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.
For example, if my income in 2013 was $200K but in 2014 it dropped to $60K do my Medicare B premiums drop back to the basic $104.90 per month rate?
We had to file a form that excepted us from much higher Medicare premiums. I forget what it was called. We went to the social security office after receiving the letter that stated the higher amount. On the form you state your real anticipated income, correcting the 2 year ago look back. You have to give a reason and proof. Our proof was my husband's retirement letter on company letterhead. We still pay a little more but not the highest. There is no reason to over pay for two years.
My husband opted out of Medicare Part B 2 years ago because he preferred his employer's health insurance. Even though our joint income is under that $170,000, as a "new" enrollee (retiring this Spring) will he get hit with this increase even though he has been collecting Social Security since last October? He was told by an agent when he opted out that he would not incur any penalties.
If this is true, it is very unfair. We are a married couple the same age with the same income. I have been having my Part B taken out of my Social Security since last November. I fall under the Social Security"Hold Harmless" clause.
If my husband has to pay more than me, I would definitely call it a Penalty for choosing other health insurance while still working full time.
There has never been a premium increase of this magnitude. This (in addition to having the program sliced and diced) is how Obama is getting seniors (exempt from the ACA) to pay for Obamacare. It's pure redistribution. There is NO justification, either, for beneficiaries in any insurance plan to pay more because they make more. What's next? An assets test?
If anyone should be embarrassed, it's you--for justifying the draconian picking of seniors' pockets, and attempting to obscure why it's being done.
You are unclear in your own mind what the OP is talking about in this thread, and there seems to be discussion about two different things: First, there is the increase in the basic premium, and second, there is the tiered premium structure itself. It is the latter that the OP is objecting to.
Don't you know that the basic Medicare Part B premium is designed, by law, to cover 25% of the Part B costs? Any increase is designed to maintain that percentage, and has nothing to do with Obamacare.
You are engaging in flights of fancy.
Likewise the tiered structure itself, whereby people with considerably higher incomes pay premiums which cover more than 25% of the Part B costs, has nothing to do with Obamacare. How could it, as it was already in place many years before the Obamacare legislation was enacted.
Now your objection to the tiered structure on principle is a legitimate opinion, but it is your attempt to tie it to Obamacare where you take leave of all factual basis.
Now that I understand and can appreciate especially with there being so much negative being directed at high earners these days. The issue isn't those less fortunate than us but the vilification of those that are fortunate regardless of how they got there. Accept that you are blessed and move on and enjoy those blessings!
I do not see on CD the vilification of high earners. Perhaps that is paranoia. What I've expressed in this thread is amazement that really high earners would moan about paying a tiny bit more for Medicare. It is ALREADY a handout so why whine about low income seniors paying a bit less. Good grief.
Along with the incessant uninformed insistence, as Escort Rider continues to attempt to correct over and over, that Medicare has anything to do with the ACA. If vilification is going on by some, it's toward Obama. And this, from supposedly educated people.
We had to file a form that excepted us from much higher Medicare premiums. I forget what it was called. We went to the social security office after receiving the letter that stated the higher amount. On the form you state your real anticipated income, correcting the 2 year ago look back. You have to give a reason and proof. Our proof was my husband's retirement letter on company letterhead. We still pay a little more but not the highest. There is no reason to over pay for two years.
I repped you and wanted to thank you for this little tidbit and quote it to highlight it again. I keep seeing people complain about the 2 year look back like it is inescapable. It isn't.
I do not see on CD the vilification of high earners. Perhaps that is paranoia. What I've expressed in this thread is amazement that really high earners would moan about paying a tiny bit more for Medicare. It is ALREADY a handout so why whine about low income seniors paying a bit less. Good grief.
Along with the incessant uninformed insistence, as Escort Rider continues to attempt to correct over and over, that Medicare has anything to do with the ACA. If vilification is going on by some, it's toward Obama. And this, from supposedly educated people.
Not sure who it was but another poster already pointed out what I was going to say earlier. The folks in the group that pays more for their coverage have been high earners all along. As a result these high earners have been higher contributers to Medicare their entire working lives.
So even though they have contributed more for decades they get the same benefit as the low earners. Despite this they are now asked to pay more again, a double tax if you will. I can certainly see the opening poster's objection to that.
Not sure who it was but another poster already pointed out what I was going to say earlier. The folks in the group that pays more for their coverage have been high earners all along. As a result these high earners have been higher contributers to Medicare their entire working lives.
So even though they have contributed more for decades they get the same benefit as the low earners. Despite this they are now asked to pay more again, a double tax if you will. I can certainly see the opening poster's objection to that.
I believe you are confusing Medicare Part A, "paid for" via payroll taxes and Medicare Part B, which is not. The additional cost is for Medicare Part B. As noted above, 25% of Medicare Part B is funded by beneficiaries while the remaining 75% is funded by the taxpayers. No one, while working, contributed a dime towards Medicare Part B.
The powers-that-be determined that wage earners should not be expected to fully subsidize the high income retirees' health benefits while they themselves struggle to pay for their own healthcare.
The powers-that-be determined that wage earners should not be expected to fully subsidize the high income retirees' health benefits while they themselves struggle to pay for their own healthcare.
You can always expect that the left will spin the truth until it stands firmly on its head.
You are correct about you earning your nickel. The highlighted part is the problem. How do we care for the less fortunate who were just plain unlucky. I am gathering you are more irritated at those who don't try.
We have a young man(35) who dog/house sits for us. He got badly injured, physically and mentally from being hit by a car at age 18 weeks after graduating HS. Has had a couple of jobs but can't hold them very long. He seems to be the one who always get "laid off" and not called back. He does fine dog/house sitting. He lives with his elderly parents who drive him where he needs to be. He may be OK financially after his parents die, but has some extensive needs.
Acquaintence who was brickmason, although he may still have been an apprentice. Snapped his neck and severed his spinal cord in his mid 30s. Wife took the kids and dumped him. Definitely can't live on his own although he does with 24 hour assistance coming in.
These guys were unlucky. Sadly many threads seem to throw those were trying under the same bus as those who don't.
I have no issue with people that fall on hard times through no fault of their own. Everything I've seen says this is a relatively small percentage of people vastly outweighed by a boatload of people that are where they are because they made bad decisions. I resent having to subsidize those people.
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.
