President Obama to Propose Medicare Premium Increase for Top 5% of Recipients
EmailPresident Obama to Propose Medicare Premium Increase for Top 5% of Recipients
To partially fund the Health Care Reserve Fund, another new source of revenue — or tax hike — the President will propose applying the same income standard for premiums for Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) that applies already to Medicare Part B (doctors’ visits).
That is to say, right now couples who make more than $170,000 a year already pay higher premiums for Medicare Part B.
If the President’s proposal goes through, they will also pay higher premiums for prescription drugs. This will impact the top five percent of Medicare recipients, the Obama White House anticipates, or about 1.5 million people, and will raise $8.1 billion over 10 years.
This would start in FY 2011.
- jpt
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Has Obama reversed Bush decree that Medicare is not allowed to bargain drug prices yet?
Posted by: Flash Override | February 25, 2009, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
Jake great job on getting all the figures.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 8:16 pm 8:16 pm
“Has Obama reversed Bush decree that Medicare is not allowed to bargain drug prices yet?”
Not sure but could this be related?
“bringing down the drug costs of Medicaid by increasing the drug rebate for brand-name drugs from 15.1 percent to 22.1 percent of the average manufacturers price;”
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 8:17 pm 8:17 pm
How does this fit into his promise last night that if you make less than $250,000/year, you will not pay one dime of increased taxes?
I guess they aren’t considering the medicare premium a tax?????
Posted by: MayBee | February 25, 2009, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
If Medicare is allowed to negotiate drug prices, then you will see research in the area of drugs for predominantly elderly disorders like Parkinson and Alzheimer dry up very quickly. Medicare, as a near single-payer system for elderly disorders, would have monopolistic pricing power over the drug companies. The drug companies would no longer have incentive to research new drugs in these areas.
This is the trouble. People believe that monopolies are bad, but they always seem eager to give monopolistic power to the government. Is it not just as bad (or even worse) in their hands?
Posted by: J E | February 25, 2009, 8:43 pm 8:43 pm
In one fell swoop Obama did what he said he wouldn’t do: Raised taxes on people earning way less than $250k.
And, he got to do what he really does best with that Marxist philosophy:
Hurt the rich AND seniors.
Posted by: Peach | February 25, 2009, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
Don’t lookit me! Don’t blame me! I didn’t vote for him!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | February 25, 2009, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm
Don’t lookit me! Don’t blame me! I didn’t vote for him!
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | Feb 25, 2009 9:22:01 PM
********
We had an election night party for 70+ people and I told them when Obama won that I was starting a new business.
Bumper stickers that say:
Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for him.
Posted by: Peach | February 25, 2009, 9:26 pm 9:26 pm
“How does this fit into his promise last night that if you make less than $250,000/year, you will not pay one dime of increased taxes?”
Two things.
One, these are premiums, not taxes.
Two, this is slated to happen 2 years from now.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 9:27 pm 9:27 pm
“If Medicare is allowed to negotiate drug prices, then you will see research in the area of drugs for predominantly elderly disorders like Parkinson and Alzheimer dry up very quickly. Medicare, as a near single-payer system for elderly disorders, would have monopolistic pricing power over the drug companies. The drug companies would no longer have incentive to research new drugs in these areas.”
Which is why drug companies spend billions on lobbying and PR efforts to attack any form of universal healthcare.
And right wingers think that is a good thing.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 9:28 pm 9:28 pm
In one fell swoop Obama did what he said he wouldn’t do: Raised taxes on people earning way less than $250k.
And, he got to do what he really does best with that Marxist philosophy:
Hurt the rich AND seniors.
**************************************
What the heck I thought you Repubs thought things like Medicare, SS, health care, were socialist programs and people had a sense of entitlement. Now you complain about hurting seniors because he wants them to pay a little more.
Make up your minds will you?
Posted by: Thinking | February 25, 2009, 9:30 pm 9:30 pm
Man i luv this guy!! , he is out working getting things done, The man treating the presidency like a REAL JOB , Something we can say have NEVER SEEN done at least to memory .
keep it up Mr. President ,We luv the ACTION.
With george bush we only see this guy out doing something maybe 3 times in his whole term of 8 years , Only in his last month in office he was out and about trying to sell his pathetic legacy.
Posted by: mike | February 25, 2009, 9:30 pm 9:30 pm
First of all, Medicare premiums are not a tax; they are premiums paid for health care coverage.
Second, this increase will cost couples earning more than $170,000 only about $45/month extra, or $540 a year. That’s not a staggering burden considering the income threshhold. And there’s no requirement that such couples sign up for Medicare Part D anyway; if they choose a private prescription plan instead, they won’t have to pay for government coverage they don’t use and the increase in the premium is a moot issue.
Posted by: windrider | February 25, 2009, 9:36 pm 9:36 pm
“What the heck I thought you Repubs thought things like Medicare, SS, health care, were socialist programs and people had a sense of entitlement. Now you complain about hurting seniors because he wants them to pay a little more.”
ROFLMAO!
Excellent Thinking!
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 9:38 pm 9:38 pm
“We had an election night party for 70+ people and I told them when Obama won that I was starting a new business.”
How about this one Peach?
“I sold my integrity and all I got from the right wing was this lousy bumper sticker”
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 9:40 pm 9:40 pm
Now you complain about hurting seniors because he wants them to pay a little more.
==========
I don’t see any such comment on this thread.
Posted by: MayBee | February 25, 2009, 9:43 pm 9:43 pm
Ryan C;Two, this is slated to happen 2 years from now.
========
Obama did not give a time limit:
“In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. ”
He’s talking about when they roll back the tax rates (in 2011 we now know), you will not see your taxes increased.
Posted by: MayBee | February 25, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
Class warfare to the limit. Let the redistribution proceed. Next in line?
Posted by: Richard Nelson | February 25, 2009, 9:48 pm 9:48 pm
“I don’t see any such comment on this thread.”
Posted by: Peach | Feb 25, 2009 9:11:42 PM
“Hurt the rich AND seniors.”
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 9:56 pm 9:56 pm
“He’s talking about when they roll back the tax rates (in 2011 we now know), you will not see your taxes increased.”
And being asked to pay a higher premium if you choose to use the service is not a higher tax.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 9:57 pm 9:57 pm
Dow Jones is down 24% since Obama was elected. 50% since Democrats seized control of Congress. This is epic failure, an epic vote of no confidence in all of them. Crushing, suffocating, killing industry, business, jobs, and people’s lives. And now he’s going to TAKE more from us at the point of a gun. Epic, colossal, complete FAILURE. That’s Obama’s “change”.
Posted by: JD | February 25, 2009, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
“This is epic failure, an epic vote of no confidence in all of them.”
Which is why Obama won the election and currently enjoys approval ratings in the 60s and even Congress has seen its atrocious approval rating go up.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 10:26 pm 10:26 pm
Dow Jones is down 24% since Obama was elected. 50% since Democrats seized control of Congress.
Posted by: JD | Feb 25, 2009 10:14:40 PM
_______________________________________
Thats called 8 years of FAILURE coming home to ROOST , with over 300 million people in this country , you think the economy can turn on a dime in 30 plus days with someone in office ,
3 million plus jobs was lost in the past 12 months ..certainly NOT under his watch, The man just got his first bill pass, which more or less can help stop the bleeding,
The Economy is NOT a microwave
you may want to give it some time to PERCOLATE.
Posted by: alan | February 25, 2009, 10:39 pm 10:39 pm
Correction: O’s approval ratings are only in the 50′s, in Gallup’s most recent poll.
Posted by: JD | February 25, 2009, 10:53 pm 10:53 pm
“Correction: O’s approval ratings are only in the 50′s, in Gallup’s most recent poll.”
Gallup Feb 25th
Obama Approval: 61%
Posted by: Ryan C | February 25, 2009, 11:13 pm 11:13 pm
Business closures and layoffs were being planned by many brand name retailers long before Nov. 4. Decisions were finalized when Obama promised to increase taxes and won the election. The 600,000 layoffs in January, a big jump from the month before, was a direct result. You cannot blame this on Bush.
The markets rallied from 2001 and on until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the house and enacted sub-prime mortgages to people who could not afford a mortgage. The market dive bombed just before the election due to the arranged crises to throw the election to Obama. He was never able to win in his elections, past and present, on record of achievement. He did so on technical elimination of opponents. And when that wasn’t possible, the Democrats took out the market and sacreficed American’s financial futures.
The day after Barack Obama was sworn in, Tom Brennan wrote: Cramer created a stock index to track the new president’s progress. He chose companies that operated in the very sectors that needed the most help. Their performance would tell us how effective Obama had been and whether or not his plans to save the economy had worked.
The Obama Accountability Index contained six stocks: Bank of America [BAC 3.79 -0.14 (-3.56%) ], Citigroup [C 1.95 -0.56 (-22.31%) ], Caterpillar [CAT 26.66 -0.36 (-1.33%) ], General Motors [GM 1.77 -0.23 (-11.5%) ], General Electric [GE 9.38 -0.68 (-6.76%) ] and JPMorgan Chase [JPM 19.90 -0.70 (-3.4%) ]. Citi, BofA and JPM would test his rescue of the banks. GM, his solution for the autos. Caterpillar’s performance would directly relate to the strength of Obama’s stimulus plan. And GE, the quintessential American industrial conglomerate, the president’s ability to rejuvenate the economy.
Well, the index is down 35% since Jan. 21, the day it was created. The S&P 500 over that same period has declined just 8%. So Obama, at least according to Cramer’s portfolio, isn’t doing too well.
Posted by: Der Kempt | February 25, 2009, 11:32 pm 11:32 pm
“Business closures and layoffs were being planned by many brand name retailers long before Nov. 4. Decisions were finalized when Obama promised to increase taxes and won the election. The 600,000 layoffs in January, a big jump from the month before, was a direct result. You cannot blame this on Bush.”
So businesses decided on massive layoffs based on what may happen and Bush is not responsible for what happened during his term.
The GOP the party of personal responsibility….not theirs, yours.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 26, 2009, 12:01 am 12:01 am
“The markets rallied from 2001 and on until Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi took over the house and enacted sub-prime mortgages to people who could not afford a mortgage.”
CRA came about in 1977.
Could you name the bill the Democrats intro’d in the 110th Congress that enacted subprime mortgageloans to people that could not afford it?
Posted by: Ryan C | February 26, 2009, 12:03 am 12:03 am
the medicare drug deal: legalized extortion as far as Im concerned. The meds I use are not covered at all. And to admit I have the medicare D would make the cost i pay go up more than triple.That’s not fair.So, to keep from being penalized, I continue to pay for the medicare D as ordered . And after the $800 a month i receive for being totally disabled, they take out more than $ 135 a month of that for medicare taxes and insurance and drug coverage. Tell me now., what can I afford to eat and live in with what is left? Thank God for my children. Wake up elected government !! We put our hope in you all, and you have done nothing for US…we the people …..we lost our jobs,cant pay our mortgages,cant pay our bills, cant buy groceries….and you keep telling us to tighten up OUR belt !! When ARE YOU GOING TO TIGHTEN YOUR BELT WITH OUR MONEY????? Angry in Oklahoma !!!!
Posted by: LaRee | February 26, 2009, 1:29 am 1:29 am
i have noticed that peoples care in the ER of most hospitals now depends on the first question the hospital asks……what kind of insurance do you have? Well, I want the same kind that Obama,Biden,McCain,all the senate, the congress and house of reps get. The same kind Obama said that he wished he could give us all !! Well, I’m still waiting ! AND I VOTED FOR THIS MAN BECAUSE I THOUGHT HE,AMONG ALL, WOULD UNDERSTAND THE PEOPLE……LIKE LINCOLN…….guess I was wrong again………Is there any way to get a ”one on one” with the president?? or is that just another wish in the wind????? even a phone call would be nice………..just to see if he ACTUALLY LISTENS anymore….or is it /has it all been an act??????? again
Posted by: LaRee | February 26, 2009, 1:38 am 1:38 am
I propose that we all take the the miniscule amount we get from a payroll tax break and whatever else we get and put it in a savings acct or something and not spend it… what was Pres. W. Bushes advice to the simulus checks we got in 2001 and 2002? SPEND IT! its the same thing Obama says now… let all the corps go down and just shop at wal-mart or whatever and let the chips fall where they may… its the only american thing to do!
Posted by: JG | February 26, 2009, 2:11 am 2:11 am
I find it impossible to wrap my arms around the belief that this is a Christian Nation when so many people are willing to turn their backs on the ill, (those without medical insurance) and the people who have been dealt a short deck in life. To think that the only way to a good life is to earn ones status flys in the words of the Christian creator that we are our brothers keepers.
Certainly the wealthy have an obligation to help the unfortunate and I see nothing wrong in raising taxes on the wealthy–remember,(most people don’t) that the tax rates were much higher in the 30s and 40s when gradually the nation dug itself out of horrible depression. What is wrong with a redistribution of some of our wealth. We all can’t be Jockes, or great Tesbians, or CEOs of some large Corporations, or just born into a wealthy family. (Can you imagine our last President getting into Yale on his Intellect?)
I think a good example of what I’m talking about is the CEOs, and the many senior managers, in HMOs who pass judgement on whether I get a treatment some Doctor says I need. The CEO of the HMO has no knowledge of my condition, nor does he even have the expertise needed to make a judgement, yet he may be decding whether I live or die.
I strongly feel a responsibilty towards others, but I fear I’m in the minority’
Dan Kanoza
Posted by: Dan Kanoza | February 26, 2009, 9:34 am 9:34 am
I find it impossible to wrap my arms around the belief that this is a Christian Nation when so many people are willing to turn their backs on the ill, (those without medical insurance) and the people who have been dealt a short deck in life.
To think that the only way to a good life is to earn ones’ status. I see nothing wrong with hard work, but I see something wrong with being given status without merit.
I see nothing wrong in raising taxes on the wealthy or the average income earner, but taxes should never be more than is called for in the Bible and they currently are. Remember (most people don’t), that the tax rates were much higher in the 30s and 40s, but that few people were in those higher tax brackets and most people paid little or no taxes. And! — they were paid in gold and silver at the turn of the 19th century.
What is wrong with a redistribution of some of our wealth? Plenty! Why work hard if what you earn is to be redistributed to people you don’t know or even like who are not working hard? And if they are working hard then the government should make sure they are properly paid for their work and not paid to layabout.
I think a good example of what I’m talking about is the President of the U.S., and the many who think like him, who would pass judgement on whether I get a treatment some Doctor says I need. Some people might opt for a “pain pill”, but it should be only an option.
Posted by: Carlos | July 15, 2011, 6:11 pm 6:11 pm