Proposal

Quote:Under their plan, the age of eligibility for Medicare would gradually increase to 67 from 65, starting in 2014. The proposal assumes the continued implementation of President Barack Obama’s health care law. Under the Coburn-Lieberman plan, seniors would be eligible to participant in the health care exchanges created by that law.

The proposal would gradually increase premiums paid by all seniors to generate the bulk of the savings. It would also require wealthier seniors to pay much higher premiums.

Lieberman, who had wanted a 1 percent income tax hike on people making more than $250,000 a year, said he compromised that away in return for having wealthier people pay more for their Medicare.

The new proposal also includes one provision that might be attractive to other Democrats — a $7,500 yearly out-of-pocket cap to protect seniors from catastrophic costs. That cap rises for higher-income seniors.

Minus the assumption that Obamacare moves forward I'd say it's a pretty solid plan. Granted the moment it starts going into legislation it will be butchered, but if it stuck to these items I could live with it.

Quote:Create a catastrophic Medicare benefit and simplify Medicare cost-sharing. Senior and disabled citizens would henceforth be protected against the financial devastation of catastrophic illness under the Medicare program directly. This would reduce the seniors reliance on more expensive supplemental coverage. The Coburn–Lieberman proposal would impose a cap of $7,500 annually on a beneficiary’s total out-of-pocket spending. Meanwhile, the complex cost-sharing arrangements of Medicare would be replaced with a single deductible ($550 annually) for Medicare Parts A and B hospital and physicians services. Medi-gap (and presumably other supplemental insurance policies) would be limited to coverage of 50 percent of the Medicare coinsurance up to the catastrophic cap of $7,500 but not the initial $550 of a beneficiary’s cost-sharing.

Increase Part B premiums from 25 to 35 percent. The proposal would increase the standard premium for physician and drug benefits by 2 percent per year for a period of five years. This would mean an extra $15 to $20 per month for beneficiaries, but it would reduce the large taxpayer subsidy in these voluntary parts of Medicare, which are not financed by the payroll tax. Under current law, beneficiaries pay just 25 percent of their premiums, while taxpayers pick up 75 percent of the costs through general revenue transfers. While the Coburn–Lieberman proposal would increase beneficiaries’ share of the cost of their benefits, it would fall far short of the initial “Great Society” requirement that Medicare beneficiaries pay 50 percent of the costs of their Part B benefits.

Expand income-related cost sharing and phase out Part B and D subsidies for the very wealthy. Currently, Medicare imposes higher premium requirements for upper-income beneficiaries. For 2011, for example, while the standard monthly Part B premium is $115.40, it would be $369.10 for a person with an annual income of more than $214,000.The Coburn–Lieberman proposal would build upon this policy by raising out-of-pocket caps (and thus reducing taxpayer subsidies) for wealthy individuals and couples. For example, while the standard cap would be $7,500 for almost all beneficiaries, the new caps would increase so that wealthier enrollees would pay a greater share of their own health care costs. Under the Coburn—Lieberman proposal, the caps would be: $12,500 for married couples with annual incomes of $170,000 to $214,000; $17,500 for couples with annual incomes between $214,000 and $320,000; and $22,500 for married couples with annual incomes of $320,000 or more. Couples with annual incomes of $300,000 or more would also pay the full cost of their Part B and D premiums.

Raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67. The Coburn–Lieberman proposal would gradually raise the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67 by 2025. The eligibility age would be raised by two months every year for persons who were born in 1949.

Make physician payment and other program changes. The Coburn–Lieberman proposal provides for a three-year “doc fix” financed by savings from the proposal, as well as a reduction of taxpayer subsidies to hospitals for bad debts and improvements in Medicare administration to reduce the waste, fraud, and abuse that plagues the program.

It's a good start. I'd rather see more sharing by the individual here, "While the Coburn–Lieberman proposal would increase beneficiaries’ share of the cost of their benefits, it would fall far short of the initial “Great Society” requirement that Medicare beneficiaries pay 50 percent of the costs of their Part B benefits."

And I don't think the higher income piece will do much. Most wealthy people have ways of getting money w/o it being traditional income, and that goes double for seniors.

(06-29-2011 12:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  It's a good start. I'd rather see more sharing by the individual here, "While the Coburn–Lieberman proposal would increase beneficiaries’ share of the cost of their benefits, it would fall far short of the initial “Great Society” requirement that Medicare beneficiaries pay 50 percent of the costs of their Part B benefits."

Funny how stuff like this gets lost over time. Just like when Social Security was enacted and it was stated unequivocally that it was never meant to be someone's sole source of income. Yet dems for decades have treated as just that.

(06-29-2011 12:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 12:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  It's a good start. I'd rather see more sharing by the individual here, "While the Coburn–Lieberman proposal would increase beneficiaries’ share of the cost of their benefits, it would fall far short of the initial “Great Society” requirement that Medicare beneficiaries pay 50 percent of the costs of their Part B benefits."

Funny how stuff like this gets lost over time. Just like when Social Security was enacted and it was stated unequivocally that it was never meant to be someone's sole source of income. Yet dems for decades have treated as just that.

Exactly. Seeing something like this just proves the point.

http://money.msn.com/retirement/how-to-r...?GT1=33013