Hell, colleges and even some high schools pass out free condoms like candy.
Quote:
As if children who didn't ask to be born need to undo their existence.
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Borne is the past participle of bear. The parents would have borne the children irresponsibly, the children wouldn't have borne themselves.
They are. How is it not irresponsible for a parent to bear a child they have inadequate means to support, fully expectaing to unfairly place the cost of that burden onto others who had no choice in the matter and didn't even get to have the 5-10 minutes of fun during conception?
Except you did not frame it as just the parents. You said "irresponsibly borne children". You want to attack the babies? Go for it. Just don't cry when people see you for who you are.
From your own link: "The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in."
You keep doing this. You use Social Security data to justify Medicare expense.
The article uses a ridiculously low 2% rate of return. The actual average rate of return during that time period was 11%, more than 5 times higher. Redo the math to get an accurate number.
Quote:
Why do you need to use Social Security data instead of Medicare data?
The article lists the results of the study for both SS AND Medicare taxes. How could you possibly have missed that?
"The couple will have paid $122,000 in Medicare taxes but will receive $387,000 in benefits — more than three times what they paid in." The article uses a ridiculously low 2% rate of return. The actual average rate of return during that time period was 11%, more than 5 times higher. Redo the math to get an accurate number.
The article lists the results of the study for both SS AND Medicare taxes. How could you possibly have missed that?
I didn't miss it! Get it? I didn't miss it! It's your link and I highlighted it! It's your link and it admits Medicare recipients get three times back what they pay in! It breaks out Medicare. Stop trying to combine them when your own source breaks it out. I do find it funny that your own source proves you wrong.
You post a source - which proves you are wrong - then you complain about its rate of return. So not only do you ignore the words, you try to rewrite the rate of return - from your own source.
You want to talk about Social Security? Start a thread.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Borne is the past participle of bear. The parents would have borne the children irresponsibly, the children wouldn't have borne themselves.