Do you support Obama's plan to means-test Medicare & raise eligibility age to 67?

[Karmadillo]

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

Obama Publicly Backs Means-Testing Medicare

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama formally acknowledged on Friday that he would support a plan to means-test Medicare as a part of a deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

“I have said that means-testing on Medicare, meaning people like myself -- I’m going to be turning 50 in a week, so I’m starting to think a little bit more about Medicare eligibility -- but you can envision a situation for somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays would be appropriate. And again, that would make a difference,” the president said at a press conference. “What we are not willing to do is restructure the program in the ways we have seen coming out of the House in recent months.”

The comment was the first public acknowledgement from the White House that the president would support changing the payment structure of the entitlement program. Prior to Obama’s remarks, multiple sources in both parties told The Huffington Post that the administration was making it clear to debt ceiling negotiators that such a structural change to Medicare was on the table.

<edit>

Obama's nominal support for means-testing Medicare, however, does fit into the larger outlines of his plan for the debt ceiling debate. In an effort to both win the support of Republicans and tackle as many deficit-contributing issues as possible, the administration has placed entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare ("sacred cows" for the Democratic Party) squarely on the table. The president also lent his support to a plan to raise the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67, over the course of roughly 25 years. His team has, additionally, discussed various changes to the way in which Social Security benefits are measured and paid.

more...

[WinkyDink]

1. NO!!!!!!!!!! "Means-testing" will come FIRST for our SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

[spinbaby]

30. May as well be Medicaid

Where you have to spend yourself into poverty before they'll cover nursing-home costs. My husband and I have been living below our means for years putting away money for retirement. If that now means we'll pay way more for Medicare, I'll be royally pissed.

[WinkyDink]

36. I see this as the long-range "chess" goal.

[femmocrat]

2. No. I oppose any changes to Medicare....

except lowering the eligibility to age 55.

[xchrom]

5. +1

[NYC_SKP]

11. So you'd oppose dropping it altogether? That's my idea, just end the program, end Medicare...

Replace it with a fully paid public single payer health plan for all.

:thumbsup:

[femmocrat]

16. Of course, single payer would be best!

But how likely is that? We went down that road with health care "reform" and it led nowhere. :(

[CreekDog]

85. that's not the option

of course it's not the option.

[originalpckelly]

I completely agree.

And raise the benefit, because seniors rarely have pensions these days, and they are becoming less and less common. And speculative investments like the stock market may suffer from precipitous declines in value.

[Hangingon]

3. NO!

[Doctor Hurt]

4. depends on the details nt

[NYC_SKP]

6. Yes and No.

I see no reason that the likes of Bill and Melida Gates or T Boone Pickens should draw a single dime from the federal coffers at the expense of the rest of us.

I'm on the fence about the retirement age, it's not my top priority.

My personal top priority is raising the cap and on finding fairness when the state CalPers tells me I can't draw because of SS and at the same time SS tells me the same thing about CalPers.

I and other career changers are gonna get screwed.

[originalpckelly]

13. That's true, rich people shouldn't be drawing...

but how many people in reality are there to do that? The real means testing savings will come from people who are not as clearly abusing the system.

[NYC_SKP]

60. Raising/eliminating the cap is the big ticket item that would pay for universal health and save the

...save the economy.

Imagine your micro to small businesses not needing to factor in those costs, nevermind medium to large employers.

Seems a no brainer.

[Yo_Mama]

62. THERE IS NO MEDICARE CAP

You pay Medicare tax on all wage and salary income, and on all self-employment/contracting income.

Raising the cap will help out Social Security, but it has already been down to save Medicare.

Also, there is now a Medicare supertax on investment income for high earners - it starts just a few years from now. 3.8%.

[NYC_SKP]

67. Hi there... speaking of CAPS-

There's a social security cap.

Imagine peeling off 15% of ALL income above $106,800.00 for those who earn that much.

15%.

That would pay for all kinds of Medicare, don't you think?

:shrug:

[Yo_Mama]

69. We're gonna have to raise that cap to pay for SS

We're going to have to raise the Medicare tax to pay for Medicare.

First, you can't simply take the total SS tax off, because it would cost more in lost income tax than it would yield.

When you take off the SS cap, you have to just impose the employee side (6.2%), because otherwise employers are going to cut wages to make up the difference, and in the end it will cost more in state and federal lost tax revenue than it will gain. That's because the income tax rate is so much higher than the SS tax rate.

Also, although people don't get as much credit for higher wages on average, raising the SS cap allows many people to game the system to increase their Social Security payment quite a bit.

SS is figured by your average corrected wage over 35 years. SS adminstration takes your wage each year, adjusts it to a current figure, then adds up the top 35 years and divides by 35.

Now most people start out low and build to a peak for a few years and then decline. But if you raise the cap, you give the few peak years a disproportionate weight, so in the end it won't save that much.

Also, all those who run their own businesses or are self-employed will game the system by reporting a few years of very high wages.

You have to be realistic about this stuff and really run the numbers.

[Inuca]

7. Means testing?

Like in elderly millionaires would have to pay more? Why would I not support that? Why would I not supoprt it even for well-off non-millionaires? Health care should be a right for all, elderly or not, but that does not mean the right to take that fancy cruise I really desire because I get my medicine for free.

Raising the eligibility age... probably not.

[shraby]

29. Believe me, just because a person is on medicare does NOT

mean they are getting their medicine free..far far from it.

[Inuca]

46. I know

I was just trying to make a point. And the point was that there is a big difference between not being able to afford medical care or having to struggle really hard and cut on other important things in order to afford it and the annoyance of having to pay more and therefore maybe not being able to afford certain LUXURIES.

[jtown1123]

33. Medicare is already means tested.

[Inuca]

47. Meaning?

You may be right, I just don't know.

[WinkyDink]

42. Spoken like a healthy (for now) young (for now) American.

[Inuca]

49. I am turning 60 in a few months :-(

and I have my share of medical problems (decent insurance as well, thanks God!). And even if I was 20 and in perfect health, what exactly do you find wrong with my argument?

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I support Medicare For All

Not Medicare For Fewer.

[CleanGreenFuture]

9. No! They'll keep raising the age until everybody is dead before they're eligible. NO!

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. I think many don't understand getting a job after

you reach 50 let alone in your sixties.

I don't agree and think the age should be lowered unless its on a monetary scale.. Sure a CEO at 65 doesn't need it and the 67 age has no relevance
as compared to someone at or below the poverty line.

[NC_Nurse]

12. fuck no!

[rug]

14. No. Nor do I support a means test for voting.

Health care is at least as important as voting.

[Fire1]

15. Yes. n/t

[tularetom]

17. I hate to tell him but Medicare is ALREADY means tested

In 2006 I sold a piece of property I owned jointly with another family member and wound up with a sizable capital gain on the sale. The following year I was informed by the SOcial Security Administraiton that my Medicare Part B premiums (withheld from my SS disbursements) were going to be doubled. Because of course my adjusted gross income tripled in that year.

Of course after my income returned to its normal modest level they continued to deduct the extra premiums for another two years. It wasn't until 2010 that my premiums returned to their former level.

By the way my wife's premiums were also doubled.

I'm not sure I have any violent objections to this as long as it is applied in a manner that doesn't screw middle class retirees. In other words make sure the wealthy are made to pay their share.

[jtown1123]

32. Yep it's already Means Tested,

[Liberalynn]

18. No

[woo me with science]

19. Of course not. I'm a Democrat. nt

[Chimichurri]

20. Hell no!

[chill_wind]

21. No to both.

edit- misread part of the topic's question.

[WillyT]

22. No...

The proposal is not entirely controversial among health care economists. But it will rankle a good chunk of the president's own party, which has sought to keep Medicare's structure as a basic insurance program as opposed to a welfare-like model. Making top earners pay more into the system than their moderate to lower-income counterparts may seem like sound, balanced policy -- but it also makes Medicare's finances vulnerable to future budget slashing or tax-reducing campaigns.

Same article.

:kick:

[bullwinkle428]

23. Hell no. This just makes it easier for future Congressional baggers to eliminate

the program completely, and pass the savings along to their wealthy benefactors.

[Javaman]

24. Bluntly, no.

He is no longer reaching across the aisle, he took a seat over there.

[EFerrari]

25. I thought the Washington Post made this up.

[neverforget]

56. I know! All those anonymous sources actually knew what they were

talking about. The 11th dimensional chess? It's true except we're the sacrificial pawns

[gratuitous]

26. Not just no, but . . .

HELL NO!

And here's why: If Social Security and Medicare become "means tested," that will relegate these common benefit insurance programs to something for poor people. And when that happens, as we've seen time and again with welfare, food stamps, and unemployment, it makes it that much easier for greedy Republicans to kill. "Only lazy poor people, who are sucking your money out of the system" are on Social Security or Medicare. If you can't hear it now, you will surely hear it soon, as the elites look to put the kibosh on the last of the New Deal.

Wait now for the earnest explanation for why this is all for the best, and how wise Obama is to work this deal and how it's going to blow up in the Republicans' faces. My response is no, it's not, and Americans are getting screwed royally to benefit the overrich. This will not end well. For whom is yet to be determined.

All better now for les pauvres?

[jtown1123]

37. +1000 People have to realize that Means Testing is a back door benefit cut for the poor

[Trey9007]

58. Can you explain how means testing is...

a back door benefit cut for the poor.

[Ignis]

59. +1, but can you speak up a bit?

;)

[gratuitous]

66. Sorry, my HTML skills are feeble

Which probably means that I'm on a list somewhere for something unsavory. Oh well, it's been a good run so far.

[Ignis]

73. Welcome to The List. We have cookies.

:hi:

[Starry Messenger]

64. +1000

[daleo]

72. Very true. n/t

[Strelnikov_]

27. 'Means Testing', yes, Raise age, no.

If anything eligibility age should be lowered to 62.

Those that can afford it "having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays" is acceptable to be, and it is consistent with progressive taxation.

[jtown1123]

35. It is already Means tested.

[mike_c]

28. no-- I'm happy to support rich people's medical care as well as my own....

It's a society, folks. We're all citizens. I reject the notion that ANY citizens are more worthy of receiving social services than others, or that the terms for delivering those services should be different for some citizens than for others. Medicare for everyone, on the same terms!

[jtown1123]

31. F*** NO.

[WinkyDink]

34. 1. The truly wealthy won't feel it; and 2. The beneficiaries will, again, be BIG INSURANCE.

FEWER ON MEDICARE = MORE LOOKING FOR PRIVATE INSURANCE.

I detect a theme with this Administration.

[kenny blankenship]

38. Fuck NO. Republicans and Republican attacks on America must be stopped.

[Aerows]

39. No

It's bad enough that many people are barely holding on until the get to 65 so that they can get medicare. If they wait until 67, many will be even sicker when they finally get Medicare.

Anyone 40 or under can just about kiss goodbye getting Medicare until they are either dead or nearly so. They also want to tinker with SS, which we've all paid into so that it's harder to get it. I have no idea why they think any of this is a good idea.

[Ragnarok]

40. If you pay in...

...then you should be able to withdraw. Period. I'm not interested in paying into something that has no return for my family. Sorry.

[WinkyDink]

43. What is this supposed to mean, re: Medicare? You and your family are planning on not aging?

[Ragnarok]

55. I mean I'm not interested in funding...

...Medicare if someone decides to means test my family out of any benefits.

[WinkyDink]

83. Ah. Well, I can see that point!

[JackDragna]

41. No, no, a million times no.

This is the president telling us he's not a Democrat anymore. Anyone who continues to support his presidency is endorsing the destruction of their own political beliefs.

[Marrah_G]

44. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

It is not a welfare program. How far will it go? Will it eventually just be those without any other income? What happens to everything people put into it? They just break the contract with those people and say " fuck you, we are keeping your money"?

[Dappleganger]

45. OH HELL NO

:mad:

[City Lights]

48. Nope! eom

[horseshoecrab]

50. No. n/t

[OHdem10]

51. The GOP has for years wanted to means test. Hoping the higher

Income Earners would drop out and make this a "Welfare
Program". Their thinking is working class would be shamed
from joining a "welfare program" and they could get
rid of the Programs.

Of course this economy is going to change a lot of people's
views of social programs. As Salaries fall lower and lower
even the working class can no longer be shamed.

[Hotler]

52. FUCK NO! eom.

[dana_b]

53. no and no.

as has been pointed out already, they keep chipping and chipping until there will be next to nothing (or nothing at all) left.

[Autumn]

54. Hell no n/t

[Trey9007]

57. I could definitely support means testing ...

if its done correctly. IMO, I think benefits should decline or premiums should be raised for people who have incomes over the tax cap. If the cap is 200K then:

$200,001 -$300k 10% increase on premiums

$300,001 - $500K 20% increase on premiums

$500,001 - $800K 60% increase on premiums

$800K - $1m 75% increase on premiums

$1M and above 80% increase on premiums


IMO, as good as these programs are, I think the main goal of American workers should be returning to the days of defined pensions.I think its kind of sad that we, as workers, don't fight as hard for pensions, as we do for these entitlement programs.

[Yo_Mama]

65. For Part B that's already in effect!!!!

https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2306/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL2ZhbzJBM3pr

High income seniors also pay more for drug coverage and get less coverage.

[Trey9007]

78. Not quite...

see the chart in this link.


http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_meanstesting/

The way it is now, is not the way I would like to see it done for general Medicare program.

[Yo_Mama]

82. Way harsher means testing is already scheduled.

The current premiums are as linked. Your link is to a projection from years back. My link was to directly to Medicare. The extra amount is far more than you recommend, and it begins at a lower income. But only about 1.5 million beneficiaries pay extra premiums, because most retirees aren't wealthy.

Beneficiaries don't pay any premiums for part A, so your original scheme is a little unclear. Part A premiums alone for 2011 would be $450 a month. Are you recommending that a person over 200K of income should only have to pay an extra $45 a month?

Because if so, that would hardly raise any money at all. In 2010, only about 5% of Medicare beneficiaries paid any increased premium, and that started at an income of above $85,000.

Your plan would not have any effect. It might change the Medicare funds exhaustion date by a couple of months, but that is about it.

As it is now, part of the 2010 health care reform changes were pretty sneaky and constituted a very steep increase in Medicare costs for higher income beneficiaries.

The income thresholds for increased Medicare part B incomes will now no longer be adjusted for inflation. This is expected to greatly increase the number of beneficiaries having to pay extra in just a decade. In two decades it will be about at least a quarter of beneficiaries. Also, Part D (prescription drug benefit) premiums are going to be increased in a similar way. Right now this doesn't affect many people, but because the income thresholds are never adjusted up, within a decade the number of people paying extra will more than double.

This was part of health care reform!

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

[Yo_Mama]

61. There are already higher premiums for wealthy retirees

https://questions.medicare.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/2306/session/L2F2LzEvc2lkL2ZhbzJBM3pr

[closeupready]

63. No absolutely not. Never. No changes to the detriment of beneficiaries are acceptable

at this time.

[TheKentuckian]

68. I'll be a mushroom cloud laying motherfucker.

Means testing is an erosion scheme and raising the retirement or Medicare eligibility age is running toward the wrong goal. I'm still pissed they raised the full retirement age to 67, wages have declined ever since and more and more are forced to accept "early" retirement which puts them in a desperate hand to mouth mode till the grave.

Why the hell are we not fighting to lower the ages, It isn't like there is any reason to expect some dramatic increase in the need for labor. In fact, the odds are there will be less and less need for a glut of workers we need to start adjusting for a new paradigm rather than digging in on something that no longer makes sense.

A good start would be decreases in the age of eligibility for retirement type benefits. There just isn't and won't be a need for most folks working 40+ hours for fifty years.
The refusal to account for this renders all figures essentially worthless.

[guitar man]

70. No

Means testing creates unnecessary red tape and it gives ammo to the right wing to further paint it as a "welfare" program. Leave it as is including eligibility age and do what is necessary to fully fund it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. Not only no, but HELL no!

[tnlefty]

74. No.

Hell NO, not at all.

[JoePhilly]

75. False OP title. Where does Obama support raising the age???

He said he would consider reducing benefits for the RICH, like him.

Let's drag out the fainting couch!!!!

Total BS.

[JuniperLea]

80. He wants to...

He plans on, he's talking about, he's going to, he intends on...

More hypothetical equine fecal matter.

[StarsInHerHair]

76. only AFTER they means-test CEOs payment/retirement packages-until then NO

[Doremus]

77. Again with the 'entitlement program' BS.

The wingers surely do own the message (and the messengers), don't they? :eyes:

[OwnedByFerrets]

79. Not NO, but FUCK NO!!

[Qutzupalotl]

81. No, because down the road, people of means will use this as an excuse

to avoid paying into the system. Why should they pay, when they will get no benefit? And they would have a point.

Although we have a large number of millionaires in this country, that number pales in comparison to the millions of working class people who will need these benefits to be as strong as possible. So I don't mind a few fatcats getting more than they need. Better to tax the fuck out of them but include them in the benefits than to give them an opening to scrap the system altogether.

Besides, any person, high or low, could be sued into the poorhouse over some accidental occurrence. Better to have a safety net there, even for them.

[neverforget]

84. Instead of means testing, how about Medicare for All?

:argh: :grr: :banghead: