Folks (Especially Renters) From Blue States and Areas To Carry Extra Burden on Medicare. Underreported clause in Medicare Act of 2003 could lead to end of entire program.

We apologize to previous readers, the blog seems to have lost the link and citing of this article.  It is at NYTimes.

What is amazing is that the reporter on this doesn't have the brains to understand that this is a punishment targeted towards people who live in the wrong areas especially renters who do not get a reduction in modified adjusted gross income for  mortgage interest.   The incredible costs for housing in blue states and especially cities creates a 'wealth image ' on  the federal income charts that isn't there!

I'm not a tax expert, but I understand that even now there are limits on the real estate interest that limits it to that on about 1 million dollars worth of property.  Tax reform is looking at cutting that down to less than $400,000.

In cities in blue states that is often not adequate for people seeking a standard of living comparable to a family with a much lower income in red states and areas.  This could catch people barely making it by in some areas.

Even Republicans!

The surcharge is a major departure from the traditional arrangement under which seniors have generally paid the same premium.

It is expected to affect one million to two million beneficiaries: individuals with incomes exceeding $80,000 and married couples with more than $160,000 of income. For individuals with incomes over $200,000, the premium, now $88.50 a month, is expected to quadruple by 2009.

The surcharge was established under a little-noticed provision of the 2003 law that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.

So the Republican leadership of Congress let that slip into the 2003 bill.  You can thank them for that.

Do it in November, neighbors.

Federal officials have repeatedly said that Medicare is financially unsustainable in its current form.

Yeah, well after all the wars and tax breaks for millionaires, sure.

Also:

Theodore R. Marmor, a professor of political science at Yale, said the surcharge was more important for the politics of Medicare than for the financing of the program.

“The new income-related premium is fundamentally at odds with the premises of social insurance,” Mr. Marmor said. “Large numbers of upper-income people will eventually want to find alternatives to Part B of Medicare and will no longer be in the same pool with other people who are 65 and older or disabled. Congress will then have less reluctance to cut the program.”

 

tags: medicare  health  income tax  money  inequality  broken justice  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit