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.
There are millionaire's getting social security. Since they get the highest social security checks due to their income levels, their Medicare part B premiums should be higher than those on the lowest end of the s.s. income scale. I just can not afford 12% of my income for Part B.
Their premiums are much, much higher than what you pay.
Anyone whose modified adjusted gross income is higher than $214k has to pay the standard premium ($115.40 for new enrollees in 2011) plus an additional $253.70.
That makes their total monthly premium $369.10 if they enrolled this year.
I believe that you're only paying $96.40 correct?
So that would mean that they're already paying almost 4X what you're paying in order to subsidize your benefits.
I would like Medicare premiums to be basedon the amount of social security the person receives.
There are millionaire's getting social security. Since they get the highest social security checks due to their income levels, their Medicare part B premiums should be higher than those on the lowest end of the s.s. income scale. I just can not afford 12% of my income for Part B.
And as we know, if and when there is a cost of living raise, it may surely be wiped out by higher premiums on the insurance.
MadManofBethesda has already pointed out that not everyone is paying the same Medicare Part B premium, and he mentioned that what we pay is based on our Adjusted Gross Income as reported to the IRS.
I just want to point out how mistaken Howard555 is in seeming to think that the amount of Social Security a person receives is closely related to the amount of income a person receives. Howard, you implied in a previous post that your Social Security is essentially your only income. Well, are you aware that millionaires do not receive SS benefits in proportion to their high wages because the benefits are capped at a certain level, and the highest monthly benefit is only a little more than twice what you are getting? Millionaires, and many of the rest of us, have income streams in addition to Social Security, such as private pensions, state and local government pensions, investment income of various types, and earned income from continuing to work even while drawing SS, just by way of examples. This is why basing anything on the amount of SS a person receives, as you recommended in the first sentence of your post which I placed in bold above, would be skewed, unfair, and meaningless.
For example, my career job did not fall under Social Security, but I did have SS jobs while in college and also while moonlighting at various times, and these various jobs were enough to qualify me for a small SS retirement benefit, the amount of which is $138 a month. When they withhold my Part B premium, I receive $23 from Social Security. But this has nothing to do with my financial status; I have three out of the four sources of income which I listed above and I am doing just fine.
Lift up your eyes, Howard, and get a broader picture.
Beside which why should people be again for good retiremnt planning. If more had doen thenat we wouldn't be having the big 3 be the defciit growing programs they are and all three;SS;Medicare and medicaid.Its to a point now that without addressing these three the deficit will contimue to grow where at current levels it will consume 16% of the 18% of revenues in the future.
MadManofBethesda has already pointed out that not everyone is paying the same Medicare Part B premium, and he mentioned that what we pay is based on our Adjusted Gross Income as reported to the IRS.
I just want to point out how mistaken Howard555 is in seeming to think that the amount of Social Security a person receives is closely related to the amount of income a person receives. Howard, you implied in a previous post that your Social Security is essentially your only income. Well, are you aware that millionaires do not receive SS benefits in proportion to their high wages because the benefits are capped at a certain level, and the highest monthly benefit is only a little more than twice what you are getting? Millionaires, and many of the rest of us, have income streams in addition to Social Security, such as private pensions, state and local government pensions, investment income of various types, and earned income from continuing to work even while drawing SS, just by way of examples. This is why basing anything on the amount of SS a person receives, as you recommended in the first sentence of your post which I placed in bold above, would be skewed, unfair, and meaningless.
For example, my career job did not fall under Social Security, but I did have SS jobs while in college and also while moonlighting at various times, and these various jobs were enough to qualify me for a small SS retirement benefit, the amount of which is $138 a month. When they withhold my Part B premium, I receive $23 from Social Security. But this has nothing to do with my financial status; I have three out of the four sources of income which I listed above and I am doing just fine.
Lift up your eyes, Howard, and get a broader picture.
Howard, you implied in a previous post that your Social Security is essentially your only income.
..............In reply to the above comments, my premium is not $96.
I became eligible for Part B after the wait period, and did not take it at that time. So, when I signed up later, I incurred the 10% penalty. I cancelled Part B later in that year.
If I was to sign up in Jan. 2012, my premium would be about $125.
My social security check is $1060, so the $125 premium is close to 12%.
I have a small pension of $80 a month from an hourly job, if I take that at age 65. If I take it at age 62, it would be about 40% less or $48.00.
So, $1060 S.S. and $48 a month more at age 62 (or $80 more at age 65).
Its like any insurance;its a pool and pools don't work when you only signup when needed. I take it you saved nothing then.Sad but others that did should not be punsihed because you didn't anhd they did.
Its like any insurance;its a pool and pools don't work when you only signup when needed. I take it you saved nothing then.Sad but others that did should not be punsihed because you didn't anhd they did.
If I add the Part B premiums + the deductables + co-pays + overages, it totalled over $2200 per year.
I estimated that my medical expenses were far less than that.
So, why not put that $2200 in a personal health care fund at my bank?
I disagree with people saving Medicare money, having to pay a 10% penalty per year. I plan to sign up at age 65 and my cost will be up there at maybe $160 a month.
It really doesn't matter if you disagree or not ;that is the way insurance pools work. As stated you one medical problem away from bankrupsy. You never buy insurance for present need but to avoid future financial risk.
I expect the Ryan plan, which passed the House to be back, in which case you will get a voucher for a couple thousand and have to buy your own insurance costing at least $8,000 a year. Likewise Social Security may be cut in half
I expect the Ryan plan, which passed the House to be back, in which case you will get a voucher for a couple thousand and have to buy your own insurance costing at least $8,000 a year. Likewise Social Security may be cut in half
None of us can say for sure what will happen in the political arena, but I don't see Congress cutting Social Security in half or Obama signing such a bill if it did pass. Too many people would be too angry, and the politicians know it. Not only the seniors who depend mostly or entirely on SS would be furious, but their adult children would be also. There are a lot of discouraging things going on at this time, but I think you've gone off the deep end with that particular prediction.
None of us can say for sure what will happen in the political arena, but I don't see Congress cutting Social Security in half or Obama signing such a bill if it did pass. Too many people would be too angry, and the politicians know it. Not only the seniors who depend mostly or entirely on SS would be furious, but their adult children would be also. There are a lot of discouraging things going on at this time, but I think you've gone off the deep end with that particular prediction.
The Ryan Plan got through the house, that would have destroyed Medicare Suppliment plans and cost each senior thousands to get insurance. Who knows what the next election will bring.
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.
Cut Social Security in half? It won't happen.
