mountain man primitive's not gonna be happy about this

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5816781

Oh my.

billyoc  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jun-10-09 09:55 AM
Original message
 
One in Seven Seniors Faces Social Security Check Cuts in 2010

At Least 6.8 Million Affected; Total Could Include Millions More

WASHINGTON, June 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Close to seven million seniors -- one in every seven -- will receive a smaller Social Security check next year, according to a new analysis by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL). Millions of other seniors who do not have their Medicare premiums automatically deducted from their checks will also have fewer Social Security dollars leftover next year.

These seniors will be affected because their Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) is forecast to be zero next year, while their Medicare Part B (doctors' visits, tests, and outpatient hospital care), Part C (Medicare Advantage) and/or Part D (prescription drugs) premiums are forecast to rise.

Affected seniors generally fall into one of two groups, if not both:

1. MEDICARE PART B: HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION: Approximately three million seniors will endure cuts because they are not protected by a "hold harmless" provision that prevents the vast majority of beneficiaries from receiving smaller Social Security checks in years when Medicare Part B premiums exceed the COLA.

Two groups of seniors will not receive hold harmless protection in 2010:

1. MEANS TESTING: 2,121,500 beneficiaries who pay higher premiums due to Part B "means testing." Individuals with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) above $85,000 and couples over $170,000 are affected.

2. NEW ENROLLEES: 848,000 new enrollees will pay the 2010 premium rate, forecast by Medicare's Trustees to be $104.20 per month, instead of the current rate of $96.40 per month that tens of millions of seniors will continue to pay next year due to hold harmless.

2. MEDICARE PARTS C & D: More than 3.8 million other seniors will see smaller Social Security checks next year due solely to likely increases in Medicare Parts C and D, for which no hold harmless provision exists. Note: Millions of other seniors will also be affected, as our estimate includes just those who will have automatic reductions to their Social Security checks. Additional millions of seniors who pay plans directly will also have fewer Social Security dollars leftover next year.

"It's bad enough that seniors will have to endure rising costs next year without an increase in their Social Security checks -- but to actually cut checks for millions of seniors in this economy borders on cruelty," said Daniel O'Connell, TSCL chairman. "Our members are already unable to afford their prescriptions, rent, and air conditioning. We simply can't survive year-after-year of cuts."
...
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?A...

Well, what about wage-earners who face cuts in their paychecks because of inflation?  What about that?

SpiralHawk  (1000+ posts)     Wed Jun-10-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. The putrid fruit of republiconomics

Ptoooey

Now, this is hilarious:

tularetom  (1000+ posts)      Wed Jun-10-09 10:51 AM
Response to Original message

2. Does anyone know if that means testing is adjusted annually?

Here's my story:

In 2007 we sold a piece of property and realized capital gains. Consequently our joint income that year exceeded the means testing threshold and we received notice in 2008 stating that our 2009 checks would each reflect a deduction of $192 for part B premiums.

Well by the time 2009 came around our income was back to where it normally was. Below the threshold. Where it's likely to stay. But we're getting dinged almost 400 bucks a month based on a one time situation that occurred two years ago.

I've called Social Security but nobody seems to know WTF is going on. I shouldn't have to keep paying this forever.

Anybody have a similar experience? Got an answer?

In case no one ever knew, during the "lousy Bush economy"--and yes, this particular primitive had a lot to say about that--this particular primitive managed to manipulate some prime riverfront property in California to make a nice bundle.

And yet this particular primitive used to gripe about the "lousy Bush economy."

The Good Samaritan primitive:

Mari333  (1000+ posts)        Wed Jun-10-09 10:53 AM
Response to Original message

3. shit.

I am due to start SS in 2011. widows benefits. good timing eh.

bastards. going after the poorest and most vulnerable, but god forbid we deny the bankers their lifestyles. or stop the empire from building huge monstrous embassies all over the globe.

bastards.

I thought this was all supposed to change on January 20, 2009.

The primitives promised us.

[BadCat]

SpiralHawk  (1000+ posts)     Wed Jun-10-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. The putrid fruit of republiconomics

Ptoooey

Uh huh.

Which party controls Congress?
Which party controls the Senate?
Which party is in the White House?

[jtyangel]

The poor and most vulnerable huh? You mean like the 'banker' who was making 250K a couple years ago and now works as a host at a restaurant for 25K? Or how about the other scores of 'bankers' who no longer have jobs thanks to Obama and his cronies and their 'housing for all' bs in the 90's/early millenium? A "banker's" saving wont last forever and his mortgage company expects him to continue to pay his note, job or no job, and selling is difficult in the current economy in some areas. I notice Mari isn't irate over the union workers that continue to get a sizable hunk of their benefits at car companies on the taxpayers dime. But we all know bankers/brokers/finance are not union and therefore are the cause of all Mari's ills even though many banks are working fiercely to pay back their TARP funds. Something tells me that the car companies aren't going to be nearly as vigilent about their repayment.

[jtyangel]

The putrid fruit of liberals is coming to roost in Ohio. We saw no raises or bonuses this year but Coleman is seeking to raise the income tax downtown. Those who live outside of Columbus don't get to vote on this tax, however they have to pay it. It will amount to around 600 bucks or so a year for my family. Where am I going to make that up? That's about a car payment and a half a year and we already live very budgeted. But this, of course, doesn't matter to the idiots at DU who would pull up some kneepads to kiss the ass of a Mayor Coleman(he's both liberal and black--their favorite type of person right now).

At least Mari gets a say so in her SS by virtue of her presidential and congressional votes. Our family could easily be 600 bucks poorer next year over a tax we get absolutely no say so in whether it gets passed or how it is used. What's amazing about it all is in my little berg, if you live int he township versus the city you don't have to pay the city income tax, nor can you vote on any increases in the same. Same doesnt seem to apply in downtown Columbus.