ALERT-More Bad News for Seniors and Disabled!

[Faux pas]

http://www.tscl.org/newcontent/102832.asp

Excerpt:

22 Million Americans Would Receive No Increase in
Social Security Checks Next Year as a Result

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – February 13, 2007 (Washington, DC) – Medicare Part B premiums – which cover doctors' visits, tests, and outpatient hospital care – are forecast to increase by $15.90 in 2008, the largest amount in the history of the program, according to a new analysis by TREA Senior Citizens League. That would represent a 17 percent increase, from the current $93.50 per month to $109.40 per month. A married couple could be faced with close to $400 in new premiums next year, in addition to the increasing cost of their prescription drug program, covered under Medicare Part D.

In addition, a little noticed section of the 2007 Budget and Economic Update released late last month by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that seniors will receive just a 1.5 percent Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) in 2008, the third smallest increase in the past 20 years. For the person with an average monthly Social Security benefit of $1,044, that would result in a $15.70 monthly increase.

As a result, as many as half of America's 44 million retired and disabled Social Security recipients could receive no increase in their Social Security checks at all next year, since almost all beneficiaries have their Medicare Part B premiums automatically deducted from their checks.

[Lasher]

1. That's a total premium increase of 140.44% during Junior's 8 years

The previous estimate (based on the average increase over the past 5 years) for the 2008 monthly premium was $104.30 for individuals who are not subject to means testing. Taking this new amount of $109.40 into account, the total Part B premium increase during Junior's 8 years in office is 140.44%. This calculation ignores additional increases brought about by means testing that began this year.

The Part B annual deductible will increase from $131.00 to $146.00 in 2008. It was $100.00 in 2000.

During Clinton's 8 years premiums raised 43.08% and there was no increase in the deductible.

During Poppy's 4 years in office premiums increased 28.23%. During Saint Gipper's 8 years they went up 105.75%.



http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL32582.pdf
http://questions.medicare.gov/cgi-bin/medicare.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_sid=cyHt7tti&p_lva=1847&p_li=undefined&p_faqid=1847&p_created=1158589857&p_sp=undefined
http://www.tscl.org/NewContent/102589.asp

[WePurrsevere]

3. Thank you for posting that. I was trying to figure out how

to break it down so it could be easily understood.

Since 1989, when I was diagnosed with MS, I've grown all to familiar with Soc Sec and Medicare. Under Clinton we weren't struggling nearly as much. What little money I/we had went further in the grocery store, paying for electric, gas, heating fuel, etc. It was also easier to find a doctor willing to accept Medicare (from what I hear it's worse for those on Medicaid). Under Bush our dollar is increasingly worth less and buys much less. By the end of the year things have gone from tight to a strangle hold and all we can do is hope that things get better soon.

Two things I'm relatively sure of. One is that BushCo is doing everything they can to destroy Soc Sec and Medicare and two is if the Dems don't win a big enough majority and the White House in '08 so they can SAVE and repair the mess BushCo and the neo-Cons have made of things the elderly and disabled trying to exist on SS/Medicare are going to be very SOL... and this isn't even going into the issues that effect rest of the country... and world. :(

[Lasher]

8. I'm sorry about your affliction

I pulled all that historical data into a spreadsheet awhile back, with the specific intention of breaking the data down so that it could be easily understood. Thank you very much for the feedback.

I am also convinced Junior and his cronies want to destroy Social Security and Medicare. This applies also to all the rest of our social programs, which they frame as evil 'entitlement' programs. And yet there are many who depend heavily on these programs, and/or have loved ones who do, and vote for Republicans. Those people are fools.

During campaign 2008 we need to just come out and say it: Republicans want to destroy Social Security and Medicare, and here is proof (put up a chart or two just like I shared upthread) If you want to save these programs vote for Democrats. If you think they should be dismantled voter for Republicans.

[liberaldemocrat7]

5. Go to http://medicare.dmocrats.org to show your outrage.

Go here http://medicare.dmocrats.org to show your outrage over this matter. You can do something besides sit and get angry.

and I got interviewed by a law professor who does an NPR radio program about the elderly and disabled.

Listen to it here and give it to others.

http://www.usd.edu/elderlaw/show/220.wma

[Faux pas]

12. Thanks for the great visual. More proof that 'cons' couldn't care

less about 'we the people'.

[hfojvt]

13. I appreciate you gathering and having the facts on this

but percentages are not correct.
Clinton took office in 1993, so his start point should be 36.6 and his end point 50. Bush took office in 2001. So his start point is 50, and endpoint unknown in 2009. So far though, (109.4 - 50)/50 for an increase of 'only' 118.8 percent. Bush cannot be blamed for the increase from 45.5 to 50 unless the increases happen at the end or middle of the year.

[Lasher]

18. You have a point

Clinton assumed the presidency during mid-January in 1993. That year's $36.60 monthly premium was already in effect by then, and had been determined before he took office. But that was the rate that applied during the first year of his presidency and I chose to simply label it that way.

The same argument can be made concerning other results such as deficits and surpluses. Some argue that the 2001 surplus should be attributed to Clinton since the budget for that year was actually developed by him. But I categorize 2001 results under the first year of the Bush II presidency.

The general argument to shift ahead results by one year assumes a president is powerless to influence results in during his first year is office. This is a fair point but doing so could invite other speculation; why not shift ahead two years or more, based on (insert argument here)? Or taking this concept to an extreme, you could assert that Saint Gipper's tax cuts were the real reason for the prosperity during Clinton's presidency. I kid you not, I have had to endure just such an argument.

Being mindful of these things I chose to categorize the results as I have. There is no attempt at misrepresentation, as I have clearly labeled my result, and have linked to my source data. I assure you the characterization is more than fair to Junior. The latest Part B monthly premium estimate for 2009 that I have seen is $116.50. But that was based on the average increase over the previous 5 years - and this was before the actual 2008 rate had been revealed. I assure you it will be higher. And as long as Junior is involved it will be much higher unless Congress manages to step in and do something about it.

[ClintonTyree]

2. We have to pay for Bush's war somehow....

why not on the backs of America's seniors and disabled? :shrug: And the tax cuts for the uber-wealthy? Surely, America's seniors and disabled are more than happy to suffer so Paris Hilton can buy a new Rolls-Royce. After all, the ashtrays are FULL in her "old" Rolls. Oh, the humanity! :grr:

I've been talking about moving to Canada for quite some time. I think it's time to go beyond the talking stage. This country has been so fucked up by the Republicans I fear there's no hope of it ever recovering. Guns always win over butter in the U.S.A. and it seems that trend will never reverse itself. Unless it does, this country will not stand much longer.

[Lasher]

9. The tax cuts for the wealthy are actually costing more than the war

Here, check it out for yourself with this 2006 national budget simulator:

http://www.nathannewman.org/nbs/

If you eliminate the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts and Junior's adventure in Iraq you get a balanced budget.

What's literally going on here is Junior and his cronies are taking from the poor to give to the rich. They work real hard to try to find moral justification for it. Those efforts are called supply side economics, AKA the trickle down theory. :mad:

[Faux pas]

17. It sure doesn't make any sense to me, or anyone else I know

who might be struggling out there. I never thought the whole country could be sold down the river.

[Cobalt Violet]

4. People getting less than 1,044 it would be a cut.

They would be getting less. Nice. Everyone know the price of everything is going up. To bad they don't measure the true cost of living.

[Lasher]

7. Social Security checks can't be reduced but those folks will lose all their CLOA

There currently is a stipulation that Part B premium increases can not cause an individual's monthly check to be less than what it was before. But this does not apply to the deductible. And I don't know how Part D increases fit into this. If you get no COLA, however, you actually do get a cut in real dollars due to inflation.

But thanks for figuring out what that cutoff will be. Everyone who has a monthly Social Security check that's $1,044.00 or lower gets no COLA at all in 2008. Nice parting gift to the poor, disabled, and elderly from Junior.

Part B premium and deductible annual costs totaled $645.96 before we were blessed with the current administration. During Junior's 8 years they increased $752.88 for a total of $1,398.84. This is on the backs of the most unfortunate among us. What happened to the nation I used to know?

"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him."
~~James D. Miles

[trof]

6. You step up one and step back two.

This year my COLA was pretty much canceled by the Medicare premium increase.
Next year I go in the hole a little.
Thanks, dumbya**.

[Faux pas]

16. It just doesn't quite seem right does it? Good luck to you. n/t

[stonebone]

10. kick

[TahitiNut]

11. Another indication that math literacy is a vanishing skill.

The article cites "an average monthly Social Security benefit of $1,044" and then concludes that "As a result, as many as half .." would receive no net increase in their benefit checks. Again, the difference between the 'average' and the 'median' is seemingly beyond the comprehension of the author, where a conclusion regarding 'half' can only follow from a statement of the 'median' benefit. Since the distribution of Social Security benefits is, like other income, weighted at the high end, the median benefit is LOWER than the average benefit. Thus, MORE than half of Social Security recipients receive less than the 'average' benefit and, from the figures cited, one can logically conclude that MORE THAN HALF of Social Security beneficiaries will receive a reduction in net benefits.

[rebel with a cause]

14. I get disability but not from SS because

I was unable to find and/or work full time for quite a few years before I applied and got disability. to make a long story short, because of my working part time and not paying into SS for those last few years, I did not pay in enough to qualify for SS benefits. I have to wait until my ex husband retires and draw off his SS account. Okay, here are the numbers. I get a little over $600 a month cash and medicaid benefits. I was also made to sign up for food stamps/link and received $74 a month from that. Recently I got a small raise in cash benefits (of $20) and they cut the food stamps/link down to $63 a month. I cracked up, because it was so ridiculous. Perhaps they should go out and make the food corporations cut their prices because the power bills have really shot up this last month.

Anyway, if it was not for the fact that my son and daughter came back and live with me, and we have three incomes going now, we would not be able to make it. We all have college degrees and have done everything the way we should have, but here we sit. If this was ten/twenty years ago, I think we would be doing a lot better.

[Faux pas]

15. I have a medical retirement pension and paid 27 yrs into ss.

I moved in with my mom to help her out. I know I couldn't make it on my own and expected my ss to kick in when I'm 62. Doubt it will be there by then, bush needs it for the 'war' and wants to give it away to the illegal workers. This is not america.

I feel for you and all the others who have worked hard all their lives and have nothing to show for it. What a waste.

[Faux pas]

19. more people need to sees this.....n/t