1
   

Medicare Premiums to Rise 17 Percent

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:00 pm
They kept this one under wraps. Much of this raise is due to the give away
to the Drug and insurance industries mandated in the abortion called the Medicare prescription benefit.



Medicare Premiums to Rise 17 Percent

By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Medicare premiums for doctor visits will rise 17 percent next year, the Bush administration said Friday. The $11.60-a-month increase is the largest in the program's 40-year-history.

Monthly payments for Part B of the government health care program for older and disabled Americans - doctor visits and most other non-hospital expenses - will jump to $78.20 from $66.60.

The premiums are updated annually under a formula set by law. The federal government picks up about 75 percent of the cost of Part B benefits and beneficiaries pay the rest.

The increase reflects rapidly rising health costs and last year's Medicare overhaul, said Dr. Mark McClellan, administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. For example, the law blocked a planned 4.5 percent cut in Medicare payments to physicians and replaced it with a 1.5 percent increase.

The administration, seeking political advantage among older voters, has tried to depict the Medicare law, with its first-ever prescription drug benefit, as a boon to seniors.

"The new premiums reflect an enhanced Medicare that is providing seniors and people with disabilities with strengthened access to physician services and new preventive benefits," McClellan said.

But Democrats and other critics have derided the law as a giveaway to insurers, drug makers and medical providers.

"George Bush is presiding over a Medicare system that is socking seniors with the largest premium hike in the program's forty year history," said Phil Singer, spokesman for Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign.

The timing of the release - the day following the Republican convention, just before the Labor Day weekend and with a hurricane bearing down on Florida and its nearly 3 million Medicare recipients - also drew criticism Friday.

"This is a cynical attempt to bury bad news by leaking it out when you hope no one is watching," said Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark, D-Calif. "This administration has had four years to improve Medicare and instead have made it worse. Today's news reflects the reality, not rhetoric, of this administration's bad record on Medicare."

McClellan denied any effort to coordinate the release with events. "We're getting these numbers out as soon as we can," he said.

Premiums have been increasing at an accelerating pace in recent years, rising 13.5 percent in 2004 and 8.7 percent last year.

In addition, the deductible for Part B services will rise $10 next year, to $110, another change mandated by the Medicare law.

About 93 percent of Medicare's 41.8 million beneficiaries are enrolled in Part B, which helps pay for physician services, hospital outpatient care, durable medical equipment and other services, including some home health care.

McClellan said new preventive health services that Medicare will begin covering in 2005, including a physical for those who become eligible for Medicare and screening for diabetes, will help save money for beneficiaries.

The 4.6 million people in Medicare managed care could see their out-of-pocket expenses decline next year, he said.

"On net, Medicare beneficiaries are saving money," McClellan said.

The government also said the Part A portion of Medicare that pays for hospital stays, skilled nursing facilities and some home health care also will see an increase in the deductible, which will rise $36 to $912 next year. It is a Medicare recipient's only cost for up to 60 days of inpatient hospital care.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,923 • Replies: 22
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:19 pm
Re: Medicare Premiums to Rise 17 Percent
au1929 wrote:
They kept this one under wraps. Much of this raise is due to the give away
to the Drug and insurance industries mandated in the abortion called the Medicare prescription benefit.


Under wraps?? Apparently they didn't do a very good job of it since the Senate Democrats knew the exact number back in July.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-doc.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-204

"The 2004 Medicare Trustees Report projects that monthly Part B premiums will rise by a record $11.50 for 2005 - a one-year increase of more than 17 percent."
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 07:54 am
Congress be damned. It was made public on friday.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:25 am
Horsecrap. The 17% number was in the 2004 Medicare Trustees Report which was released to the public on March 23rd, 2004.

The Miami Herald ran a story on the 17% rise on March 26th, 2004.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/8280954.htm

Sen. Dorgan posted a public press release on his WWW page using that same 17% number on July 22, 2004.

The "Grey Panthers" mentioned the 17% increase in their July 2004 newsletter:
http://www.graypanthers.org/fix-medicare/archive/2004/07/

Your failure to pay attention to what's going on doesn't constitute "they kept it under wraps".
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:34 am
Oh yeah! Sock it to us. We the aging and the poor have deep pockets.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:39 am
Fishin
Citing Higher Costs, U.S. Plans Record Rise in Medicare
Premium
By GARDINER HARRIS
The announcement of the 17 percent hike came a day after
President Bush heralded his efforts to help the elderly
with medical costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/politics/04health.html?th

I guess the NY times and all the other news outlets were asleep as well.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:42 am
Edgar
It's cut the SS COLA's raise the Medicare costs and feed the wealthy with tax cuts. Now that is compassion. Republican style.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:45 am
I'm all for going down the toilet while they prosper.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 08:51 am
I suppose that it is all a matter of perspective. $78+ bucks a month is chump change, considering I was paying over $10,000 a year for health insurance, until this summer, when I joined the ranks of the Medicare recipients!

For people to whom $78- is a problem, there are HMOs. My mom pays NO premiums for her HMO policy, only co-pays.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:11 am
Phoenix32890
Sure compared to what you pay for private medical insurance it may be chump change. However $ 10,000 /yr seems a bit high. How may people were covered?
Regarding Medicare, one must carry suplemental insurance as well. For me that presently adds an additional burden of $3600/year. And than comes the prescriptions.
One must remember that we are talking about the elderly, many which have little more than SS and limited assets to fall back on. Every year the SS payments fall further behind the cost of living and the deductions become higher and medical needs become greater.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:18 am
au1929 wrote:
It's cut the SS COLA's raise the Medicare costs and feed the wealthy with tax cuts. Now that is compassion. Republican style.


Considering that those over age 55 by and large ARE the wealthy it seems fair enough.

Take a look at Figure 5:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-88.pdf

Why should a group (people aged 65-74) with an average net worth of $114K or more expect another group (people aged 54 and lower) with an average net worth of less than $83K to pay their bills for them?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:33 am
Safety net. If we can pay countless trillions of dollars to occupy the globe with the military we can keep our own people afloat also. We are a society, not a band of disconnected nomads.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:51 am
Fishin
You could also ask the same question about Social security. Because the group 54 and under will eventually turn into almost overnight, it will seem, into the group that is 55 and over. I would question why you are using 55 as a base in the statistics since Medicare begins at 65. In any event they should remember that whatever is done to the system now will be there when they need it.
Regarding statistics. it is a question of garbage in garbage out. Sure if you lump all the people including those just starting out you will get the lowest number possible. Conversely if to add people 55 to 65 in the Medicare recipient group. which by the way are generally the highest earning years you get a the same distorted number.
I worked with statistics and know haw they can be distorted show what is not, is.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 09:57 am
Edgar
Remember Bush is a Compassionate conservative. I think our republican brethren needs have the word compassion defined for them.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 10:12 am
au1929 wrote:
Fishin
You could also ask the same question about Social security. Because the group 54 and under will eventually turn into almost overnight, it will seem, into the group that is 55 and over. I would question why you are using 55 as a base in the statistics since Medicare begins at 65.


I lumped in the 55-65 year group in the first statement because a lot of retiree groups (like AARP) like to include them as well.

Quote:
Regarding statistics. it is a question of garbage in garbage out. Sure if you lump all the people including those just starting out you will get the lowest number possible. Conversely if to add people 55 to 65 in the Medicare recipient group. which by the way are generally the highest earning years you get a the same distorted number.

I worked with statistics and know haw they can be distorted show what is not, is.


But I didn't add the 55-65 year olds into the Medicare group. Look again. The 55-65 year group also isn't the group hold the most wealth. That honor belongs to the 70-74 year old group followed closely by the 65-69 year old group.

As edgar stated, there is supposed to be a safety net and there are certianly poor elderly people but as a group the elderly (those over 65) control over 60% of the total wealth of this country and comprise near 70% of the households that have an annual income in excess of $250K.

While I have concerns for thw poor elderly the constant barage of crying from seniors as a whole rings hollow.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 10:50 am
Fishin
"But I didn't add the 55-65 year olds into the Medicare group."
Sorry I missed that. The answer to this may be in the link you referenced, however, I could not open it. I wonder how much of that elderly wealth is in paid down home mortgages? In any event I will concede there is much wealth held by the elderly but by the same token there is much poverty. Since wealth and income does not enter into the equation the rich and poor are equally impacted.
Fishin wrote
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 12:26 pm
Quote:
However $ 10,000 /yr seems a bit high. How may people were covered?


Just me. Now in addition to the $78- I have the "J" Medigap policy which costs a couple of hundred bucks a month. I am one of those people who will do without other things, and spend on health care. I think that it is just a matter of priorities.

Quote:
Why should a group (people aged 65-74) with an average net worth of $114K or more expect another group (people aged 54 and lower) with an average net worth of less than $83K to pay their bills for them?



They shouldn't.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:32 pm
Phoenix
The additional cost will not make a bump in my being able to do or buy whatever I
wish to. However that does not help the individual who is just scraping by. As for who pays for who? Was it not the same when you paid into the system? Did you have the same complaint? Why should I pay for those old farts?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 03:55 pm
au1929- The reality is that medical costs have gone up. I want to pull my weight, and don't want to be subsidized by the young folks, who may have diddlysquat when they retire.

Quote:
that does not help the individual who is just scraping by.


For the person who is truly needy, there is always Medicaid. As for people who have a little more leeway, as I have said, the HMOs are an economical way to go.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2004 04:01 pm
Phoenix32890
Now you sound like my wife the mother of the nations young.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Medicare Premiums to Rise 17 Percent
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 10:31:41