Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Medicare premium rise

Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 5:59:14 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

I think you'll see more "permanently disabled" claims for mental and other problems you can't really disprove, which they then pay for nothing, I've known plenty of people who played that game, it's better for states to have them dx as disabled so they can take them of the states medicaid or medicaid will be come secondary which still would save the state a bunch of money. You'd think with all these jobs supposedly created more people would be paying into Medicare so there should be more money in it, unless the job claims are wrong, imagine that.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 6:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 5:59:14 PM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

I think you'll see more "permanently disabled" claims for mental and other problems you can't really disprove, which they then pay for nothing, I've known plenty of people who played that game, it's better for states to have them dx as disabled so they can take them of the states medicaid or medicaid will be come secondary which still would save the state a bunch of money. You'd think with all these jobs supposedly created more people would be paying into Medicare so there should be more money in it, unless the job claims are wrong, imagine that.

Subs run out in 2017. Medicaid expansion was cleverly done
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 8:34:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

Why did Congress exclude these groups?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 8:51:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 8:34:06 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

Why did Congress exclude these groups?

Grandfathered in (that's what the hold harmless provision means).
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 9:25:31 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 8:51:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 8:34:06 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

Why did Congress exclude these groups?

Grandfathered in (that's what the hold harmless provision means).

The pdf article says that 42 USC 1395r(f) is the provision, and that section seems to restrict the benefit to people who are "entitled to monthly benefits under section 402 or 423 of [title 42] or to a monthly annuity under section 3(a), 4(a), or 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 [45 U.S.C. 231b(a), 231c(a), (f)]". https://www.law.cornell.edu... Sections 402 and 423 look like social security and disability. https://www.law.cornell.edu... https://www.law.cornell.edu...

1395r(f) seems like it intended to restrict the benefit to only those explicitly mentioned groups. It doesn't strike me as an accident that some groups were excluded. I do not see any indication in the pdf article as to the reason for the restriction.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 9:50:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 9:25:31 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 8:51:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 8:34:06 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

Why did Congress exclude these groups?

Grandfathered in (that's what the hold harmless provision means).

The pdf article says that 42 USC 1395r(f) is the provision, and that section seems to restrict the benefit to people who are "entitled to monthly benefits under section 402 or 423 of [title 42] or to a monthly annuity under section 3(a), 4(a), or 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 [45 U.S.C. 231b(a), 231c(a), (f)]". https://www.law.cornell.edu... Sections 402 and 423 look like social security and disability. https://www.law.cornell.edu... https://www.law.cornell.edu...

1395r(f) seems like it intended to restrict the benefit to only those explicitly mentioned groups. It doesn't strike me as an accident that some groups were excluded. I do not see any indication in the pdf article as to the reason for the restriction.

I'll look for the exact hold harmless statute but this does a better job of saying The Who and what:

http://www.cnbc.com...

In short, if you are over the national average or new, (30%) your premium goes up 22%.
If under the national average, (70%), premium goes up 16.1%.

COLA wasn't raised in 2015 so 70% didn't see the premium hike. But that changes next year.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2016 9:58:18 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/19/2016 9:50:23 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 9:25:31 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 8:51:02 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 8:34:06 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 10/19/2016 1:11:29 PM, Stymie13 wrote:
At some point people need to drop the partisanship, stop listening to politicians who tell you what you want to hear, and listen.

Those not protected by the hold harmless provision will see a 22% increase in Part B as well as a higher deductible. Percentages are higher than employer based rates.

Hold harmless provision can be found here:

http://www.narfe.org...

The actual CFR statute is cited. Caution: if one is not well versed in CFR language, I'd stick with the synopsis. Federal language is quite tedious.

Why did Congress exclude these groups?

Grandfathered in (that's what the hold harmless provision means).

The pdf article says that 42 USC 1395r(f) is the provision, and that section seems to restrict the benefit to people who are "entitled to monthly benefits under section 402 or 423 of [title 42] or to a monthly annuity under section 3(a), 4(a), or 4(f) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 [45 U.S.C. 231b(a), 231c(a), (f)]". https://www.law.cornell.edu... Sections 402 and 423 look like social security and disability. https://www.law.cornell.edu... https://www.law.cornell.edu...

1395r(f) seems like it intended to restrict the benefit to only those explicitly mentioned groups. It doesn't strike me as an accident that some groups were excluded. I do not see any indication in the pdf article as to the reason for the restriction.

I'll look for the exact hold harmless statute but this does a better job of saying The Who and what:

http://www.cnbc.com...

In short, if you are over the national average or new, (30%) your premium goes up 22%.
If under the national average, (70%), premium goes up 16.1%.

COLA wasn't raised in 2015 so 70% didn't see the premium hike. But that changes next year.

2 more to explain hold harmless:

From ssa.gov
https://faq.ssa.gov...

An ssa consultanting firm:
https://www.kitces.com...