How about raising the Medicare age on the top one percent?

[ProSense]

Raise it to age 70. Use all the RW/right-leaning arguments:

• means testing
  
  
• people are living longer
  
  
• save the government money (and put the burden on affected seniors)
  
  
• strengthen ACA (and put the burden on affected seniors)

The top one percent can afford to pay for private insurance for a few more years and they're the ones living longer.

It also has the added benefit of capturing most of the members of Congress who support this crap.

Raising Medicare age: "terrible," "fiscally irresponsible" policy, but Republicans want it so OK?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021945161

Krugman: What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021914963

[ProSense]

1. Kick for

scoring this proposal.

Will no one consider the benefits?

[freshwest]

132. My proposal is to tax the piggies until they squeal.

And for Mr. Krugman's question of 'Krugman: What Defines A Serious Deficit Proposal?'

I propose the same thing most families do when they find themselves with expenses and debt. Increase their income.

The GOP loves those cute little dinner table talking points. Throw it back at them by taxing the piggies until the squeal.

EOM.

[Aerows]

2. I say

do away with medicare for them all together since they don't have the problem of not being able to afford insurance. The end result would be that we would suddenly see a hell of a lot of pressure to regulate the health care industry to control costs. Pharmaceutical companies regularly rip off Americans, but aren't allowed to do it in other countries.

[JHB]

3. No. Keep it universal, or they'll just chip away at it...

Look for that cutoff level to steadily travel downward, until enough people are excluded that they can call it a "handout".

[ProSense]

4. This does not

"No. Keep it universal, or they'll just chip away at it..."

...change it from a "universal" program. It's means testing, which already affects seniors differently depending on when they enter(ed) the program.

They will still get the benefits paid in (think about the difference between early retirement and the current age), but they'll get it later.

[demosincebirth]

5. Let them pay for their own medical.

[eridani]

6. "People" are not living longer. Affluent people are living longer

Senior households with incomes over $85K already pay a surcharge for Medicare. Increasing this would be fine, but you know perfectly well that the Repukes are going to use raising the age to chip away at benefits for all seniors, so HELL fucking NO!!

[99Forever]

7. As if the 1%...

.. rely on Medicare.

[ProSense]

8. That's the point.

"As if the 1%... rely on Medicare."

They can survive without it. McCain certainly took his Medicare checks even when he advocated cutting the program.

When has the one percent ever given up taking what they get, squeezing every penny, from the federal government?

[99Forever]

9. You really don't get it, do you?

It's just some sort sport to you. Millions of lives are being destroyed and this is this best you can come up with.



I'm sad for you.

[ProSense]

10. What the fuck are you talking about?

"Millions of lives are being destroyed and this is this best you can come up with. "

The OP is about the one percent.

Get over yourself.

[99Forever]

12. Me?

"Get over myself."


Whatever you say.

[ProSense]

15. Yes. n/t

[99Forever]

17. If you say so.

[ProSense]

11. Another thing:

The irony of your little self-righteous condescending rant is that it's in an OP that has nothing to do with anyone but the wealthiest Americans.

Utterly silly!

[Romulox]

13. +1. nt

[ProSense]

14. LOL! You oppose cutting Medicare for the top one percent,

letting them taste their own medicine?

[jberryhill]

27. They wouldn't "taste" anything

Since their doctors don't take Medicare in the first place. You think that Dick Cheney's replacement heart was paid by Medicare, or that it covers that sort of thing?

[ProSense]

30. "You think that Dick Cheney's replacement heart was paid by Medicare"

Yes!

Taxpayers paid over a million dollars for Cheney's heart transplant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002500085

The nation spends $29 billion a year treating heart failure, according to a study presented Saturday by Abhijeet Basoor, a cardiologist at St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital in Pontiac, Mich. Both LVADs and heart transplants are covered by Medicare, Walsh said.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-24/cheney-heart-surgery/53754802/1

[Sgent]

130. I don't know of any

cardio-pulmanary surgeon, nor any hospital, which doesn't accept Medicare (other than VA / Military Hospitals).

There are some physicians operating on the fringes of medicine which are opting out of Medicare, but those do not perform inpatient surgery. In addition I know of no hospital -- much less an academic center which would do a transplant -- which has opted out of Medicare.

There are some specialty surgical centers, urgent care facilities, and individual physicians who have opted out, but these aren't new, and tend to only exist among primary care doctors and cosmetic specialists.

[rickford66]

51. What ?

He got Medicare checks? Are you sure you don't mean Social Security checks?

[ProSense]

56. Oops, no I meant benefits. n/t

[brokechris]

58. even being a well-off Republican,

McCain deserves his Medicare just like all other Americans. If we start discriminating--where do we stop?

[bluestate10]

16. I favor a higher retirement age for people like me that have jobs that don't require constant

standing or walking and which have no manual labor involved. There can be a system where the occupation that a person reports every tax year gets a points value added to it, retirement age will depend on the number of points accumulated. Adjustments would have to be made for illness or injury that triggers early retirement. A longer term solution would be to work Medicare into the ACA, Medicaid will start getting worked in 2014.

[ProSense]

18. You have got to be joking?

"I favor a higher retirement age for people like me that have jobs that don't require constant standing or walking and which have no manual labor involved."

Office environments can be stressful too, and stress will still kill you if you don't earn enough to pay the bills.

How exactly does this reduce the deficit? Answer: It doesn't. So what's the point: to make more people suffer needlessly?

Raising Medicare age: "terrible," "fiscally irresponsible" policy, but Republicans want it so OK?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021945161

The OP has nothing to do with deficit reduction. It's simply about making the wealthy advocates of this idiotic approach the subject of the policy.

[mainer]

19. Means testing is more expensive than offering Medicare/SS to the 1 %

The cost of means testing 100% of seniors ends up costing the federal government way more than they'd recover from denying benefits to the 1%.

Also, it erodes support by the very people who pay a larger amount into SSN/ Medicare. if you're a high-earner, and you're paying money into these programs knowing you'll never get it back, that turns it into a welfare program, not a universal program. That's a pretty good way to kill the programs entirely, when the 1% withdraws all support for it.

Don't forget: high earners are huge contributors to Medicare, unless they form an S-corp. 100% of their earnings are subject to Medicare taxes. One high-earning friend I have was paying essentially a BMW's worth into Medicare taxes EVERY YEAR. If you tell him you're going to take away his access to Medicare when he retires, you think he's not going to fight the system? A system that gives him nothing in return for a lifelong of contributions?

[ProSense]

20. This doesn't

"Don't forget: high earners are huge contributors to Medicare"

...change that. It simply increase the eligibility age.

"If you tell him you're going to take away his access to Medicare when he retires, you think he's not going to fight the system? A system that gives him nothing in return for a lifelong of contributions?"

You mean like how we are fighting to stop them from taking away our "access"?

[mainer]

41. I thought you were advocating means testing for Medicare

which means denying Medicare to people with means. Which means you're denying Medicare to the 1%. Which means the 1% are sure as hell going to be pissed about contributing all their lives to a program they will never see a dime of.

[Overseas]

21. Means testing is a slippery slope. We need to lower the Medicare age to zero, like so many other

industrialized democracies have done. They acknowledge that their taxpayers consider health care a higher priority than warfare and war profiteering, so they fund it.

Means testing sets that goal back.

And because those who set the testing levels have been so rich for so long, they set the eligibility levels so low that it will hurt those who are in the top 5%, for whom one major operation could drive them into poverty.

We want our legislators to open up to understanding that health care is a human right, not a privilege we need to give up 50% of our savings to finance.

[ProSense]

22. Medicare is already means tested.

"We need to lower the Medicare age to zero, like so many other industrialized democracies have done."

Now there is an offer: Medicare for all or raise the retirement age for the top one percent.

[Overseas]

29. The Top One Percent are already retired. Free from worry.

[ProSense]

32. How many

"The Top One Percent are already retired. Free from worry."

...excuses can be offered to defend the top one percent from the proposal they're pushing on the rest of us? If they have income from work and are paying into Medicare, they're not "already retired."

[mainer]

46. Their retirement income is subject to Medicare tax

All income, including investment income, will now be subject to the 3.9% tax starting 2013.

Top one percenters do get cancer. Some of them need bone marrow transplants. Some of them have catastrophic accidents that can wipe out their savings.

No one is immortal, and no one is healthy forever. By taking away their health care benefits, you are impoverishing them before you allow them to start collecting Medicare.

[Overseas]

73. If all income will be subject to a Medicare tax then we do not need to raise the eligibility age.

All we need is a tiny transaction tax on Wall Street, the people who crashed our economy in the first place and haven't even gone to jail!

[Overseas]

64. Pure greed may caused them to object, but it won't devastate them to raise the age, whereas

it could bankrupt many more of us who may need a major operation before we qualify for Medicare,

as happens today if we need the operation before age 65.

[Nye Bevan]

23. Means-testing of Social Security or Medicare is the sneakiest way to kill off either program.

Why do you think Social Security and Medicare have survived for so long? Because everyone, even the highest earners, benefit from them. Everyone pays taxes for these programs and everyone benefits, so they are not perceived as "welfare" programs. Because we all know what tends to happen to "welfare" programs.

[ProSense]

25. The program is already means tested. n/t

[duffyduff]

33. No, it isn't.

"Means-tested" refers to eligibility for a program. SS and Medicare are NOT "means-tested" programs. Programs like Medicaid, SSI, and Food Stamps ARE "means-tested" because you have to have a certain income level to qualify. Social Security and Medicare are UNIVERSAL programs.

Let's not play fast and loose with definitions here.

[Sgent]

131. Depends on your definition

depending on income, your Part B premium is $104 - $335 / month, and your part D premium can have up to $65 added to the base (advertised) price / month.

The income level starts at 85,000 for an individual -- which is calculated on all income (including SS and Tax Free Bonds).

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. This would not have an appreciable effect on Medicare spending

You're only talking about 1% of the 65-70 age group. That would be perhaps 0.1% of total spending (since the 65-70 group is healthier than the 70-75 group, who are healthier than 75-80, etc.; and the richer are, in general, healthier than average at that age anyway).

[ProSense]

26. No,

"This would not have an appreciable effect on Medicare spending"

...this isn't about Medicare spending, but then again, neither is the ridiculous proposal to raise the age on everyone else.

There is no savings: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021945161

It's simply about screwing people and destroying Medicare.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. So your proposal in the OP is purely satirical?

Sorry, I hadn't picked that up.

[ProSense]

34. I was making a point

that it will have the same impact on spending (in terms of savings) as raising the age on everyone else: none.

The difference is that instead of affecting seniors who can't afford to lose Medicare, the top one percent will be able to survive without it.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. Yes but it would open the door to lowering the bar further down the food chain

And into the middle class, and then the republican dream of killing SS and Medicare by turning them into welfare programs instead of universal entitlement programs could finally be realized. By democrats.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

31. It could be tiered

so that someone earning over 2 million a year would have no medicare

[Mel Content]

36. anybody who pays into the system should be eligble.

if some people are going to be denied Medicare- their income shouldn't be subject to the tax.

[Mel Content]

35. why not just apply medicare/fica taxes to ALL income and capital gains, with no monetary cap...?

i don't agree with means testing for Medicare or Social Security.

[ProSense]

37. There is no cap on Medicare. n/t

[Mel Content]

42. but it's not taken from all income, either.

the really rich folks get all or most of their income from capital gains.

[mainer]

44. Starting in 2013, investment income also subject to Medicare tax

and it will also increase to 3.8% of total income. For a 1 percenter, this adds up to quite a bit over a lfietime.

http://taxes.about.com/od/payroll/a/Medicare-Tax.htm

Now he turns 65, and the OP wants to deny him Medicare because he fails the means test. After he's contributed maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars over a lifetime into the system. And may be STILL contributing to Medicare because of his retirement investment income. Towards something he can't benefit from!

[Mel Content]

47. well that was quick- glad to see that they're taking my advice.

I don't think that there should be means testing, either.

[former9thward]

38. The top 1% do not use Medicare.

You could raise the age to 1000 and no one would care and it would not save a dime.

[ProSense]

39. Where exactly

"The top 1% do not use Medicare."

...did this false claim come from?

When has the one percent ever given up taking what they get, squeezing every penny, from the federal government?

Taxpayers paid over a million dollars for Cheney's heart transplant
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002500085

The nation spends $29 billion a year treating heart failure, according to a study presented Saturday by Abhijeet Basoor, a cardiologist at St. Joseph Mercy Oakland Hospital in Pontiac, Mich. Both LVADs and heart transplants are covered by Medicare, Walsh said.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-24/cheney-heart-surgery/53754802/1

[former9thward]

40. Where did your false claim come from is the question.

Cheney did not get his heart from Medicare and you know it. He has the same health 'insurance' as Obama and other federal executives. Show me where Warren Buffet is using Medicare. Show me ANY 1%er using Medicare. Medicare is a broken system, as anyone who is on it knows, and no one who can afford alternatives would use it. But continue with your wild claims.

[ProSense]

45. Luckily

"Cheney did not get his heart from Medicare and you know it. He has the same health 'insurance' as Obama and other federal executives."

...his insurance company didn't drop him for having a pre-existing condition.

"Show me ANY 1%er using Medicare. Medicare is a broken system, as anyone who is on it knows, and no one who can afford alternatives would use it. But continue with your wild claims."

The top one percent (income over $250,000) is represented:

Income. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than one percent had incomes
over $250,000.

<...>

Savings. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $2,100 in retirement account savings (such as IRAs), and
half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $31,000 in other financial assets (such as savings accounts); five
percent have combined savings of more than $1,000,000.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8172.pdf

[mainer]

49. Are you kidding me? Many 1 percenters use Medicare!

Certainly the ones I know do. And many of them breathe a sigh of relief when they turn 65 because they don't worry about losing their lifetime earnings due to a medical catastrophe.

A 1 percenter who has 5 million in assets can see those assets wiped out pretty quick with a catastrophic illness.

[ProSense]

53. No, because I didn't make the claim. LOL! n/t

[former9thward]

63. You are wrong on both your stats.

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 07:46 PM - Edit history (1)

The top 1% are 350k and above not 250k. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_States The top 1% in wealth have $8.4 million in assets. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/

Regardless of the income your quotes are assuming that everyone who is eligible for Medicare are using it and is a beneficiary. Read the fine print at the end of your link called Methodology. It is all projections from one survey or another. There is NO actual information about the people using Medicare.

As I said show me someone in that group that is actually using Medicare. No one does.

[mainer]

65. Um, my husband is a doctor. Many of our friends are doctors.

And some of their patients are 1 percenters. They are all using Medicare.

[former9thward]

93. Yeah I bet Steve Jobs was one of them.

Your husband sees his patients 1040 forms and assets? Interesting practice. Anybody can say anything on the internet.

[ProSense]

97. Why would Steve Jobs be a Medicare recipient?

He was 56 when he died.

[former9thward]

112. Correct you are.

I am sure he would have jumped on the program if he had made it to 65. May Warren Buffet is one of the patients. He is up there.

[mainer]

99. And all 1 percenters are as rich as Steve Jobs?

Are you serious? Do you really think someone who's in the .001 percent represents ALL one percenters?

[former9thward]

114. From my other posts

I have showed the top 1% in assets have $8.4 million. The top 1% income are 350k or over. If you think those people are using Medicare there is nothing that can be done for you.

[mainer]

117. You have no idea about the medical profession, do you?

Last edited Sun Dec 9, 2012, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I have personal knowledge of the assets of these people. They are using Medicare. Why wouldn't they?

Consider the illogic of what you're saying. You think that people who've been paying into the system all their lives suddenly decide, "forget it, I don't want the benefits"? It's like paying for homeowners insurance, your house burns down, and you refuse the insurance company's payments because you'll just pay for it yourself?

Also, it's illegal for doctors to privately bill Medicare patients for services covered by Medicare. Doctors HAVE to go to Medicare first for reimbursement.

[mainer]

100. A one-percenter only has to make $340,000 a year

In this small town, we know who the one percenters are, just by how much they contribute to local charities, where they got their money, and what they spend.

[former9thward]

115. Well that certainly settles it.

I would prefer facts rather than small town gossip but I guess that is just me.

[ProSense]

67. No,

I'm not:

Currently, marketing corporations and investment houses classify those with household incomes exceeding $75,000 as mass affluent, while sociologist Leonard Beeghley identifies all those with a net worth of $1 million or more as "rich." The upper class is most commonly defined as the top 1% with household incomes commonly exceeding $250,000 annually. These two figures should be seen only as guidelines based upon the top 1% of a population because net worth exceeding $1 million may be increasingly inaccurate as an upper class indicator as the value of the dollar falls and inflation along with interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States

Your first link goes nowhere.

[former9thward]

91. The link is fixed.

It says 350k. My main points remain.

[ProSense]

95. Inividual income, but

"It says 350k. My main points remain. "

...regardless, people earning more than $250,000 represent about one percent of beneficiaries. At your link, that's 1.5 percent of households, which means a significant number of people making more than $250,000 use Medicare.

Again:

Income. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than one percent had incomes over $250,000.

<...>

Savings. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $2,100 in retirement account savings (such as IRAs), and
half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $31,000 in other financial assets (such as savings accounts); five
percent have combined savings of more than $1,000,000.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8172.pdf

[mainer]

43. I am opposed to increasing the Medicare age on ANYONE

whatever his income bracket.

I am against means testing, because a wealthy 1 percenter contributes more into Medicare/SS than a lower earner does, and to take away his future benefits is to take away his support of a system that is popular BECAUSE it's been universal.

[ProSense]

48. It will still

"to take away his future benefits is to take away his support of a system that is popular BECAUSE it's been universal."

...be universal. It's means testing, which already affects seniors differently depending on when they enter(ed) the program.

They will still get the benefits paid in (think about the difference between early retirement and the current age), but they'll get it later.

The point is that the top one percent of Americans, the people who can afford to lose Medicare for a few years, are the primary advocates of this policy.

The age should be lowered, not raised. In fact, we should be moving toward a Medicare-for-all system, single payer.

[mainer]

70. Medicare is NOT means tested! Where are you getting this from?

You said: " It's means testing, which already affects seniors differently depending on when they enter(ed) the program. "

The top one percent of Americans are advocating raising the age, you say. Have you talked to all of them? Any of them? Have you talked to the one percenters I know, who all value Medicare?

[forestpath]

50. I think this is a terrible idea that would end up backfiring big time.

[sabrina 1]

54. The only problem when you do something like this, and I'm not opposed to using

their own arguments against them, they will find a way to lower the income level affected by it, should it succeed.

But, just imagining their reaction at the proposal itself, which would be fun to watch, I would add lowering the age of eligibility for the poor.

At least it would force them into the open to try to defend their protection of the wealthy at the expense of the working class. And that would be worth watching.

[ProSense]

55. I like it! n/t

[brokechris]

57. No. People's circumstances in life

can change pretty quickly--and it may take time to get back on the program. We do not want to leave any elderly people behind.

The whole point of SS and Medicare is that they are egalitarian---everyone participates.

What I dislike is people wanting to cut in any way these programs that are so important. Make the cuts somewhere else.

Give BP a smaller subsidy. Cut some military spending.

The elderly and ill are the frail and vulnerable. The day we no longer stand for them is the day I am no longer a Democrat.

[ProSense]

59. Doesn't that

"People's circumstances in life can change pretty quickly"

...happen now? Yet people are still trying to push others off Medicare.

Why should this be considered when it's the top one percent being affected?

[brokechris]

61. I am saying that NO ONE

who is eligible should be pushed off Medicare.

Someone who is wealthy today could easily be on the streets tomorrow. And it takes time to restore their benefits.

[mainer]

66. Even millions disappear pretty fast when you're suddenly quadriplegic

There's a false image of the one percent all being like Adelson or Koch. Many one percenters are, instead, successful doctors or lawyers or small business people who could lose everything with a medical catastrophe injuring either themselves or a spouse who suddenly has enormous medical bills.

I agree with you. NO ONE should be pushed off Medicare.

[dballance]

60. I have no stats to prove it but I suspect those 1% people

are probably not a big cost to Medicare. I'd guess that even when they turn 65 they continue to have their private insurance policies that give them better options for treatment than Medicare.

If anyone has some stats on this that prove me wrong please post and link to them. I have no problem being proven wrong and being corrected - I'm just posting a suspicion and opinion right now.

[ecstatic]

62. How can they be for raising the age if we don't have universal healthcare?

Not only are some people working hard labor jobs, but many of them do not have insurance. How can you raise the age for someone who never had health insurance?

But I agree, if the age is raised, raise it on the top 1.5%.

[limpyhobbler]

68. Medicare is for everybody. It is not welfare for the poor. You are calling for privatization.

If we are concerned somehow rich people are getting a free ride, then get it from them in taxes.

Raising the age for the top 1% saves almost no money from the budget.

It probably ends up costing us more money because it kicks the healthiest seniors (65 year old millionaires) out of the insurance pool.

And it opens the door for turning Medicare into a means-tested welfare program.

What the original post suggests, this is a form of incremental privatization, saying some people should "afford to pay for private insurance for a few more years".

Most people on this website want to join the civilized world by expanding Medicare to cover all Americans. We do not want to restrict it with income conditions. Raising the age for the ultra rich has almost no impact on the deficit.

The main impact of this proposal would be to establish the principal that Medicare can be denied to people who are above a certain income cutoff. And that is why the idea is being pushed/floated right now.

The President and Congressional Democrats should make clear they are against the piecemeal privatizing of Medicare and they will not go along with it.

Once they raise this eligibility age for the wealthy, how long will be before they raise the age for the rest of us?

[ProSense]

71. Wait,

"It is not welfare for the poor."

...who said Medicare was "welfare"?


"You are calling for privatization."

No, I'm not, and clearly you missed my point, which is: making the wealthy advocates of this idiotic approach the subject of the policy.

[mainer]

75. And you are saying that ALL rich people are advocating for this policy, so let's screw 'em all.

Painting with the biggest broad brush any ideologue could possibly invent.

[ProSense]

82. No, that's not what I'm saying, but

"And you are saying that ALL rich people are advocating for this policy, so let's screw 'em all."

...think about it: If the proposal to raise the age wasn't being pushed by powerful people, it wouldn't be at the top of the agenda, driving the debate, being sold as something good.

So, yes, before there is an agreement to screw us all, "screw 'em all."

[limpyhobbler]

69. What's next, deny social security to the top 1%? Probably.

They are trying to crack the aura universal social insurance where everybody is part of the same program.

They (the cutters) can't end these programs all at once because the programs are too popular and the backlash is too great. So they are looking for cracks to exploit to begin to weaken the programs.

And we, Democrats and friendlies, have shown a very activated united front against cuts for the past month. Politically the cutters are looking for a way to divide and conquer the Democratic base.

We ought to stand strong on the principle of protecting Medicare from benefit cuts and incremental privatization. Any subscriber taken out of the Medicare pool weakens the program and weakens the principle of universal coverage.

[mainer]

72. And then deny it to the top 5% because, well, they're pretty well-off too.

And then of course the system starts to go downhill because no one wants to pay into it. So let's deny it to the top 50% because they're way better off than those at the bottom and we have to keep the program viable.

Soon what you have is ... welfare!

[ProSense]

74. Social Security

"What's next, deny social security to the top 1%? Probably."

...has nothing to do with the deficit. So, no.

Social Security benefits should be increased: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021950679

[Honeycombe8]

76. NO! That's a slippery slope. NO raising of the eligibility age. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

77. Raise the Medicare age on people who don't use Medicare in the first place?

This isn't a serious proposal for anything at all apart from scoring meaningless political points.

[ProSense]

80. So then

"Raise the Medicare age on people who don't use Medicare in the first place?"

...they shouldn't have a problem with it, right? I mean, they want to inflict this on other people. Let them give it up.

Who said the top one percent doesn't use Medicare?

Funny, the top one percent represent about one percent of Medicare beneficiaries:

Income. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries had incomes below $22,000 in 2010; less than one percent had incomes over $250,000.

<...>

Savings. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $2,100 in retirement account savings (such as IRAs), and
half of all Medicare beneficiaries have less than $31,000 in other financial assets (such as savings accounts); five
percent have combined savings of more than $1,000,000.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/8172.pdf

[NashvilleLefty]

78. I think that's a great idea!

if they can afford their own medical bills, or even higher private insurance, then they don't need Medicare. Medicare for those who need it!

[DrDan]

79. the top 1% changes annually

one could be on medicare (according to your proposal) for one year - and off the next (if they bounce into the top 1%)

It is already means-tested.

[liberal N proud]

81. Why do the top 1% draw Medicare?

Here is another crime, my father retired with life time insurance until one day about 10 years ago, the insurance companies figured out they could force the retirees to use Medicare before drawing insurance. Saved the insurance company millions.

[truebluegreen]

83. Bad idea.

Lower the eligibility age, at least to 55 and at best to 0.

[mainer]

84. Note: Medicare IS means tested... when it comes to contributions

Someone with a million-dollar income will pay $38,000 a year in Medicare premiums.

Someone with a $100,000 income pays $3800 a year.

The rich pay far more than the poor, and receive the identical medical benefits after retirement as the poorest do. Isn't this means testing, beforehand?

[ProSense]

85. Is that

"The rich pay far more than the poor, and receive the identical medical benefits after retirement as the poorest do. Isn't this means testing, beforehand?"

...why they're advocating that some poor seniors be pushed off Medicare?

A person earning $1 million also pays more in income taxes (in terms of dollars) than a person earning $100,000: should the former get a bigger lane on the roads?

[limpyhobbler]

86. Thank you.

The wealthy pay more in premiums and use less benefits. They also pay higher income tax rates, and of course we all agree the marginal income tax rate should be increased for the very wealthy.

We need the richest healthiest people in the Medicare system to help pay for it.

Kicking the richest healthiest people out of Medicare is only about the dumbest thing we could do.

[ProSense]

87. "The wealthy pay more in premiums and use less benefits."

You're defending the wealthy with you gut feeling?

"They also pay higher income tax rates, and of course we all agree the marginal income tax rate should be increased for the very wealthy. "

Why not apply your Medicare logic to tax rates?

"We need the richest healthiest people in the Medicare system to help pay for it."

What the hell does the eligibility age have to do with that? Everyone pays into the system.

"Kicking the richest healthiest people out of Medicare is only about the dumbest thing we could do. "

Again, what the hell are you talking about?

[limpyhobbler]

88. Do very wealthy Medicare beneficiaries pay higher monthly premiums?

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10536.html#a0=5

[ProSense]

89. Just wait until

"Do very wealthy Medicare beneficiaries pay higher monthly premiums?"

...2013. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021950247#post44

You said: "use less benefits"

Got a link?

Still, I'm not sure the purpose of that point: Does someone earning $10,000, who pays less into the system than someone earning $100,000, deserve less benefits?

[limpyhobbler]

94. No. I'm against incrementally privatizing Medicare, losing premiums, and shrinking the risk pool.

Wealthy people are healthier between the ages of 65-70. Healthier people use less insurance dollars.

If you kick the youngest (age 65) healthiest people out of the Medicare pool, you are not just hurting those people, you are hurting all of us and weakening Medicare. To strengthen Medicare we should lower the age to bring in healthier people. The strongest Medicare system would be one that included everybody. The more you shrink the pool, the more you weaken it.

By privatizing Medicare for age-65 seniors above a certain income, you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Maybe with good intentions, trying to deny benefits to the wealthy, but as a result costing the program money.

In order to keep costs down for middle class Americans, we have to keep the wealthiest healthiest people in the pool paying their premiums.

SLIPPERY SLOPE:
Also by privatizing Medicare for these few people, you open the door for more privatizations in the future. In the future the enemies of Medicare will try to lower the income eligibility threshold to kick more people off. Or they will try to raise the eligibility age for other groups, based on other qualifications.

The very wealthy (1%) do not need Medicare at all. But by them being in the risk pool and paying premiums it benefits everybody.

[ProSense]

96. Doesn't this

"If you kick the youngest (age 65) healthiest people out of the Medicare pool, you are not just hurting those people, you are hurting all of us and weakening Medicare. To strengthen Medicare we should lower the age to bring in healthier people. The strongest Medicare system would be one that included everybody. The more you shrink the pool, the more you weaken it."

...argument apply to raising the age to 68 for everyone? It will capture many one percenters.

"The very wealthy (1%) do not need Medicare at all. But by them being in the risk pool and paying premiums it benefits everybody. "

That's absurd (wealthy people get sick too), but again, how does raising the overall Medicare eligibility age to 68 prevent this?

The reason it's absurd is that a few people seem to be basing the argument against raising the Medicare age on the top one percent on: a) the claim that they don't need or use Medicare and b) the amount they pay in premiums.

The fact is that the argument about moving the healthiest people out of Medicare applies even if the age is raised on everyone, not just the top one percent.

[limpyhobbler]

101. That's why we should not raise the eligibility age for anybody.

Ideally we should lower the eligibility age to include everyone.

[mainer]

102. Ditto

Only with the largest base of insured individuals, rich and poor, healthy and ill, can we cover everybody.

[mainer]

90. The point is, kicking rich 65 year olds off Medicare makes them oppose Medicare

Since they have probably handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system during their earning years. Why should they then not be able to use the system, since they have contributed so much toward it?

I know a one-percenter lady who died of pancreatic cancer when she was about 65, precisely the age when you would deny her medicare. You would withhold her health care coverage after her contributions probably funded the health care needs of quite a few people who poorer?

[ProSense]

92. Does kicking not rich people off Medicare make them oppose it?

Why the hell should I care how rich people feel about this if they don't care how anyone else feels?

"Since they have probably handed over hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system during their earning years. Why should they then not be able to use the system, since they have contributed so much toward it? "

You seem awfully hung up on the amount they contribute. It's a percentage of their income, the same as everyone else. Yet you seem to believe they should be more upset than anyone else or deserve more consideration than anyone else because of their contribution.

Somehow, given that you're commenting throughout the thread, I believe you understood the point of the OP, but are distorting the point for some reason.

[mainer]

98. I'm not distorting the point. You are.

You seem to think you know how ALL "rich people" think, and put them all in the same evil class, when it's clear you are projecting your own fantasies onto some villain whom YOU fabricated.

As for taxes, when rich people contribute a larger portion of their income for taxes, they at least receive something in return: city services, defense, FDA, FAA, etc.

You want rich people to contribute a significantly larger portion to to Medicare, yet receive LESS than everyone else does. That is simply not how universal services should work.

[ProSense]

103. No, I don't

"You seem to think you know how ALL "rich people" think, and put them all in the same evil class, when it's clear you are projecting your own fantasies onto some villain whom YOU fabricated. "

...pretend to know "how ALL 'rich people' think."

What I do know is that if the proposal to raise the age wasn't being pushed by powerful people, it wouldn't be at the top of the agenda, driving the debate, being sold as something good.

"As for taxes, when rich people contribute a larger portion of their income for taxes, they at least receive something in return: city services, defense, FDA, FAA, etc. "

What? The top one percent do not contribute "a larger portion of their income for taxes." More dollars is not the equivalent of a "larger portion." Did you miss the entire debate, starting with the Buffett rule?

Also, public services are there for the common good.

"You want rich people to contribute a significantly larger portion to to Medicare, yet receive LESS than everyone else does. That is simply not how universal services should work."

No I do not, and they are not contributing a "larger portion" to Medicare. They contribute at the same rate as everyone else.

You seem to lack an understanding of how this works.

[mainer]

108. You seem to lack an understanding of what "universal access" is all about.

Rich people DO contribute a larger portion of money to Medicare. 3.8 percent of a million is a lot more than 3.8 percent of $50,000. Yet you want them to receive NO SERVICES at age 65. That's after giving a lifetime of far more money. Yes, it may be the same 3.8 percent of their income, but it is a lot more money than others give.

And you think ALL rich people are pushing for cutting Medicare. You know what? I'M A DEMOCRAT. So is Warren Buffett. So are most people who earn a lot of money in entertainment. You want to put them in your "evil 1-percenter" category? I'm in the entertainment industry, so I know these one-percenters. And they all voted for Obama. And they all were pushing to have their taxes raised. The very people who helped elect Obama. So I resent you casting us as the people who would take away YOUR Medicare.

This is the part of DU that drives me crazy. The folks who can only see in black and white and think that the world is all "us against them."

[ProSense]

111. You lack an understanding

"Rich people DO contribute a larger portion of money to Medicare. 3.8 percent of a million is a lot more than 3.8 percent of $50,000. Yet you want them to receive NO SERVICES at age 65. That's after giving a lifetime of far more money. Yes, it may be the same 3.8 percent of their income, but it is a lot more money than others give."

...of math: 1.45 percent of $1 million is not a larger portion than 1.45 percent of $10,000. The portion is the same.

And you think ALL rich people are pushing for cutting Medicare. You know what? I'M A DEMOCRAT. So is Warren Buffett. So are most people who earn a lot of money in entertainment. You want to put them in your "evil 1-percenter" category? I'm in the entertainment industry, so I know these one-percenters. And they all voted for Obama. And they all were pushing to have their taxes raised. The very people who helped elect Obama. So I resent you casting us as the people who would take away YOUR Medicare.

I see you have a thing for one percenters, but that's what I picked up on earlier.

[mainer]

119. The PORTION of their contributions to total contributions is larger.

Ten people.

One makes a million income and contributes $38,000.

Nine people make $50,000 each and contribute $1900 each.

One person is contributing more than the other 9 people combined, and HE'S the one you want to deprive of coverage. How long do you think he's going to want to play the game?

You cannot get universal acceptance of Medicare unless there is universal coverage.

[ProSense]

120. It's still

Ten people.

One makes a million income and contributes $38,000.

Nine people make $50,000 each and contribute $1900 each.

...1.45 percent of income. No amount of spin can change that fact.

[mainer]

121. It will be 3.8 percent of income, come 2013.

and right now it's 2.9 percent of income. That's what I pay as a self-employed person.

[ProSense]

122. Cool. n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. This OP obviously didn't go over like you thought it would...

You're not so on your game without the daily cut and paste talking points.

Did they just completely stop emailing them to you after the election?

[ProSense]

106. It when over just like I thought it would:

You're not so on your game without the daily cut and paste talking points.

Did they just completely stop emailing them to you after the election?

A bunch of people making excuse for the rich, and then you.

[Cha]

128. Oh, so do you typically get on a thread and personally

attack the OP?

[Warpy]

105. I oppose means testing

As someone above pointed out, the rich will destroy anything they don't get.

In addition, think of it in terms of, say, car insurance. A young family saving for a house down payment is involved in an auto accident, totaling the car. The insurance company comes back with "we see you have sufficient funds in the bank to replace your car, so your claim has been denied." Is this at all fair to people who have paid their premiums? No, and neither is means testing any other insurance payout.

The only thing that should be done is to raise the earnings cap on contributions by a tremendous amount. Solvency can't be achieved solely on the backs of the poor. The wealthy have to be tapped to pay their fair share. They can be compensated by the knowledge that every dime will come back to them in increased dividends from corporations who see an increase in business as more people have money to spend, rather than the fewer the GOP want.

[ProSense]

109. "As someone above pointed out, the rich will destroy anything they don't get."

So we're basing policy on fear of the rich?

They get Medicare now, but seem bent on destroying it. Got any theories on why?

[mainer]

110. Yeah, right. ALL THE RICH want to destroy Medicare.

As if you know all the rich.

[ProSense]

113. Stop putting words in my mouth, and

try to calm down. The OP isn't a real proposal. It was a point, primarily directed at those one percenters who advocate raising the retirement age.

[mainer]

116. No, the OP was directed at all one percenters.

Regardless of who they are or what they advocate.

[ProSense]

118. OK, have it your way.

I made a point.

[Warpy]

123. You say "fear." I say "firm knowledge based on past behavior."

However, do consider your apologia uninterrupted. Have a ball.

The "rich" aren't the ones hell bent on destroying it, it's a rather small group of rabid ideologues associated with the libertarians and with the Koch cabal. Many of the "rich" have memories that go back long enough to remember that people over 65 couldn't get health insurance at any price before Medicare. Were they stripped of it and told to pay for their own healthcare, they would naturally try to destroy it as having been an unfulfilled promise that took money out of their pockets and gave them nothing in return.

[ProSense]

124. Every

The "rich" aren't the ones hell bent on destroying it, it's a rather small group of rabid ideologues associated with the libertarians and with the Koch cabal. Many of the "rich" have memories that go back long enough to remember that people over 65 couldn't get health insurance at any price before Medicare. Were they stripped of it and told to pay for their own healthcare, they would naturally try to destroy it as having been an unfulfilled promise that took money out of their pockets and gave them nothing in return.

...Republican in Congress is trying to destroy it. Again, who said anything about doing that?

I mean, you seem to think that the rich will have a different reaction to being "stripped of it" than everyone else. If raising the age means that Medicare is an "unfulfilled promise that took money out of their pockets and gave them nothing in return," why do you think that argument only applies to the rich?

Everyone pays into Medicare. Putting the burden on the seniors who can't afford health care by raising the retirement age is offensive.

The interesting thing here (in this thread), besides the fear of pissing off the rich, is the argument that the top one percent of Americans don't use Medicare.

The bottom line is that Medicare benefits when all seniors participate, and it's absurd and callous to push for increasing the age because the people who will suffer most are seniors who cannot afford coverage outside of Medicare.

[SoCalDem]

107. There are MANY ways to solvency, if they really want it to be solvent

FICA tax on EVERY penny ..earned/inherited/whatever

Lowering Medicare age to 50 (so people who want to ...and can afford it otherwise.. could retire early)

50-64 buy-in at an enhanced rate

Incomes over $200K would have a higher and higher buy-in as incomes go up.

(I think that many uber-rich probably have doctors who may not even accept medicare patients)

Gradually decrease the buy in age limit until everyone is on medicare, and insurance companies are in business to provide coverage on the uncovered 20%..

[customerserviceguy]

125. Once we do that

we establish the principle that Medicare is welfare. All we really need to do to make it genuine welfare is expand the percentage from one to whatever.

[doc03]

126. The f---g one percent never retire anyway as long as

there is money to make.

[lbrtbell]

127. And eliminate health care for elected officials

Just think, taxpayers are footing the bill for Dick Cheney to be a zombie.

[HiPointDem]

129. No. Keep SS & MC universal. Anything less contributes to the destruction of the formula that's

been proven successful.

It's really eye-opening to see so many democrats buying into the 'going broke' hype and supporting counter-productive 'solutions'.