Usa Thread

[dean]

From Politifact, which has won a pulitzer for its reporting: "Medicare premiums going up due to “Obamacare� Chain e-mail gets it wrong

Pants on Fire!

Share this story:

 

A chain e-mail going around warns of a Medicare premium increase, saying monthly premiums will go up from $96.40 to $247 in 2014. Blame it all on "Obamacare," the e-mail says.

 

Here’s the full text of the copy we received:

 

MEDICARE PREMIUM INCREASE

 

For those of you who are on Medicare, read the article below. It's a

short but important article that you probably haven't heard about in

the mainstream news:

 

The per person Medicare insurance premium will increase from the

present monthly fee of

 

$ 96.40, rising to:

 

$104.20 in 2012;

 

$120.20 in 2013; And

 

$247.00 in 2014.

 

These are provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation,

purposely delayed so as not to 'confuse' the 2012 re-election

campaigns.

 

Send this to all seniors that you know, so they will know who's

throwing them under the bus.

 

We decided to fact-check this chain e-mail, which we soon found has been floating around the Internet in one version or another since at least 2009.

 

As we researched, we quickly realized two important points. First, the chain e-mail’s numbers are wrong. Second, explaining Medicare premiums is pretty complicated.

 

So let’s start with a few Medicare basics: Medicare is the government-run health insurance program for Americans over age 65. Medicare’s Part A, which all beneficiaries receive, pays for hospitalization, while Part B pays for doctor’s visits and other regular health-care services.

 

Based on the numbers it uses for premiums, it’s clear the chain e-mail is referring to what Medicare beneficiaries pay monthly for Medicare Part B premiums.

 

Medicare calculates those premiums each year based on several factors that change from year to year. So the e-mail’s claim to know what Medicare premiums will be in the future doesn’t hold much water.

 

In addition to that, the chain e-mail gets existing numbers wrong. Part B premiums were $96.40 back in 2009 (likely when the e-mail was first written). In 2011, the official monthly premium is $115.40. And as we were working on this report, the 2012 numbers were formally announced. The premium is $99.90 for 2012, not the $104.20 that the e-mail predicted.

 

Also, "Obamacare" -- formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- didn’t make changes to the way that the official monthly rate for Medicare Part B premiums is calculated.

 

There is some fine print here, though, and quite a bit of it.

 

Most Medicare beneficiaries in 2011 still paid the 2009 amount, thanks to rules that say Medicare premiums cannot go up for existing beneficiaries if Social Security payments don’t go up. (This is known as the "hold harmless" provision.) Social Security payments did not go up in 2010 or 2011 because there was no cost-of-living increase due to a lack of inflation.

 

On Oct. 19, the federal government announced there would be a cost-of-living, or COLA, increase in 2012. So even though the official Medicare rate dropped for 2012, most Medicare beneficiaries will see a small increase in rates, from the 2009 rate of $96.40 to the 2012 rate of $99.90.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, some high-earning retirees pay more than the standard monthly premium. In 2011, beneficiaries who report income of more than $85,000 pay higher rates, all the way up to $369.10 for a person with income above $214,000 a year, or couples with income above $428,000. (See this chart for more details.)

 

And the health care law does make changes to these rules affecting high earners -- it stops indexing the income limits for inflation through 2019, said Gail Wilensky, who ran the Medicare program under President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. It means that "more people will hit the threshold that substantially reduces the subsidy received," Wilensky said, and it was not widely noted when the law passed.

 

Here, we should explain a bit more about how basic Medicare premiums are calculated. It’s required by law that Medicare Part B beneficiaries contribute to the cost of their health care via premiums. Right now, the contributions are required to be about 25 percent of total costs. So every year, Medicare figures out what that 25 percent will probably be and then sets rates to meet that target.

 

It’s surprising that the official rate is going down for 2012, given recent trends on escalating health care costs -- U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius called it "pretty remarkable" in a conference call on Oct. 27, 2011, announcing the changes.

 

Medicare administrator Donald Berwick said the low premiums were due to two changes. First, because of Social Security going up, more people will be eligible to pay the official rate, rather than remaining at an older rate due to the "hold harmless" provision. So increasing costs will be shared among a larger pool of beneficiaries. Second, he said that health care spending was growing more slowly than projected. (He credited that to increased emphasis on prevention and effective treatments.)

 

Our ruling

 

The chain e-mail claimed that Medicare Part B premiums would increase dramatically in future years because of the health care law supported by President Barack Obama. We couldn’t find evidence to support the e-mail’s numbers. And in fact, most Medicare beneficiaries will only pay $3.50 more a month in 2012. The e-mail’s projection for 2014 seems entirely fabricated. The health care law leaves in place the long-established methods for calculating Medicare Part B premiums. The chain e-mail makes the additional unproved claim that its allegations -- which are false anyway -- were accomplished nefariously and delayed for political purposes. We rate its claims Pants on Fire."

[Hugh_Hoy]

I either read your source (or one similar)a month or two ago. I made a few queries when I received an email forwarded to me. Obama is STILL a mutha fucker. The worst U.S. president ("small" P intentional) of the last 100 years.

 

I CAN'T wait for September and October to roll around and Newt debates the "teleprompter prez".

 

HH

[dean]

I guess the answer to the question of whether Newt's "indiscretion's" would hurt his presidential campaign is no. I wouldn't count Romney out, as Newt held serve on his home turf. By the way, politifact also called the claims by the democratic party that Paul Ryan's plan on balancing the budget would end medicare as "pants on fire." So, they don't exclusively show bias to the right.

[kamui]

I guess the answer to the question of whether Newt's "indiscretion's" would hurt his presidential campaign is no.

 

A psychologist from Fox News' "Medical A-Team" (no joke) comes to the conclusion that Gingrich's adultery makes him a good president.

 

---

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich's behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here's what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude -- psychologically -- from Mr. Gingrich's behavior during his three marriages:

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we'll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we'll want to let him go after one.

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives**—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

**while one of them was fighting cancer and the other was diagnosed another deadly illness.

 

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

http://www.foxnews.c...esident-really/

 

 

[Steve]

This won't get anywhere but its needed

 

http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c

[Steve]

I either read your source (or one similar)a month or two ago. I made a few queries when I received an email forwarded to me. Obama is STILL a mutha fucker. The worst U.S. president ("small" P intentional) of the last 100 years.

 

I CAN'T wait for September and October to roll around and Newt debates the "teleprompter prez".

 

HH

 

HH, you're a smart guy. I know that first hand. "Shirley" you don't believe Obama is that bad. Republicans get worked into frenzies sometimes to the point it defies logic. I'm sure you've said the same about EVERY Democrat president ever, huh? lol.

[Steve]

I don't use Newt's marital issues and his not serving to judge him. Plenty of noble men, who did good things weren't the best husbands (MLK, Jefferson, etc.). His military issue was 40 years ago. No way I hold someone to the same frame of mind as they did 40 years ago. We don't do it for Ali or Foreman, two beloved people now who changed. People can and do change. Its his views now that matters. I do worry about the history of those that didn't try to serve being so willing to send people into harms way. Probably some sort of compensating psychological thing going on. His rhetoric suggests he'll be quick to pull the trigger.

 

With regards to the race, and I've read this in a few articles brave enough to say it. Romney's ONLY appeal to the Republicans is how he polls against Obama. It has NOTHING to do with his proposed policies. That reason is why I see the Republican party has no soul. Huntsman, Johnson, Paul have far better ideas and are far better qualified. I see how Mondale is treated historically and I was son the 'loser' bandwagon at one time until I read his bio. The guy would have made an honest president. A great one possibly. I see the Dems as the far better of two evils. The Dem voters could easily have made the safe bet with Hillary. She'd have won with ease but credit to the masses for going with someone who they saw with ideas. How he governed is not the point, they went with their hearts. Some Republicans have done that with the popularity of Cain and Gingrich but the heirarchy is rotten to the core. Winning is all that matters. How the country will be is a side issue.

[Julian2]

Didn't Roosevelt die in the arms of a lady not his wife?

 

I keep reading how Gingrich will cream Obama when they come to a debate, and he probably will with the judges scoring 10/10 for name calling and vitriol.

This is the man who created the GOPAC memo and he is master in the type of debate he demands the right use.

 

Unfortunately it has been adopted right across the political spectrum, issues now no longer matter.

[Flashermac]

I can't believe that the Newt is making a comeback. Yes, he is brilliant ... but he is also a flake. If the choice is the Newt or Obama, I'll stay home on election day and get drunk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve]

I am pretty much only focusing on Newt's ideas. I personally don't think he has the temperment for the highest office. But I'm willing to put those concerns aside if he has a better plan than Obama.

 

Lets look at what Newt would like to do with the economy: http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/29/news/economy/newt_gingrich_plan/index.htm

 

Gingrich wants to sharply reduce corporate tax rates, while reforming entitlement programs, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

He wants to repeal the health care and Wall Street reform laws, while getting rid of estate and capital gains taxes, Sarbanes-Oxley and the Community Reinvestment Act.

 

But wait, there's more to his plan...

 

Gingrich wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, balance the budget, institute an optional flat tax, break up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and reform the Federal Reserve.

 

Here's a snapshot of what the country might look like under President Newt Gingrich:

 

Corporate taxes

 

Gingrich wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35% to 12.5% -- a move that would take the corporate tax rate from one of the highest in the industrialized world to one of the lowest.

 

He argues that a drop of that magnitude would make the U.S. a much more attractive place to do business.

 

But at the same time, the drastic reduction would leave an enormous hole in revenue collected by the government, making a balanced budget all the more difficult.

 

Individual taxes

 

Gingrich wants to add to the current tax code by putting an optional 15% flat tax on income in place. Similar to the plan proposed by Rick Perry, taxpayers would be able to choose whether to pay the flat tax, or file under the existing tax code.

 

The new flat tax would boost growth, Gingrich says, while saving hundreds of billions in compliance costs.

 

But tax experts have thrown cold water on that idea -- arguing that adding an additional tax option would necessitate the preparation of multiple returns to ensure the lowest rate.

 

In addition, Gingrich would like to eliminate the estate and capital gains taxes.

 

Federal government

 

If Gingrich gets his way, the size of the federal government will shrink dramatically, and the agencies left over will do far less regulating.

 

Gingrich wants to replace the Environmental Protection Agency -- which his website calls a "job-killing regulatory engine of higher energy prices" with an "Environmental Solutions Agency."

 

He would replace the National Labor Relations Board and reform the Food and Drug Administration

 

The Federal Reserve's mission would be pared back. No longer would the Fed be tasked with keeping unemployment in check. Instead, the central bank would be limited to a goal of "maintaining stable prices."

 

Less regulation

 

Gingrich is in favor of "very serious deregulation" and wants to repeal the Wall Street reform law that, among other things, authorizes regulation of the murky derivatives market.

 

Sarbanes-Oxley, which laid down new regulations on public companies after major accounting scandals hit Enron, Tyco and others, would be wiped off the books.

 

And Gingrich would remove bureaucratic and legal obstacles that prevent offshore drilling and oil shale development.

 

Entitlement reform

 

Gingrich favors the creation of optional private Social Security accounts for younger workers.

 

He also wants to give states block grants to fund Medicaid. As for Medicare, Gingrich wants new private insurance options with a regular "premium support" payment.

 

Gingrich would also shift all federal means tested welfare programs back to the states, which he said would "help millions move from dependency to prosperity while saving taxpayer trillions."