E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the latest parrying and positioning over a deal to avert the year-end “fiscal cliff” of spending cuts and tax increases, leading congressional Democrats now say they’re willing to trade some increased means testing of Medicare in return for the Republicans accepting tax increases.
In Capitol Hill language, “means testing” (or more precisely “income relating”) means targeting benefits, payments or tax breaks to people who fall below a certain income level, or denying benefits, payments or tax breaks to people who are “too wealthy” to need them.
President Obama's conciliatory tone Monday came a day after the president and Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner had their first one-on-one meeting. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
Many federal benefits and tax breaks are means tested.
To take one example, the $1,000-per-child tax credit – which is worth about $57 billion this year to families – is phased out for married taxpayers filing a joint return when their income reaches $110,000.
For the most part, Medicare isn’t a means-tested program. Once you reach age 65, if you have worked and paid Medicare taxes for 10 years, then you’re eligible for benefits, no matter how high your income is.
Since 2007, Medicare has required higher-income people who are enrolled in the program to pay more for their benefits.
For Medicare Part B (which covers doctors’ office visits and outpatient care) people who make more than $214,000 a year pay three times as much in premiums as do people who make $85,000 or less.
There are five levels of Part B premiums, with the highest being $3,836 a year.
Right now, only a small percentage of Medicare recipients must pay the premiums: 5 percent of Part B enrollees and 3 percent of those enrolled in Medicare Part D, which pays for prescription drugs.
Leading congressional Democrats – Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, as well as Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus -- have indicated they’re open to more means testing in the Medicare program as part of an accord to avoid the fiscal cliff.
On Meet the Press, Durbin indicated Sunday that means testing is far preferable to lifting the Medicare eligibility age.
“I do believe there should be means testing. And those of us with higher income in retirement should pay more. That could be part of the solution,” Durbin said. “But when you talk about raising the Medicare eligibility age, there's one key question: What happens to that early retiree? What about that gap in coverage between the workplace and Medicare?”
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, and "Meet the Press" moderator David Gregory join a conversation on means testing in Medicare.
In bargaining terms, Obama wouldn’t be surrendering anything by agreeing to steeper means-testing. He already called for exactly that last February in his Fiscal Year 2013 budget proposal.
Obama proposed that beginning in 2017, premiums for Medicare Parts B and D increase by 15 percent. His proposal would maintain the same income threshold to determine who must pay higher premiums until 25 percent of Part B and D beneficiaries have to pay the premiums. That would happen in about the year 2035.
Obama’s plan says this change will reduce “the Federal subsidy of Medicare costs for those beneficiaries who can most afford them” and would save about $28 billion over 10 years.
Although the current means testing of Medicare originated in President George W. Bush’s 2003 Medicare law, which created the prescription drug benefit, it’s a concept that Democrats such as Bill Clinton and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California have supported in the past.
And Medicare means testing is an idea that GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney spoke up for – in a somewhat different form – during the campaign, when he said in his first debate with Obama that “to save Medicare… we have to have the benefits high for those that are low income, but for higher-income people, we're going to have to lower some of the benefits.”
Obama’s form of means testing wouldn’t cut benefits for higher-income Medicare recipients; instead, it would make them pay more for the benefits they got.
But health policy expert Paul Van de Water, a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank in Washington, points out that in budget terms, requiring higher-income people to pay more for Medicare achieves the same deficit reduction as does providing lower Medicare benefits to upper-income people -- “plus it’s a whole heck of lot simpler to do.”
Some liberal groups and Democratic members of Congress continue to think it’s a bad idea.
Last February, when Republicans proposed a version of Obama’s proposal, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said that charging higher premiums would be “a dangerous path for us to go down” because it could lead more affluent seniors to opt out of Medicare and undermine public support for the program.
Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a coalition of labor unions, liberal groups and organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, said Monday, “Proposals to further increase means testing of Medicare beneficiaries miss the mark. How much more do we want seniors to pay for their health care?”
He said, “Our goal shouldn't be to shift Medicare costs to seniors and make health care more expensive. It should be to make the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans pay their fair share in taxes. That is the fair way to raise revenue.”
But even though it would raise a relatively modest amount of revenue (less than 2 percent of the $1.6 trillion in deficit reduction that Obama is seeking) increased Medicare means testing stands a good chance of being part of any deal between Obama and Republican leaders.
“President Obama may well have to accede to other Republican demands as well,” Van de Water said. “And of the items that people like (GOP Senate leader) Sen. (Mitch) McConnell have put on the table, Democrats may view this one as less bad than several of the others.”
He added, “If someone pointed a gun at my head and said I have to choose either expanding the Medicare income-related premiums or raising the eligibility age, I’d choose raising the premiums without hesitation.”
Leave a Comment:
If the wealthy opt out of medicare, wouldn't that mean medicare is spending less money? Would that be a bad thing? If medicare is spending more than it is taking in, then fewer people taking money out of the system would save money right?
Means testing is just a tax increase under another name. Sure, right now they are talking about only affecting a small % of the recipients, but unless they start talking about actual cuts, that % will grow.
What's the point in being fiscally responsible if, when we reach retirement age we aren't going to the benefits that people that blew their money over the years will get? Maybe we should just be like most Americans and not save anything...just spend like crazy every day...
'means testing'? Reoublicans are just too MEAN!!!
GOPee, KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!! I EARNED EVERY PEnNY OF THEM.
GOP, go away, if you don't, voters will make you go away in November 2014.
That mentality is the precise reason both these programs are broke. Look, nobody wants to take away your retirement. You rightfully earned it. However, these programs are in desperate need of change or they will sink this nation, fiscally. Have you looked at the budget projections for these two programs? Its unsustainable-and economists have been saying it for years.
I am left-leaning mind you, but when I hear people refusing to reform social security and medicare it saddens me, because it is a train wreck in the making.
They've done 'Means testing' for years at the VA...It's thier sliding scale as to what you pay for your co-pay,and it does not hurt the veterans at the lower end of the income scale,and it's a subject that you hear almost nobody (Veterans)complain about...So in post-active duty years,..an O-6 Colonel would pay more for his Diabeties medicine,than an E-5 Sergent would...Due to the pay grade difference...(of course that could change if the E-5 Sgt. had a $50K+ a year job after active duty).....not an issue at all....Big money makers could opt out, and get private treatment,but THEY would pay for it.....not the Govt.(less subsidy).......so how is opting out of Medicare going to hurt Medicare???....Less Govt. money spent...........What I want to see is people paying into Social Security again..at the pre-'Obama tax cuts' rates.....I, along with alot of others paid into it for years...and now we're being told we'll only get 75% of what our statement says starting in 2017.....Basic economics says:You can only take out of a bank account what you put in....BOTH parties,and thier bosses need to learn that...........U.S. Army Disabled Veteran.
Nonsense. Social Security is nowhere near "sinking" the nation fiscally. It's sustainable for decades, and if they removed the earnings cap on FICA, it would be solvent almost indefinitely.
If Medicare were turned into a true single-payer health insurance system, covering absolutely everybody, it could finally exert some real cost control over healthcare expenses. Its overhead, at less than 2%, is far, far better than any private health insurance company, where overhead typically runs 22% to 25%. Expanding Medicare would save us all a vast amount of money - most industrialized countries with single-payer systems get better healthcare than we do (measured by whatever objective measure you care to use), at about half the cost.
These are precisely the wrong programs to be going after. Typical of the G.O.P., to get it backwards. Again.
The GNOP won't allow Medicare to negotiate with Big Pharma for better pricing for drugs. Insurance companies are allowed to. Why not Medicare?
This is one area of huge potential savings.
The GNOP ALWAYS protects the wealthiest on the backs of the poorest.
Ron
Why would you assume that folks that can't afford health care blew their money or are fiscally irresponsible? Perhaps they just didn't/don't make enough money to save and purchase expensive medical insurance coverage. They probably waited on your fat butt at a restaurant or fixed your car or picked up your trash. Typical right-wing reaction.
EarlyOut-
Social Security Insolvent by 2033:
http://www.bna.com/social-security-trustees-n12884909036/
Medicare Insolvency by 2024:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/reality-bites-medicare-insolvency-coming-sooner-expected-143046324.html
I think you missed the entire point of my post. Without reforms these programs are unsustainable. That's exactly why these programs need to change. Like the changes you suggest, for example. But many people are scared of changing SS and medicare and are adamantly against it.
When the G.O.P. talks about "reforming" SS or Medicare, they're really talking about cutting them back - reducing benefits, covering fewer people, privatizing them, and so on. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
1. Read my posting history and it will be clear that I am no conservative.
2. If you don't want to cut benefits, then you will have to either find some other program to cut or raise taxes on everybody. Or print money and cause inflation. There is no such thing as a "painless" solution. The sooner you realize that, the sooner we can start solving these problems.
I've told you how to fix both programs. Remove the earnings cap on FICA, and expand Medicare to cover everyone.
OK, but how do you pay for this?
The Company - Talk about unsustainable take a good look at what has been promised to Politicians, Police, Fire, then again lets just say all Public Workers..... It makes our problems look very small.....
Allowing some to opt out is not the answer. Everybody should be "IN" and everybody should receive the same treatment. The difference comes at income tax time, when the wealthiest beneficiaries find that almost all of the benefits (costs) are clawed back by the tax-man. That is FAIR.
That dozy old fart John McCain should receive access to full benefits whether he wants them or not, the difference is that his income from all sources will ensure that the gummint gets it all back. Conversely a Vet at the very bottom of the income scale will receive the benefits and treatments that he or she needs.
So, the more you paid in over the years, the more likely you are to get nothing out. Seems fair.
That's not what Earlyout and I were discussing, but I do agree with you.
Honey, i want to get breast implants, I want bigger boobs
Why don't you just rub them with some toilet paper?
Toilet paper?
well yea sweetheart....look at what it did for your ass
Smile folks...it's outa our hands now.
Did anyone ever notice when Obama talks about fiscal responsibility. He is always criticizing Bush, or cutting programs after his reign of horror is over?
There are a few other ways to confront the Social Security and Medicare solvency issues than just cutting benefits and payouts to users such as means testing and raising top payroll tax level. These are acceptable ideas and there are others I'm sure out there. It seems the only idea the conservatives think of are to cut, cut, cut. Social Security is not part of the deficit any way and should be completely of the table now anyway.
People blew their money over the years? Lest you forget, people were required, by federal law to contribute their money to the SS and Medicare funds. It was taken from their paychecks by federal law.
And, now you are saying, it is gone (why, because Ronnie Reagan, the patron Saint of Republicans, took it!) and it is no longer there!
Bullcrap! Of that $16.3T debt, $6.3T is owed to the SS and Medicare trust funds! Our government has been borrowing (i.e. stealing) from those funds for 30 years! No wonder there isn't enough money to support SS and Medicare! Our government has been treating that money as tax revenue for 30 years!
We should have listened to Al Gore's "lock-box" idea.
So how is this the Republicans fault? The article CLEARLY stated...DEMOCRATS are willing to trade! You all voted for this crap, ......now deal with it!
Why in hell would we means test Medicare? The last time I looked, everybody on Medicare pays the same premium....how much"fairer" can you get? How much a given person "makes" or "has" is immaterial.....unless, of course, you' re a socialist loser. Then, of course it all makes sense for the doers to pay for the takers.
Spider Medicare tax applies to all earnings. There is no cap! And already those who pay in the most may have their premiums increased if they earn too much in retirement! This is the wealth redistributers wet dream!!!!
SPIDER. DON'T TRY TO USE REASON OR FACTS WHEN TALKING ABOUT ANY CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. I am a Veteran and have to Pay for my Office visits and my Medications because I have been means tested. I have saved to much money for the VA to give me my earned benefits. Does that make any sense.
Wait it gets worse. I am on Medicare but the VA will not process my VA payments to Medicare so that I Can be paid by my secondary insurance. The secondary won't pay unless Medicare processes the bill. In short I have two Insurance policies Medicare and Bluecross but I have to pay for my office visits to the VA. I guess that makes sense to someone in the Government.
Wait it gets worse. If I let the VA send me the Medication I pay $36 for the script. If I go to Walmart I pay $10. Same drug. The VA Doctor can't issue me a script that I can take to Walmart. Does that make any sense to anybody?
It is cheaper for me to go to the private sector and get my medical services than it is to get them from the Government who promised me the service. Means testing at its worst.
Just another example of upcoming pain and financial suffering simply because for the last 30+ years Congress can't get it's act together and balance spending with revenue.
There is no easy way out, and no action will bring the pain faster.
If both parties agree on something you're probably going to get royally screwed:
The “fiscal cliff” and the dismantling of Medicare
10 December 2012
by Kate Randall
It is becoming increasingly clear that any deal reached in the negotiations in Washington over the “fiscal cliff” will include a major expansion of means testing for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors and the disabled. The introduction of increased fees based on income will signify Medicare’s transformation from a universal health care program for the elderly into a poverty program, the first step in its being starved of funds and ultimately dismantled.
In the ongoing deficit-reduction talks, leading congressional Democrats have suggested that they are open to means testing, beginning with the raising of premiums for higher-income beneficiaries. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the senior senator from President Obama’s home state and the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate, said Thursday that means testing for Medicare is “certainly consistent with the Democratic message that those who are better off in our country should be willing to pay a little more…."
...On its face, the proposal that higher-income seniors “pay a little more” for Medicare may seem reasonable. Some means testing has already been introduced into the program. Since 2007, higher income people on Medicare have paid higher premiums for outpatient doctor visits.
But there is nothing egalitarian about moves to make means testing an essential part of Medicare. A fundamental structural change, it is the thin edge of the wedge for undermining the program, which is why supporters of Medicare have opposed such proposals, previously the province of sections of the Republican right.
It is being promoted now by both parties as part of a frontal assault on all that remains of the social reforms enacted in the 1930s and 1960s. In the name of reducing the deficit and the national debt, and on the basis of the lie that “there is no money” for social programs, the American ruling class and both of its parties are carrying out a social counterrevolution…
…Who is to set the parameters for determining who is sufficiently wealthy to pay more for health care? And once rates are raised for one section of the population, the way will be cleared not only to hike payments for more people, but also to gut their benefits.
The attack on Medicare is, moreover, a prelude to means testing for Social Security, the New Deal program that established universal retirement benefits…
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/dec2012/pers-d10.shtml
Pigotry
given most of your posts you come off as a genius , in your own mind of course , how about you learn how SS is done and stop the lefty "Ima get mines" BS
you haven't contributed 1 dime to your own SS , you have contributed to pay for the seniors that are collecting now and in the past , future generations will pay for yours , it is a ponzi scheme , you know , just like you holler about Bernie Madoff doing
if future generations don't pay in you don't get squat , won't that be funny , ya , I think it will
your continual drivle is tired and ragged , Matthews and Madcow and Maher have left you ill prepared for discussions , but it is entertaining to read the pablum
The "Fiscal Cliff" is a crisis manufactured by both corporate funded parties. It's purpose is to scare the public into accepting huge cuts to social programs like SS and Medicare which keep millions of americans out of poverty and also to provide political cover for the two parties.
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/manufactured_crisis_20121208/
When is the GOVERNMENT going to break up The Monopoly that GOOGLE HAS?????
Google has a monopoly on the internet search engine industry and needs to be broken up.
There control over the search engine industry is UNPRECEDENTED!!!!
The government has given a blind eye to this situation when the law strictly prohibits the % of the market to be held by one organization.
During a time when it is hard for most Americans to find income based work because of a country saturated with big business that eliminate small business from coast to coast they allow the greed of organizations and the rise of these conglomerates to take the food out of the mouths of all of AMERICANS!!!!
These organizations do not hire hardly any workers yet take all of the income based opportunities from most Americans.
This have to stop immediately.
Can we Get a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THIS ORGANIZATION????
Google, I told you it is time to break you up into smaller pieces.
Peel Layer
Well said EEngineer, I couldn't have said it better myself and I've been saying that for years!
Social Security is not broke the rest of the goverment is most Republican fresco's like Reagan and his military complex of late 1980's a few Repucbhairs unfunded wars, Why not cut up all those mothballed ships and planes. And have Iraq and Kuwait and pay for there wars!
I hate to tell you if you believe the Democrats are lying'boy,you are wrong did you read the story?
good way of turning it around!
what are you talking about? republicans put a spin on everything nothing is ever strait foward coming out of their mouths. don`t you remember Ryan wants to save MC SS his mom gets it so she can go back and fourth from Fla and Wis. ya know summer here winter there can`t do that on SS can ya?
America 2013
A people more accepting of government control in our lives than having control of the government
Granted, the very wealthy will not need to rely on social security and medicare. To the multi-millionaires in their golden years, social security is just a drop in the bucket.
But that's not really the point. I think "taxing the rich" should be a single point of attack, so to speak.
Set the highest tax rate to whatever it needs to be to fund whatever needs funding, but leave everything else alone.
This pattern seems a bit much ...
1) We're going to tax you at 40% of everything you make over $250K
2) We're going to remove the social security cap so you have to pay the max on your entire income.
3) You have to pay the medicare deduction on your entire income.
4) When you retire, you don't get social security OR medicare.
5) Thank you for your support.
Guess I'm not liberally minded enough to think that resembles fairness.
If the government cuts reimbursements to doctors seeing Medicare patients much lower, Congress will need to pass a law that forces doctors to take on Medicare patients. Any doctor with a heavy Medicare patient base is rapidly becoming a not for profit operation. The more Washington fixes healthcare, the more costs go up. Someone from the outside might conclude they don't know what they are doing, and they would be right.
How can you say this? I have even provided a link to the projections by the CBO stating the exact opposite of your statement.
Its time to step up and face reality.
so tired of the repub or dem thing. its a congress thing and they are not worried. they have elite programs to take care of them. the politicians should be in the same programs the american citizen has available to them. untill we the people come together and stop being repub or dem we will always be them the peons and let them eat cake.
Remove ALL caps on SS. Instead of paying on SS for the first $108,000, tax all income for SS. When a person retires, means testing for SS, no matter how much they paid in. Look at it as an investment in the lower income retirees and your patriotic duty if you're one of the more well off retirees.
I'm extremely liberal and this, seems to me, fixes the problem of solvency for SS.
By the way, I'm in the class that would probably get less in SS than what I have paid in if this kind of plan was implemented.
Same with medicare.
There is a large group of people out there who do not want a lock box. In fact, they want direct access to the Medicare and Social Security Funds as they are the last huge piles of public money that Wall Street has not been able to raid. In fact those same people have been trying to privatize Medicare and Social Security, or preferably have them declared "unconstitutional" and repealed since their inception. Those people are called Republicans.
And which elite programs would those be? I realize their retirement is obscene, but then so is any CEO's retirement or golden parachute. But you imply their medical insurance is something Americans can't afford. That's true if you can't afford medical insurance...but that's all it is. Members of Congress have commercial medical insurance. Not some free secret hospital...private, commercial medical insurance with deductibles and co-pays like any other Federal Employee.
If you want to blame someone, blame the elite 1% who have sucked our economic blood for the past 30 years.
Means testing.... code for "let's eliminate more and more people who actually paid into the system until it, like all the other entitlement programs is just Welfare".... I say let's implement "time testing"... if you've been on Welfare for over a yr, cut it off and make them get a work ethic.... and you only get out of SS and Medicare what you put in... run past your contributions and you're done....
Do you also have the IQ of a pig? Means testing only increases costs for those of us that already don't qualify for entitlement programs.
40 empty brain cells
" unfunded wars"
a DEMOCRAT named Woodrow Wilson signed off on THE FED and immediately grabbed BILLIONS to pay for involving the U.S. in World War 1, you and I are STILL paying that money back to the FED , well , I am as I have been working since the age of 13 , I am not so sure about you though , you may not have any "skin in the game"
and in case you skipped this part in the post ...GOT the U.S. IN WW1 , that's called an "unfunded war" in your LNAH way of thinking
The trouble with "means testing" is those who put the most into it won't get anything out of it.
Why do they not get anything out of it? The only way then don't get anything is if they opt out...and then everything is out of pocket.
WilliamOfRites
Wrong. My ex-boss 82 year old diabetes suffer - millionaire has gotten the most out of the system. Calculate when he started paying in vs. the benefits paid out. What do you get. Trust babies. He's in the .3%. Still in Medicare and gaining. Notice that I didn't say 3%. I said .3%. He has no way of spending his money. If he did he wouldn't do it. Still thinks he can take it to the grave.
Ahh, but you see. Those who need it the least (like Mitt Romney, with his $100M 401K) are the ones sucking the most out of it! How many f'ing $millions did Dick Cheney, "deficits don't matter", suck out of Medicare for his heart transplant? After trashing the American economy to give Halliburton $billions in profits, why in the hell did America give that man a heart?
EE He earned it as much (or more) than you did. My guess is he paid in significantly more than you will!
Well, he certainly needed it. Poor guy never had one.
Legal wealth redistribution.
I pay @!$%# for wages, pay myself $10k for 30 years and then pay myself the max for 5 years. This maximizes my social security benefit. And, of course, I've had better than my employees health care (because I don't offer it to them) so I'll live longer than the 5-7 years that it takes to strip the social security fund of all that I put in while I continue to reap the benefits from my underpaid and un appreciated staff making me the money.
Sounds like Mitt and his friends doesn't it?
Trust me. If there was anyone in the country more in need of a heart I can't think of who he'd be. He was one heartless bastard.
The Stab in the back has begun Seniors, Next they will begin cutting Social Security. Write and call your congressmen and Senators and remind them that the Democrats promised not to do a thing to Social Security, Disability, Medicaid and Medicare.
Any Congressmen or Senator who votes to cut or change Social Security, Disability, Medicare and Medicaid will be voted out of office in 2014.
And thats my opinion
Well you know what they say about opinions...
Magnum, "Don't touch my medicare or you're out!" Is the progressive version of the TEA Party, "Don't raise tax rates or you're out!".
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Defense and debt service on our TRILLIONS of dollars of debt make up over 80% of the federal budget. We can cut every penny of the remaining 20% and still be in a deficit. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends. We can endure large cuts to the entitlement programs, endure massive tax increases (on everyone, not just the 2%) or we can do something in the middle; tax more and cut. It is the blind, idiotic "touch MY program and you're dead" mentality that will be the death of our nation.
Anyone that truly wants to see both Medicare and Social Security fixed or saved, the answer really is very simple. Just make Social Security the retirement plan for every current and former member of congress. Just make Medicare the healthcare plan for current and former members of congress. Then those two programs will get fixed real fast.
How much did Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy drain from the system in the last month of his life trying to beat brain cancer?
JayCFO You show your ignorance! You cannot "maximize" your benefits by spiking your contributions! You can do this in California but not with SS. The benefits are calculated based on the best 35 years of contributions. If you were not brain dead, you would know this.
Which goes back to a old time-honored European Clan tradition of "The lord pays the lord's share".
I don't know, how much should we pay to keep your family members alive? What are they worth to us? What are you worth to us?
TES -2640989 "JayCFO You show your ignorance! You cannot "maximize" your benefits by spiking your contributions! You can do this in California but not with SS. The benefits are calculated based on the best 35 years of contributions. If you were not brain dead, you would know this."
Sigh....you really are mathematically impaired aren't you?
A worker's retirement income benefit is based on his or her Primary Insurance Amount, or PIA. The PIA is the average of the highest 35 years of the worker's covered earnings (before deduction for FICA). Covered earnings in any year are limited by that year's Social Security Wage Base, the maximum earnings that could be subject to the OASDI portion of FICA payroll tax ($110,100 of earnings in 2012 and $113,700 in 2013).[15] If the worker has fewer than 35 years of covered earnings, each year needed to reach 35 is assigned zero earnings. Years of covered work more than 2 years before the year the worker turns 62 are indexed upward to reflect the increase in the national wage via the average wage index (AWI) from the time at which the earnings were covered in the past to the value of the AWI two years before the worker turns 62 (which is the most recent year available at the date the worker turns 62). One-twelfth of this 35-year average is the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME). The PIA then is 90 percent of the AIME up to the first (low) bendpoint, and 32 percent of the excess of AIME over the first bendpoint but not in excess of the second (high) bendpoint, plus 15 percent of the AIME in excess of the second bendpoint. Bendpoints designate the point at which the rates of return on a beneficiary's AIME change.[16][17] In 2008, the bendpoints for calculating the PIA are a change from 90% to 32% at $711 and a change to 15% at $4,288.[17][18] This PIA is then adjusted by automatic cost-of-living adjustments annually starting with the year the worker turns 62. Similar computations based on career average earnings determine disability and survivor benefits. These alternate computations average less years of earnings when the worker dies or is disabled before age 62 and use different base years for the inflation adjustments.
The GOP needs to learn a lesson from their failure in November 2012 when they lost 5 house seats, some senate seats (IN, MO, MA, for example), and the White House. Those who don't remember history [of losses] will repeat history [of losses].
Do you ever have anything meaningful to say, or just blabber?
Nope she just blabbers!!!!
Pigotry, you need a hobby.
Plus, you omit the Republican successes of 2012: another large majority in the House, more Governor seats and state legislature majorities won or held.
pigotry is just a nasty old pig
It doesn't matter! Just remember in 2014!
Pigotry=no working obama loving welfare living moron just shut the @!$%# up Pig your a moron and so is your boy obama
Thats just what the rightwing is a bunch of Rich Racist angry Old Whitemen and a few black and latino`s who want to be white that want it all and have the middleclass pick up the tab period. And they just can`t wait to run that victory lap knowing that they just screw the elderly the middleclass and the poor once again and saved another buck for those great job creaters. Welcome to America
I don't understand why democrats are so against business? If there weren't any business, where would you work....or should I say, where would the republicans work to give you your welfare? No business = no jobs = no govt handouts. Hmmm....maybe dems are on to something.
However, I do believe that SS and MC need to be reform, but FIRST and most important is welfare reform. Bet we could save a buttload with the following measures in place:
DRUG TESTING - FIRST FAIL, WARNING. SECOND FAIL - DONE FOR LIFE
5 YEAR MAX - NO IF'S ANDS OR BUTS
WHEN YOU START, YOU GET YOUR FAMILY ALLOTMENT NO MATTER HOW MANY MORE CHILDREN YOU HAVE
Why isn't any of this being looked into? I don't get it.
Wow, that's balls Arthur. You're actually going to brag about gerrymandering? Yea, that's quite an accomplishment...possibly a mandate...right?
Hey, that's some funny stuff OhTenn. Does your moniker indicate you are from Tennessee? Let's see, Tennessee receives $1.27 for every $1.00 of Federal taxes Tennessee residents pay...and you are going to bring up welfare...you're whole state is on welfare! ROFLMAO!!!
Means testing is a legitimate method. You make more in retirement, you pay a bit more in premiums. Nothing wrong with that formula.
So savers are penalized.
Yep... those of us who planned and saved for retirement (for example, I've never owned a car for less than 10 years and am typing this on a ten year old computer but have always put the maximum allowed in my 401(k)/IRAs and saved money in addition) will pay more than those who spent their money on new cars and entertainment. That's fair?
Any means testing should be based ONLY on lifetime earnings and be independent of earnings in retirement. The more you earned, the more able to take care of yourself in retirement you should be. To do otherwise will discourage people from saving money and end up with more people destitute in retirement (and, hence on food stamps and the like). If you can't take care of yourself due to your foolish decisions, we still have Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid and other safety net services for the impoverished.
Those of us who saved also vote - don't forget that. We also will figure out how to evade means testing based on income if needed (remember, we were prudent enough to save in the first place and think beyond the release of the next shiny iThing). For example, rapid depletion of 401(k) assets (to put them in non-tax deferred accounts) is part of such a strategy - sure, you pay taxes the year you pull them out, but you avoid the Required Minimum Distribution from pushing you into the "means testing" realm every year.
Anyone under 60 who has any significant savings and thinks means testing of SS and Medicare won't affect them is kidding themselves -- the bar will be moved lower and lower as time goes on and this will accelerate as more and more people begin to realize both have become welfare programs.
Be very careful what you wish for!
BTW, SS is already HIGHLY regressive [i.e., politically progressive]. The first dollar someone pays in payroll tax gives about SIX TIMES the retirement benefit that the last dollar put in before the cap does. Search for 'bend points' for more explanation. In addition, up to half your SS benefits are taxable if you make much outside income - a neat form of double taxation.
You are absolutely correct!
@ Whatslegal Please dont use logic and reason on Newsvine. Its probably against the TOS (Terms of Service).
Riiiight! That's what it is all about: those who saved! It doesn't have a damned thing to do with Mitt Romney, who has a $100M 401K, does it? Realize, of course, that Mitt, with his $100M 401K from Bain, qualifies for Medicare!
With the rules written the way they are, how many of you will have a $100M 401k?
1
i wonder if that will apply to all the former state hacks collecting 6 figure pensions?
If there was Mean Testing, the Republicans would score all A's
what happened to the we are all equal crap. I guess when you pay into a program and make to much money we are not so equal. so why are the wealthy not entitled to what they paid into the same as us po folk. what is the drive to better yourself if you end up being punished in the end game. if we did away with foreign aid put our politicians in check like why after one term do they get paid for life. their is alot we could do to help the economy and not make our entitlements as the gov thinks of them so fragile. the idea of socialized medicine is working so well in europe they so happy they riot in the street. the idea of the wealthy not getting the same as the poorer when they both paid in is not fair it sounds like envy. lets destroy the wealthy and bring them down to our level. its like dumming down instead of rising up
Means testing of Medicare and other entitlement programs is something I've supported for years and have been amazed that the Dems haven't seen fit to support the concept. At this point in time it seems inevitable that this will become part of the deficit reduction strategy.
Medicare is not really an entitlement. It's not welfare. It's a health insurance program, for which people pay premiums.
@EarlyOut. That's not really true when comparing how typical insurance works. Typically, you get better/expanded benefits as you pay higher premiums. For example, if your house is insured for $1M, you pay more in premiums than if it insured for $75K. Or if you have a 'Cadillac' health insurance policy that allows you to go to whatever doctor you want w/no deductibles or copays, you typically pay more in premiums than if you select a high deductible, high copay policy that restricts you to "in network" doctors.
Unlike Social Security, where each additional dollar you put in returns at least something additional in benefits, Medicare pays out the same for everyone who qualifies independent of how much they paid in just as long as they worked in a Medicare covered job for at least 10 years. So, a part time minimum wage worker who works just a bit for each of ten years and may have only paid $1K into Medicare in their entire life gets exactly the same benefits as someone who paid $1M into it (even ignoring the fact that the person who paid in $1M probably gets LESS benefits due to means testing that already exists).
Of course Medicare is an entitlement. You paid for it. You're entitled to it, aren't you?
whats legal, its impossible to have "put in" 1 million in fica/ss taxes - they stop collecting the tax after you pay in a max of $ 7,000 annually.
hotrod There is no cap on earnings subject to Medicare taxes!!!
hotrod: there is no cap on Medicare contributions, only on social security contributions
sorry -tes& t2q. you folks are right about the 1.5% medicare tax. I think you'd still have had to make upwards of $40,000,000 lifetime to get to the "I payed in a million" threshold.
Means testing hell i`ve supported it for yrs SS ya know those entitlement programs. What an idiot! I just don`t understand how you righties get that their an entitlement program in the first place. see that thats the rights way of saying its welfare and there for the goverment can`t pay for it and give tax breaks to those so called job creaters and biuld an army to kick the worlds ass.They took from it and now they want the middleclass to pay for it. And secondly for all you TPGOP dumb @#@##@ idiots if you don`t pay into it you can`t take nothing out of it. So please could one of you master brains tell me how its an entitlement program anyway.
Albo: Like Ag99 says - you pay into it....your entitled to it. I think people have the wrong ideas about "entitelements". Welfare should not be considered an entitlement...you don't pay for it, so your not entitled to it. SS and MC ARE entitlements. But thats not a "bad thing".
The problem with means testing any retirement benefit - Medicare, Social Security - is that it punishes those who are frugal and save for their old age, and rewards those who spend every dime they earn while they're working. Is that really the kind of incentivization we should be pursuing?
It's not about how much you've saved, it's about how much taxable retirement income you have although there can be a correlation depending on how you invested for retirement. I do not believe any of the current means testing methods look beyond taxable income.
My parents had a pretty good chunk of taxable income in their final years. They had that because, being children of The Depression who started with something just this side of nothing, they were careful with money, and continued to sock money away long after there was any real need to do so. My father continued working into his 70's, long after things like college expenses had been taken care of. My mother's net worth (she lived five years longer) continued to increase literally until the day she died. That money cranked out interest, every dime of it taxable. Means-testing their benefits would have been kind of indefensible.
That would depend on where the means level was set wouldn't it? If your mother was earning $100,000 per year in interest on her investments she would seem to have the means to pay more in Medicare premiums than someone who is only earning $10,000 per year in retirement. Yes, it does seem as if she is being penalized for creating an investment that returned that much in retirement but in reality doing that is/was beyond the ability of many to achieve during their working life.
People often make excuses as to why they do not have more income. If you do not get an education or a trade, you have handicapped your earning potential.
No, that's not what we're getting at.
Means testing to show that millionaires get little, if anything.
Not the same as the rare people even now who have something like half a million in savings.
Why half a million? Look with the house we are about at four million. Please explain why I should be penalized. Both of us have paid the max on SS and Medicare to the full extent. We lived on one salary. Worked our way thru college and grad school. Worked long hours. No one gave us a damn thing. So now you want to penalize us for doing the right thing.
Really Early Out?!! Are you really trying to use your parents as an example? Please, do us all a favor, since you are so frugal and worried about paying more than your fair share with means testing - that is not even approved yet - just opt out. Spare me, and others, your indignation. Perhaps instead you should start counting your blessings, instead of your pennies.
lulu:
You didn't 'pay the max' you were taxed. And you were very successful, so good for you. Yippee. Wow.
Most of us will never top $50k a year. Do you hate us for that? Do you resent us? Do you think we had nothing to do with your success?
My situation is similar - college, grad school, no handouts, no debt, professional degree and career to a market with low salaries, inflated housing prices, high cost of living, and depressed wages compared to the 1%. What are my options? It's mathematically impossible for me to save $500,000 over the course of my career, so what are my options?
Save as much as I can and expect little; with 25 years to go, all of this will be long gone.
Well, Pete, I did earn everything. Do not know why you were unable to save. I have 3 to 4 million saved. I am an IT/engineer. I retired as vp and CIO. I grew up in a one bath two bedroom house. Went to a state school. Worked for an employer that paid for grad school. Same for my husband. He has a Ph.D. We lived on one income. Paid for our sons education. I am retired so I can spend time with my grandson. My husband will retire sooner than later. It can be done but you do have to prioritize what you spend. If you learn to invest and have twenty five years to go, you can do this.
Well, then let me ask you, how much do you need Medicare? But you do qualify, don't you?
And I will bet you are against Obamacare, aren't you? Because you don't need it!
and odds are, lulu will collect more than she EVER payed into SS/medicare.
lulu -
Good for you! And I'm serious, too. You did what a teensy percentage of Americans have the ability, capacity, and opportunity to do. I started saving and investing at 25 and unless we have a return to a good strong market, well, it's just mathematically impossible for me to hit a retirement target that will allow me to have anything but a very modest retirement.
But you are right - 25 years is a long time.
No EE not opposed to Obamacare in principle. Everyone should have access to healthcare but is that really what Obamacare provides? It is about insurance, not truly affordable healthcare. We need more doctors to prevent long waits for care. And a serious illness could soak most of our assets away without insurance, and yes I intend to collect every dime I can not like my Dad who passed at age 66. I have no understanding why you think those who paid into these programs should just give it up. Unless you are a socialist, redistributionist. Are you?
As a NOT well-off and recently disabled (& no longer able to work) moderate FORMER republican, now a REregistered UNaffiliated voter, I much prefer "means testing" to boosting the eligibility age for Social Security. Allowing the well-off to receive the same benefits as the poor would certainly be One Foolish Idea! If people have money they should take care of their needs and allow the nation to offer aid to those who actually NEED it.
Then they should also be able to opt out of paying the Medicare tax. It is all about you.
Remember, this is about the monthly premiums for Medicare, not about how much each receives for covered medical expenses or a sliding scale of co-payments. I'd much prefer a means tested variable premium schedule than the variable payout/co-pay schedule.
lulu sounds like you are crying it's all about me, sorry to rain on your parade but pay up or shut up.
2833. I have paid for 47 years. Is that enough for you?
Lulu - you can't talk to these people. It truly is all about them. They have something against people who are more well off than they are. They think anyone who makes more or did the right things in life should pay up and give to those who didn't work as hard as you did. I think they are jealous. You paid in for 47 years....but your "rich" so you shouldn't get any benefits....give it to 2833....because he sounds so deserving. Plus its just the democratic mindset "Gimme gimme gimme", "its not fair", "make the rich pay for it". Really is tiring. Kudos to you lulu...I'm on my way there myself....same scenario as you. Hard work and perserverance....what the dems don't understand.
lulu and ohtenn-- you are so off course I never asked for anything ,you and the republican mantra is screw everyone else its all for me, never mind its for good of the country, sound like a bunch of school kids whining and complaining ,and I paid for 49 years, so will I pay more, possibly but so it goes, life is good.
So 2833. Where have I screwed anyone? I pay my fees and taxes but it does no good for a government that cannot manage. What good does it do the country when the idiots in DC just waste the money? I prefer to help the country by charitable donations to those organizations that I know use the money well. As to my being a Republican, you are the one way off base. I an an Independent because I think both parties are failing our country.
So, in other words, if I followed the prudent path and socked away money for a comfortable retirement, the government wants to penalize me be refusing me benefits in my older years.
BUT! If I was a spendthrift and ran through all my money on fancy cars, a McMansion and living the high life and I have nothing left, the government will take care of me.
What a great way to encourage people to spend every penny and save nothing! Great going, guys! That makes SOOOOO much sense!
If everyone made as a minimum the salary needed to save a substantial amount for retirement you would have a point about spending vs saving for retirement. BTW, how many folks do you know that earn enough over a lifetime to have amassed a portfolio of investests valued at $2-4 million with at least a 5% annual return? That is what most financial experts are telling todays workers they need to plan for for both living expenses and medical expenses for a 20-25 year retirement.
Hey...actually many of our friends saved that amount . They have always been savers never buying more than modestly. I am talking teachers and engineers.
Ah, more likely, you were a conscientious saver, then George W. Bush ran his "give every warm, breathing body a mortgage" economic policy, trashed the American economy, and you lost everything you owned in the biggest economic recession since the Great Depression, and you ended up being one of the 47% that Mitt Romney declared he didn't have to listen to!
Face it! Our government officials, specifically Republicans, do nothing to help American citizens! They are more concerned with helping themselves!
FYI it was Clinton & the dems who pushed the give everyone a mortgage not Bush
From the moment Bush entered the WH, he was pushing his American Dream Downpayment initiative. From a radio address to the nation in June, 2001, just six months after Bush took office:
For instance, while the rate of homeownership amongst all Americans is nearly 68 percent, the rate among African-American and Hispanic families is under 50 percent. One particular program, the American Dream Downpayment Fund, will provide $200 million in downpayment assistance to help 130,000 low-income families buy homes.
Less than a year later in March, 2002:
I commend Chairman Oxley, Housing Subcommittee Chairwoman Roukema, and Congressman Green, for introducing H.R. 3995, the "Housing Affordability for America Act of 2002" and look forward to working with them on the bill in the legislative process. Increasing housing opportunities for all Americans is a high priority for my Administration. In particular, I am committed to increasing the opportunities for minority families to become homeowners.
Please note the sponsors of this bill: Oxley and Roukema were both staunch Republicans. Although this bill was never enacted into law it is obvious that Republicans in 2002, urged on by President Bush, are making minority home ownership a top priority.
Also in June, 2002, in a speech given at a church in Atlanta, Georgia, Bush provided more details about how he was going to increase minority home ownership:
And so by the year 2010, we must increase minority home owners by at least 5.5 million.
First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment.
... to streamline the process, make the rules simpler, so everybody understands what they are -- makes the closing much less complicated. We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home. We can change the print, and we've got to.
And we want to fully implement the Section 8 housing program, homeownership program. The program will provide vouchers that first-time home buyers can use to help pay their mortgage or apply to their downpayment.
Do you get that? Bush wanted to take Section 8 renters and help them buy homes! People who couldn't afford their own rent - how the hell were they going to pay for a house?
You will note that the quotes above refer to the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This fund was established by the American Dream Downpayment Act, passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by George W. Bush in 2003. Here is a copy of the fact sheet that was passed out before the speech announcing the push for this legislation one year before it was passed. Note that these are things that had already been done to make minority homeownership easier:
The Administration also implemented a hybrid Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) product that makes it easier for new homebuyers to stay in their homes in the first few years.
Substantially increasing, by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government-sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market specifically targeted toward the minority market.
Both ARMs and the secondary mortgage market were indicted as key factors in the housing meltdown by most economists.
All legislation is documented on government websites. Look up the American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI); it is quite interesting. Note that the single biggest thing this bill accomplished was to drop the downpayment requirement for GSE (Fannie Mae, Freddi Mac and FHA) sponsored loans to 3%. One of the largest factors in the housing bubble and mortage meltdown was the proliferation of low/no downpaynment loans:
American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) - signed into law on Dec 16, 2003.
Sponsor: Sen. Wayne Allard [R-CO]
Co-sponsors: Samuel Brownback [R-KS]; Conrad Burns [R-MT]; Ben Campbell [R-CO]; Michael Crapo [R-ID]; Michael Enzi [R-WY]; Charles Hagel [R-NE]; Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]; Richard Santorum [R-PA]; Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
Note that there was not one Democrat co-sponsoring this bill. The bill was sponsored by a Republican, co-sponsored only by other Republicans, passed by a Republican majority in the House and Senate and signed into law by a Republican president.
No, make no mistake! Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular are responsible for the entire mortgage meltdown! This is a Republican Recession!
EE - Why is it the governments responsibility to help you? Why isn't YOUR responsibility to take care of yourself, plan and save for your future, and spend your money wisely? If you can't afford the house, don't buy it! Too many people blame others for their own choices. Its sickening. Work hard, don't spend more than you have, don't rack up credit cards, save and put into 401k, you will be good. don't blame others....blame yourself. Nobody has your back but YOU....and thats the way it should be.
Funny....all I hear is blame, blame, blame - i agree that those loans should not have been processed....but whose fault is it really? I know that if I can't afford it, I won't buy it. Personal decisions that get passed blame to republicans. Good one EE. That's whats wrong with this country. No personal responsibility anymore.
And by the way, I bought my house in May 2005. I didn't want an ARM mortgage. I researched it and realized it was a terrible loan. I am still living in this house today. I didn't buy something I couldn't afford either. Personal decisions, personal choices, personal responsibility.
Means test all people for all programs
Just give me my money back and I will go away.
"lulu98
Just give me my money back and I will go away."
Me, too! I won't even ask for the matching amount my employer paid into Social Security.
Says EarlyOut-1524710: "If Medicare were turned into a true single-payer health insurance system, covering absolutely everybody, it could finally exert some real cost control over healthcare expenses."
My reply - If Medicare were turned into a "single-payer health insurance system covering absolutely everyone," the Independent Payment Advisory Board would become Sarah Palin's "Death Panel," if for no other reason than that no one would have any other options if the IPAD decided the care his doctor said he needed to survive was not going to be covered by Medicare.
You know what, me too! But I have been forced by Federal law to contribute a certain amount of my paycheck for my entire life! Only to be told, by Republicans, "you know what, that money is gone! You can't have it back!" Tell me, where is the fairness in that?
Particularly when the God of all Republicans, Ronald Reagan, was the one who started raiding the SS fund instaed of raising taxes?
Hard to claim it's an entitlement program with one breath and an earned benefit with the next. Ok it's an entitlement program designed mostly for low to middle income people. If you're rich just accept it's another tax that won't benefit you.
The first thing to check before considering means testing is whether or not the administrative procedures and computer programs needed to actually do the means testing will cost more than the means testing is expected to save.
The other problem is that this is a very slippery slope. I'd much rather see this addressed in some other manner such as simply higher taxes for the wealthy.
Janet - You will see both means testing and higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Unfortunately, Medicare is not solvent under the current proposition, something has to be done to increase its solvency. I've always believed in means testing for Medicare as well as social security. Do you think the Romney's of the world need those benefits anyway? Do you think he will miss his $1500 Medicare check monthly - hardly. This is the first step to making sure those who truly need these benefits continue getting them.
vandal,
I'm sure you meant monthly Social Security check not Medicare but even so, Romeny's would be much higher than $1500/mo. It's based upon how much you paid in over your working life with a cap, iirc.
The problem here is the slippery slope of who gets means tested. There is a huge difference between a Romney and say someone with a couple of hard earned millions.
Isn't making rich people pay more to get their Medicare benefits a tax on the rich? How can Republicans push that while opposing more taxes on the rich? This isn't a matter of politicians disagreeing, it's as though they have no coherent ideas to disagree about. No wonder we're such a mess. We are a nation of morons.
The Democrats are fighting to make sure rich people get government stuff for free?!
And the Dems are willing to bankrupt our social programs to do that?!
hnl, please, put down your crack pipe. What an idiot.
A little means testing might not be such a bad thing. Let's not be too frantic about "slippery slope" arguments. I've seen too many instances where they've proved nonsense.
As we continue to extend life expectancy including expectancy of potentially productive years, at some point we are going to have to re-think pegging the onset of retirement benefits to only the birth end of the lifespan. A slowly phased in and elastic compromise between birth and expected lifespan is probably going to be necessary someday anyway. I've seen complaints that this may be inappropriate for physically demanding and exhausting professions; perhaps that could be taken into account. We should remember that the "65" was originally based on the the life expectancy of the 1930s.
Note: both above comments from a self-described liberal progressive "Nation" subscriber.
Medicare is so full of fraud we could probably save billions each year IF we could ever stop it. But we can't. Doctors will continue to see seniors with a hang nail and charge $180 for a 15 minute office visit. I really don't know what the answer is but you don't have to be a PHD to figure out a system that takes in $109K a person and can pay out $330K per person is unsustainable.
I do not know about the doctor actually getting the money he bills. Our aunt who is in a nursing home gets billed about $120 for the entire month of service from the geriontologist. The doctor gets less than $50 bucks actually paid. I do think there is a lot f fraud....the government needs to focus on this problem in general.. It is not just Medicare. The IRS has been know to send like 21 tax refunds to the same house. Computer programs can ferret out this stuff.
The key is to hide as much money from the government as you can -- tax free municipal bonds etc. Spend as much as you can on travel and recreation while you are young and can still enjoy it, and let the government take care of you when you are old and feeble. You can't take it with you, so spend it while you can still enjoy it. Then, when the government is offering benefits, you will have spent your money, so you will qualify for the benefits. Don't let the government steal your life's efforts. I have been paying into social security for 41 years, I feel just fine collecting all I can from that program, but if they means test I will spend it now. I have always wanted to visit Greece and Turkey.
Agreed.
you two are the problem. Who's payments into SS/Medicare covered your parents, uncles, aunts, and any child who received healthcare through medicaid?
I'm worth 4 million and the government wants to help poor people! waaaaah!
I could have been a poor person if I did not get off my a$$. And I never said not to help poor people. I said I do not want what I have paid for to be taken away.
I am a Senior on Social Security and Medicare and I still think they should do means testing - SS is a drop in the bucket to a wealthy retiree but it means less out of the pot for everyone else. that is one battle I think we should give in on
If they means test, I will take a big vacation, and come back with nothing. Problem solved.
That is exactly right. I will spend down so I get my "entitlement"
This is hilarious. Way to spin things Obama Claus and your minions! You're not REALLY giving anything up here, are you? Spin, spin, spin. Anyone who supports anything OTHER than falling off the fiscal cliff is a g-damn coward. The ONLY responsible thing to do is to make massive cuts to all programs. Lay off tens of thousands of federal lazy-arse employees. Then, and only then, should you look at where you can increase revenues. Get this fiscal house in order and stop being pussies about it!
I agree Roger, it's the only way we are going to save this country!!!
Why would the rich want medicare when it provides sh_t coverage. I have a friend on medicare he says alot of doctors won't take patients on medicare because of all the government paperwork and the coverage sucks.
Government is going to raise monthly premiums on medicare which is deducted from your SS retirement monthly. Seems our government don't give a rats ass about americans who worked all their life and rob SS money and cut medicare. Government gives billions to other countries while our elderly suffer....America has went to hell.
sane maybe
We may have to face a difficult demon: the fact that the rich use us. We fight their wars (often only to benefit their profitability), protect their money, bail out their mega businesses, mop their floors, listen to their political clap-trap, and when the chips are down...when the decision is to pay the taxes that support a social contract or force an underclass to fend for itself in a world owned by an upper-class completely isolated behind privacy gates and no-trespassing signs, it may be time to awaken the one percent in a way they can understand. If they had sense, they would awaken themselves before those extremes are taken, however civic sense does not seem to trump pure greed.
The rich using us ---- that is called a job. Are you saying that you want there to be no jobs? If there is nothing in it for me to hire somebody --- then I won't hire anybody! Why should I?
You're kidding me Yhbua! ---My business pays GOOD pay for college educated engineers. So 35% IS NOT FAIR on my taxes? AND I'M USING YOU? I would say the greed is on your part, and Obama's!
Mom. Exactly right!
Mom,
You are exactly right.
You don't hire anybody! Give some proof... somehting besides Mom from Mesa! Yeah, that sounds like a "job creator"!
Obama during his re-election campaign said he wanted 800 Billion in new taxes. Republicans offered 800 Billion in new tax revenues without raising tax rates on ANYONE. They also want the massively overbloated, overspending, government to make CUTS to the spending that we can't afford.
Obama said, that's not enough, he now wants 1.6 Trillion and he wants to raise rates on the so called "rich", of which 80% or more are small businesses. He also wants the UNCONSTITUTIONAL mandate to be able to raise the debt ceiling whenever he wants and he wants hundreds of billions in new "stimulus" spending, with NO CUTS to spending.
And what's the left say? Why that Republicans are "obstructionist" of course. And they continue to demonize the "rich" that provide nearly ALL of the jobs in this nation, including paying for the millions of government jobs at the local, state, and federal levels.
Let's just go over the dam cliff and see how it works out. I'm sure that Democrats will just love all the extra "revenue" they get, and by the way have said that they WANT from taxing EVERYONE in the nation more.
And of course the left can demonize the Republicans for giving the Democrats EXACTLY what they are saying they want.
Oh, BS! Most small business (97%) make less than $250K. You drank the kool-aid! Most small businesses make less than $250K. But, don't let facts distract you, Republicans never do!
I have no problem with this. Go for it, President Obama - just make DAMNED sure you get that top 2% tax hike.
Means testing is a means of avoiding the problem of health care costs rather than solving it. Means testing does nothing to address the cost of health care - the REAL problem - just makes some percentage of health care recipients shoulder more of that cost. With that precedent - and continued increase in the cost of care - the means test solution will become like the tax brackets ever one is pushed into via inflation rather than a real increase in income. Eventually Medicare will become indistinguishable from Medicaid - a program for poor people. And we know how programs for the poor fare in America.
I won't pay for them, but if the government takes away the incentive to do business, then I will willingly become poor, stop working 60 hour weeks, and take all I can from the government.
I like the ideas of means testing. I'd also like to see them do away with income caps, above which right now, SS is not paid into...
Probably because you never worked to earn much.
First off I hope I am here when the day comes there are no more rich to tax so I can watch all the losers wonder who is going to pay their bills. Secondly I am on Medicare and one easy way to start fixing it is to stop paying for all the crap that has nothing to do with health such as Viagra, power scooters, endless amounts of dr. visits. The drug companies are lobbying democrats and republicans to get everything possible covered and every provider of equipment rips the system off. Look at what medicare pays for a wheel chair, crutches, and an endless list. If the people on medicare had to pay any of that amount they would be screaming like hell. The seniors do not care what it costs because their kids will pay for it. The seniors who insist on smoking and drinking themselves to death should be allowed to die. Why in the hell are we paying to keep them alive. Go into a casino and look who is playing the slots with smoke so thick you can cut it with a knife. Seniors on walkers, scooters, etc. Guess who is paying for that. Before you climb all over the rich, look at who is abusing the system. Also if you do not want the wealthy to have medicare then do not tax them for it and I am sure they will be happy to have their own insurance. Most of you losers do not want to pay for anything but want everything.
You're right. Those dang poor people, wanting to actually have a life...The nerve of them.... LOL They should just sit home, with just enough to survive and stop bothering all those rich folks LOL
You've got some excellent points.
Makes you wonder - since big business owns congress, etc. they want consumers to pump money into the economy and not save or worry, and end up wards of the government until the government is broke -
..... but to what end, do you suppose?
It won't take much for me to drop out of the entrepreneurial class, become poor, and live the good life. Yep, make it good enough to be poor and I'll take that over 60 hour work weeks ANY DAY!
ed, you think the poor deserve more??? They need empowerment period, not a dime more.
Regarding the last sentence of the article about the two choices to reach an agreement if someone was pointing a gun to my head. Point is the situation is just the opposite. Far from having a gun pointed, Obama has the law on his side and will get all the rate increase he's seeking plus on unearned income too.
The only one' this analogy might pertain to is the republicans. Pass the bill the Senate has already passed, raise the rate on the top 2 % or go over the cliff and have everyone's tax's rise, risk the economy. But hey, knowing how they've held the unemployed worker hostage last two years, who's to say their not hoping for another recession, as a another shameful strategy to retake the white house 4 years from now.
Funny it was Originally the top 1% how long will it be before it gets to everyone? As it stands with the 20 new taxes in Obamacare your paying twice for health care..First Medicare and now Obamacare...
Those who benefit more from the system should pay more. The bond market likes better balanced government budget, and the economy will take off, then the rich will benefit even more from the paltry sum increase of taxes they pay.