Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:25 AM Aug 2012

Medicare gets 42% of funding from general revenues, 37% from payroll taxes and 13% from premiums

That means it is very dependent on income taxes and that the budget and the deficit (which translates to more interest spending) are directly connected to ability to pay for Medicare.

This fact sheet by the Kaiser Foundation is a great piece helping to explain how it's finances work.

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

It's all nice and well to believe we can leave Medicare as is. But if you want to understand how likely it is anyone can keep those promises you should assess projections, make your judgments on how likely that is and plan accordingly.

22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Medicare gets 42% of funding from general revenues, 37% from payroll taxes and 13% from premiums (Original Post) dkf Aug 2012 OP
raise the damn taxes on the rich. Warren Stupidity Aug 2012 #1
The payroll tax should have been raised years ago. DURHAM D Aug 2012 #2
"Non-working spouses getting SS and Medicare is 1950s thinking." Warren Stupidity Aug 2012 #3
I did not say a thing about a deceased spouse. DURHAM D Aug 2012 #5
Wait ProSense Aug 2012 #4
Nice strawman at the end, there. Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #6
You won't get an answer. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Aug 2012 #10
Don't expect one. Ikonoklast Aug 2012 #13
Here's the plan: make the wealthy pay their fair share of the income taxes in the US. kestrel91316 Aug 2012 #7
+1000 burnsei sensei Aug 2012 #8
Hear Hear, Ma'am! The Magistrate Aug 2012 #9
hmm, it is part B that is paid mostly by general revenues hfojvt Aug 2012 #11
Part B is administered by private insurers in some places... WillowTree Aug 2012 #14
And national defense is 100% dependent on funding from general revenues. dawg Aug 2012 #12
What do you think should be done with Medicare? neverforget Aug 2012 #15
I think we need to go single payer and need to control end of life spending much better. dkf Aug 2012 #16
Then you need to support Sanders, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, etc. CreekDog Aug 2012 #17
I'm not ideological...I'm a pragmatist. dkf Aug 2012 #18
So you really are in favor of "death panels"? re: end of life spending caps Electric Monk Aug 2012 #19
After going through this with my uncle I no longer think of it as "death panels" but "end of pain dkf Aug 2012 #20
I think this topic is worth it's own thread. I'm a little surprised to find you on that side of it. Electric Monk Aug 2012 #21
That study is deceptive. Cleita Aug 2012 #22
 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
1. raise the damn taxes on the rich.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:42 AM
Aug 2012

No we shouldn't leave medicare alone we should lower the age limit to 0, improve the prescription plan, and fix the funding through income tax reform and a transaction tax on wall street.

DURHAM D

(32,559 posts)
2. The payroll tax should have been raised years ago.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:43 AM
Aug 2012

It has not been raised since the Reagan administration. I think the premiums also need to be increased. I didn't read the article but I think the first level of income where a higher premium kicks in is $85K. That needs to be lowered.

I also think that spouses who have never had taxable wages should pay a little higher premium than the wage earning spouse. Non-working spouses getting SS and Medicare is 1950s thinking.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
3. "Non-working spouses getting SS and Medicare is 1950s thinking."
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 08:48 AM
Aug 2012

wow. So what exactly happens to a spouse who's wage earning partner dies? Perhaps we should adopt the banned Indian custom of Sati?

DURHAM D

(32,559 posts)
5. I did not say a thing about a deceased spouse.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:09 AM
Aug 2012

Non-working spouses who lose their partner should receive full benefits. It is the double pay out and double benefits for single earner couples that bothers me.

Ex. - Ann Romney is 63 years old. I assume she has never had any earned wages and therefore has not paid into the system. In two years she will begin to receive Medicare benefits without ever having paid into it. The same benefits that I receive although I contributed for 45 years.

She will also receive a check for SS for half the amount that her husband's check is for (approximately $1250 a month) and again she never contributed to the fund. The average working person who contributed to the system from day one will receive about $1700. How is that okay? Most of the couples I know that receive these un-earned SS checks use it for cruises, foreign travel or to buy a Winnebago. There is something wrong with a system when a single earner household becomes a double earning household at retirement.

It is time to re-think the benefits for non-working spouses.

Edit: I just checked and the average SS check is $1,230. IOWs - Ann Romney's check (1/2 that of her husband's) will be more than the average hard working person. How is that okay?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. Wait
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:03 AM
Aug 2012

"It's all nice and well to believe we can leave Medicare as is."

...who is saying "leave Medicare as is"? The problem Medicare has is that it still relies in part of what the private health insurance industry does. The outrageous cost increases are impacting Medicare.

President Obama's health care law extended the life of Medicare by eight years.

From the Kaiser link in the OP:

MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).


The Obama campaign goes digital on Mitt's regressive whiteboard lies. (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021149847

NYT: Romney-Ryan Medicare proposal would hasten insolvency, raising costs for current retirees
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021179470

What we need to do is to move toward a single-payer model like the VA health care.

Where ‘Socialized Medicine’ Has a U.S. Foothold
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021160997

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
6. Nice strawman at the end, there.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:19 AM
Aug 2012

Who wants Medicare funding to remain static?

Name the names of people in government advocating fixing Medicare by doing nothing, please.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
13. Don't expect one.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:42 PM
Aug 2012

Get the Talking Point out there, Medicare Bad! Taxes!!

Mission accomplished, await next e-mail for further instructions.

 

kestrel91316

(51,666 posts)
7. Here's the plan: make the wealthy pay their fair share of the income taxes in the US.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 09:42 AM
Aug 2012

They don't, and they haven't for years.

But you knew that.

hfojvt

(37,573 posts)
11. hmm, it is part B that is paid mostly by general revenues
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 11:58 AM
Aug 2012

and that makes me wonder. When they say "supplementary medical insurance" who is the insurer? Is it the Government itself, or are they paying premiums to an insurance company?

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
14. Part B is administered by private insurers in some places...
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:53 PM
Aug 2012

....but it funded by the government, not by insurance companies.

dawg

(10,593 posts)
12. And national defense is 100% dependent on funding from general revenues.
Sat Aug 25, 2012, 12:21 PM
Aug 2012

National Defense goes bankrupt each year, yet the deficit hawks never seem to get around to suggesting that we make drastic changes there.

The fact of the matter is this: we have a demographic bulge that has been apparent for quite some time. With more potential beneficiaries and fewer workers, it is a no-brainer that current funding levels will not suffice to maintain benefits for a larger population. However, this notion that the money is not there to handle the bulge is a lie.

Our GDP is at record levels. Ordinary people may not feel richer than ever, but as a nation, our resources have never been greater. The money is there to support our elderly and our sick. All that is lacking is the will.

It shames us as a nation that we are even having this debate.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
16. I think we need to go single payer and need to control end of life spending much better.
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 03:35 AM
Aug 2012

Medicare is part of an inefficient expensive health care system that is unsustainable. That is why the numbers don't work.

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)
17. Then you need to support Sanders, Kucinich, Barbara Lee, etc.
Sun Aug 26, 2012, 12:39 PM
Aug 2012

And all the most liberal people in our party who if those liberals get a majority will pass single payer.

But all the centrists and Romneys that you defend oppose your idea.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
18. I'm not ideological...I'm a pragmatist.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:20 AM
Aug 2012

No one that I see has all the answers. The closest I've come to someone who makes sense across the board is Howard Dean, not any of the people you just listed.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
19. So you really are in favor of "death panels"? re: end of life spending caps
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 12:24 AM
Aug 2012

Sarah Palin loves it that you post here.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
20. After going through this with my uncle I no longer think of it as "death panels" but "end of pain
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:10 AM
Aug 2012

Mercy". We need to find ways to make the end of our lives more peaceful, not chasing futility while using all the capacity of our expensive medical system.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
21. I think this topic is worth it's own thread. I'm a little surprised to find you on that side of it.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:23 AM
Aug 2012

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
22. That study is deceptive.
Tue Aug 28, 2012, 01:30 AM
Aug 2012

It's only Medicare part B, which is elective that depends on premiums, general revenues and payroll taxes. Medicare part A, which all seniors are covered by, is funded through the payroll tax and is put in a trust fund that is solvent by conservative estimates until 2026. Here is Medicare's publication on it.

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

Also this is what PBS has to say about it. And this is a fairly conservative study on it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/medicare/financing.html

With all the crying wolf over Medicare, those problems will start to be solved with the ACA by reining in the free for all spending done by the privatized Medicare Advantage programs and the Medicare Part D for drugs. Also lifting the cap and forcing the higher income earners to pay more will solve both Social Security and Medicare scare projections even through the so-called baby boomer increase in beneficiaries that all the righties are wailing about.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Medicare gets 42% of fund...