ReportWire

Tag: Medicare

  • 5 tax tips for older adults

    5 tax tips for older adults

    [ad_1]

    More than half of older taxpayers (57%) are worried they’ll have to pay more taxes this year because of the 5.9% Social Security cost-of-living adjustment in 2022, according to a January survey by The Senior Citizens League, a nonpartisan seniors group.

    Taxes for the over-65 set can feel more complicated for a variety of reasons: There are often multiple streams of income, some retirees still work part time, and people may be managing required minimum distributions from retirement accounts.

    “It can happen that people have more income in their later life than they did when they were working,” says Barbara O’Neill, a certified financial planner in Ocala, Florida, and the author of “Flipping a Switch : Your Guide to Happiness and Financial Security in Later Life.”

    For older adults, here are some items to keep in mind this tax season:

    1. MEDICARE THRESHOLDS MATTER

    Your income can affect your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums in the future because of the income-related monthly adjustment amount, or IRMAA. Medicare premiums are based on your tax return from two years prior, and you may have to pay more if your income exceeds certain thresholds.

    These IRMAA surcharges can be difficult to manage “because they operate as a cliff, not a phase-in,” says Edward Jastrem, a certified financial planner in Westwood, Massachusetts. “For example, if you are $1 over an income tier, you are subject to the full surcharge.”

    In 2023, people filing individually with a modified adjusted gross income of more than $97,000 in 2021 — or jointly with more than $194,000 — will pay higher monthly amounts for Medicare. “Tax bracket management becomes crucial in later life,” O’Neill says.

    2. REQUIRED DISTRIBUTIONS CAN GO TO CHARITY

    At age 73, you are required by the IRS to start taking required minimum distributions from tax-deferred retirement accounts. But once you hit age 70 1/2, you can have some or all of your required minimum distributions sent directly to a charity of your choice. This move will still count as a required minimum distribution, but the amount isn’t added to your taxable income.

    “If you take a regular RMD from your IRA, it gets added to your adjusted gross income for tax purposes,” says Ian Weinberg, a certified financial planner in Woodbury, New York. “It usually throws you into a higher bracket.”

    Sending money directly to charity is called a qualified charitable distribution, and you can do this with up to $100,000 of your annual required minimum distributions.

    3. SIDE BUSINESSES CHANGE THE TAX APPROACH

    About 1 in 4 adults 50 and older say they’re doing gig work or freelancing, according to a January survey from AARP.

    If you’re doing gig work, that counts as business income — which means you can deduct business expenses. This includes health insurance premiums if you’re paying for your own insurance. “Self-employed older adults on Medicare can deduct Medicare premiums for themselves and their spouses against business income,” O’Neill says.

    Other deductible expenses may include business supplies, home office costs and advertising expenses, which may include costs to run a website.

    4. SOCIAL SECURITY MAY BE TAXABLE

    Many people don’t realize that Social Security benefits are taxable if your income meets certain thresholds. “That takes people by surprise,” says Nadine Burns, a certified financial planner in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

    The taxable portion of your Social Security benefits is based on your combined income, which is the total of your adjusted gross income, nontaxable interest and half of your Social Security benefits. If you’re filing taxes as an individual and your combined income is over $25,000 — or over $32,000 if you’re filing a joint return — you may pay income tax on up to 50% to 85% of your benefits.

    5. STATE TAX BREAKS MAY BE AVAILABLE

    Your state may offer tax deductions or credits for retirees, so do some research. In South Carolina, for instance, all military retirement pay and Social Security income is exempt from state taxes, says Stephen Maggard, a certified financial planner in Columbia, South Carolina. Plus, he says, there’s a separate deduction for those over age 65.

    In Ohio, retirees may be eligible for credits based on retirement income or their age — there’s a senior citizen credit for taxpayers who were 65 or older during the tax year. Colorado offers an income tax credit of up to $1,000 to residents 65 and up if they meet income requirements. Check with your state tax department to see what’s possible.

    ________________________________________

    This article was provided to The Associated Press by the personal finance website NerdWallet. The content is for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice. Kate Ashford is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: kashford@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @kateashford.

    RELATED LINKS:

    NerdWallet: What is the Medicare IRMAA, and when does it apply? https://bit.ly/nerdwallet-what-is-the-medicare-irmaa

    IRS: State Government Websites https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/state-government-websites

    METHODOLOGY:

    The survey by The Senior Citizens League was conducted in early fall of 2022 and had 1,429 participants, 97% of whom said they were collecting Social Security benefits.

    The Senior Citizens League. (January, 2023.) “Press Brief, Inflation — COLA Update.” https://seniorsleague.org/assets/Press-Briefing-01.12.2023.pdf

    The survey from AARP sampled 2,000 respondents ages 40-plus in the labor force, including oversamples of 1,079 Black workers, 1,103 Hispanic workers, 693 Asian American/Pacific Islander workers and 644 LGBTQ workers. The data was weighted to be nationally representative. The survey was fielded online from Sept. 15 to Oct. 12, 2022, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

    AARP. (January, 2023.) “Gig Work on the Rise Among Older Adults as Demand for Workplace Flexibility Grows.” https://press.aarp.org/2023-01-18-Gig-Work-on-the-Rise-Among-Older-Adults-as-Demand-for-Workplace-Flexibility-Grows

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Liz Weston: Will you face a tax bomb in retirement?

    Liz Weston: Will you face a tax bomb in retirement?

    [ad_1]

    Good savers, beware. The money you’re stuffing into your 401(k) and other retirement accounts has to be withdrawn someday. If you’re not strategic about how you save, you could face unnecessarily high tax bills and inflated Medicare premiums in retirement — plus, you could be saddling your heirs with higher taxes.

    The earlier you start defusing this potential tax bomb, the better. But even people in their 60s or early 70s may have opportunities to lessen the potential damage — as long as they act swiftly.

    “You do not want to be in the position as some clients are that all of their funds are inside of a tax-deferred account,” says Pam Ladd, senior manager of personal financial planning at the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants.

    TAX BREAKS NOW COULD CAUSE TAX PAIN LATER

    Most retirement accounts offer a tax break when you put money in. Eventually, though, Uncle Sam wants to get paid. Required minimum distributions, or RMDs, typically must start at a certain age — currently 73 and rising to 75 for people born in 1960 and later. Retirement fund withdrawals usually are subject to regular income tax rates.

    That’s still a good deal for most retirees because their tax bracket will be lower in retirement than when they were working. But people who don’t need to spend down their savings early in retirement may find that required minimum distributions push them into higher tax brackets.

    “People are working longer, saving longer and accruing more within their retirement account, and as a result, their RMDs in many cases can be more than they earned while they were still working,” says Colleen Carcone, director of wealth planning strategies at financial services firm TIAA.

    Delaying the start of required minimum distributions can make matters worse because you’re required to take out larger percentages of your balances as you age, Carcone says. Meanwhile, your accounts have more time to grow.

    SAVERS COULD PAY MORE FOR MEDICARE — AND COST THEIR KIDS

    Higher incomes can mean higher Medicare premiums as well, thanks to the income-related monthly adjustment amount, or IRMAA , which is based on your income from two years ago.

    Most people will pay $164.90 per month this year for Medicare Part B , which pays for doctor visits. But Medicare recipients whose 2021 modified adjusted gross income exceeded $97,000 (for single filers) or $194,000 (for married couples) pay $230.80 to $560.50 monthly, depending on their income. The IRMAA surcharge for Medicare Part D coverage, which pays for prescriptions, can add $12.20 to $76.40 per month, depending on income. A couple with a $250,000 income in 2021 could end up paying surcharges totaling $4,711.20 for their Medicare coverage in 2023.

    The tax toll may not stop there. If you leave retirement money to your kids or anyone other than your spouse, they’re typically required to empty the accounts by the end of the 10th year following the year of your death . Required minimum distributions from inherited retirement accounts could push your heirs into higher tax brackets or cause other financial complications.

    HOW TO DEFUSE THE TAX BOMB

    Predicting who will face a future tax bomb can be tough, particularly if you’re decades away from retirement. But most people would be smart to have at least some money in accounts that aren’t subject to taxes or required minimum distributions — such as Roth IRAs , Roth 401(k) plans and Roth 403(b) plans — to better control their tax bills in retirement, Ladd says.

    With Roths, contributions aren’t deductible, but withdrawals in retirement are tax-free. You aren’t required to tap a Roth IRA during your lifetime, and legislation passed at the end of last year removes required minimum distributions from workplace Roths starting in 2024. Non-spouse heirs are required to drain the account within 10 years, just as with regular retirement plans , but the withdrawals aren’t taxable.

    The ability to contribute to a Roth IRA phases out at modified adjusted gross incomes from $138,000 to $153,000 for singles and from $218,000 to $228,000 for married couples. But many 401(k) plans and 403(b) plans now offer Roth options, and these workplace plans don’t have income limits, Carcone notes. Another option is to convert existing pretax retirement money into a Roth account, which typically requires paying income taxes on the conversion.

    Paying taxes now versus later can make sense when you’re young and expect to be in a higher tax bracket in retirement, tax pros say. But some older people may find a conversion can help lessen the tax impact of future required minimum distributions, Carcone says. Late-in-life conversions should be handled carefully because like required minimum distributions, they can end up inflating your tax bracket and Medicare premiums, she says.

    Given the financial stakes, Carcone recommends consulting a tax pro or financial planner who can provide individualized advice.

    “It’s never too early to start working with a financial adviser and start getting that roadmap planned out,” Carcone says.

    _____________________________________ This column was provided to The Associated Press by the personal finance site NerdWallet. The content is for educational and informational purposes and does not constitute investment advice. Liz Weston is a columnist at NerdWallet, a certified financial planner and the author of “Your Credit Score.” Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston.

    RELATED LINK:

    NerdWallet: How to spot a great 401(k)

    https://bit.ly/nerdwallet-how-to-spot-a-great-401k

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security trust fund could face shortfall within a decade — and earlier than expected, officials say

    Social Security trust fund could face shortfall within a decade — and earlier than expected, officials say

    [ad_1]

    The trust funds paying for Social Security and Medicare are facing financial challenges, the trustees of the funds said in their annual reports, released Friday. Republican lawmakers and the White House have been in a war of words over the budget and the future of entitlement programs.

    “Social Security and Medicare are two bedrock programs that older American rely upon for their retirement security,” said Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen following a meeting of the Boards of Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds Friday. “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to ensuring the long-term viability of these critical programs so that retirees can receive the hard-earned benefits they’re owed.”

    The Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, one of the funds that pay for Social Security, will be able to make full payments until 2033. That’s one year sooner than last year’s report projected. The fund would then become depleted and benefits moving forward would have to be cut by 23% — paying 77% of current total benefits. In contrast, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund, which also pays for Social Security, is projected to be able to pay 100% of all scheduled benefits until at least 2097.

    Together, the trust funds would be able to pay 100% of total Social Security benefits until 2034, a year earlier than projected in last year’s report. Then, the funds would be able to cover 80% of scheduled benefits.

    The projected long-term finances of the trust funds are both worse than last year, as the trustees reassess their expectations for the economy.

    Retiring baby boomers are pushing up the number of Social Security beneficiaries much faster than the number of covered workers who are replacing boomers at work, which means Congress will need to modify scheduled benefit levels or payroll tax levels by 2033, officials said.

    “Social Security is not in crisis. The newly released Social Security Trustees Report shows that the program’s financial position remains largely unchanged,” said  Laura Haltzel, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. Policymakers, she said, “have a decade to consider and enact policies that would fill the gap between promised benefits and those payable with tax revenues.”

    The cap on the maximum taxable income for Social Security is affecting revenues, officials said. When the law capping that amount at $160,200 was passed in 1983, the expectation was that 90% of income would be below that and subject to tax. But since then, the highest income earners — roughly the top 1-6% — have had income increase substantially. Now, only 82% of all covered earnings income is taxed, which has led to a substantial reduction in the amount of revenue coming into the trust.

    While retirees receiving Social Security received an 8.7% cost of living adjustment this year because of inflation, administration officials said average wages increased 8.9%, which helped boosted revenues for that trust fund.

    For Medicare, however, the new report shows the trust fund that pays for Part A will be able to pay 100% of scheduled benefits for three years more than last year’s report, until 2031. At that point, the fund, which covers care such as hospital stays and hospice, would become depleted and be able to pay 89% of total benefits. That timeline is due to lower projected health spending.

    The deficit in the trust fund that pays for Medicare Part A could be fixed with an immediate reduction of spending by 13% or by increasing the standard payroll tax rate of 2.9% to the amount of the deficit: 3.52%, administration officials said. Other more gradual corrections could also be taken.

    And the trust fund that pays for Medicare Part B is adequately financed into the indefinite future. While the costs are steadily rising to meet demand, unlike other trust funds, it’s financed through premiums and federal contributions that are automatically adjusted. And expenditures for Medicare Part B as a share of GDP are also projected to be lower than previously estimated, partially due to lower health spending. Expenditures for drugs from that fund are projected to be a much lower share of GDP because of the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Democrats last year.

    Roughly 65 million Americans receive Medicare benefits, including some 57 million ages 65 and older and 7.9 million people with disabilities. About 66 million Americans receive Social Security.

    Sarah Ewall-Wice

    CBS News reporter covering economic policy.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • According to an April 2022 poll conducted by the Medicare Plans Patient Resource Center, an organization that provides Medicare guidance and informati… – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    According to an April 2022 poll conducted by the Medicare Plans Patient Resource Center, an organization that provides Medicare guidance and informati… – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    [ad_1]

    Many older adults are using medical marijuana to treat a variety of conditions, but experts say that conflicting laws, unclear safety standards and complicated rulemaking processes mean it could be years before Medicare may cover the drug. One in five Medicare recipients currently uses medical marijuana, according to an April 2022 poll by the Medicare Plans…

    Original Author Link click here to read complete story..

    [ad_2]

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • Biden and Trump agree on one big thing | CNN Politics

    Biden and Trump agree on one big thing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Joe Biden and Donald Trump are bizarrely on the same page on the top issue so far in the 2024 White House race, as they aim huge, possibly campaign-defining swings at Republicans who they claim will shred retirement benefits.

    The current and former presidents – bitter rivals who agree on little else – are both forcing their foes into political retreats and attempts to whitewash past support for changes that could cut Medicare and Social Security payouts.

    Their strategy is reinforcing a truism of presidential election campaigns that candidates who even entertain the notion of “reforming” these cherished entitlement programs for seniors are playing with fire.

    With typical bluntness, Trump has blasted his potential top rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, as a “wheelchair over the cliff kind of guy” after he voted, as a member of the US House, for non-binding resolutions that would have raised the age at which most seniors can collect their benefits to 70. As a 2012 congressional candidate, he supported privatizing Social Security, CNN’s KFile has reported. But trying to ease his vulnerability on the issue, DeSantis insisted in a Fox News interview last week: “We’re not going to mess with Social Security.”

    Despite his own proposed cuts to these programs as president, Trump has kept up the attacks. “We’re not going back to people that want to destroy our great Social Security system – even some in our own party; I wonder who that might be – who want to raise the minimum age of Social Security to 70, 75 or even 80 in some cases, and who are out to cut Medicare to a level that will be unrecognizable,” he said at the Conservative Political Action Conference last Saturday.

    A few days later, another Republican hopeful gave both Biden and Trump a new opening to exploit.

    Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was forced to make clear Thursday that her striking and unspecific call the day before for raising the retirement age was only supposed to refer to Americans currently in their 20s, who are in effect a half century away from drawing their pensions. But her clarification won’t protect the former ambassador to the United Nations from Trump, who is splitting his party down the middle, yet again, by pouncing on competitors who have voiced traditional conservative orthodoxy on cutting or changing the programs. Biden is sure to also highlight Haley’s remarks as he claims only he can thwart a secret GOP agenda to kill off the vital programs.

    “I guarantee you, I will protect Social Security and Medicare without any change. Guaranteed,” the president vowed in Philadelphia on Thursday. “I won’t allow it to be gutted or eliminated as MAGA Republicans have threatened to do.”

    Biden browbeat Republicans during his “State of the Union” address last month to confirm on camera that they support shoring up Social Security and Medicare. And he’s anchoring his likely reelection bid on the most forceful campaign by a Democratic candidate in years on the issue. Some of his attacks are fair; others take statements by GOP leaders out of context. But they’re still potent – since both he and Trump know that when conservatives are explaining that they don’t plan to cut Medicare or retirement benefits, they are usually trying to dig out of a losing position.

    And Biden has public opinion on his side. A Fox News poll last month, for instance, showed that Democrats are preferred over Republicans to better handle Medicare (by 23 points) and Social Security (by 16 points). No wonder Biden seems to relish this particular political battlefield.

    The odd confluence of approaches – from a former president who sought to overturn an election and a successor who sees his administration as vital to saving democracy – says so much about each man’s political instincts, backgrounds and campaign strategy. It is also reflects the shifting character of the Republican Party, which Trump has torn from its corporate, ideologically pure conservative roots to build a new coalition that includes working class voters, often in the Midwest, that Biden is battling hard to win back.

    In one sense, possibly the most thorny domestic issue of the years to come should, of course, have a place in a presidential campaign. But when candidates use it to inflame their political bases, it only makes it harder to address in government. This is especially the case with entitlements since they cut into the DNA of each party and have defined the dividing lines between them for decades – at least until Trump came along and took over the GOP.

    Ever since the New Deal reforms of Franklin Roosevelt, who was president from 1933 to 1945, Democrats – through presidents Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama and Biden, especially – have sought to use government power to secure the living standards and health care of less well-off and elderly Americans. Republicans, from 1980s President Ronald Reagan onwards, have increasingly sought to find ways to shift the burden of some of this care to the private sector and to reduce or eliminate government’s role in an attempt to whittle away the New Deal reforms of FDR and the Great Society program of LBJ, who was president in the 1960s. They have often paid a heavy price. Republican President George W. Bush’s failed attempt to partially privatize Social Security contributed to a disastrous second term. And Trump still rails against former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who promoted a similar plan.

    While raising the alarm about threats to social programs for seniors might be a shrewd political tactic – especially in mobilizing older voters more likely to show up at the polls – it usually does nothing to address the program’s increasingly dire solvency challenges.

    The latest Congressional Budget Office projection found that Social Security’s retirement trust fund could be exhausted by 2032. At that point, with fewer workers paying into the program and with a rapidly aging population, benefits could be cut by at least 20%, CNN’s Tami Luhby reported. Medicare is even more precarious since its hospital insurance trust fund, known as Part A, will only be able to fully pay scheduled benefits until 2028, its trustees said in their most recent forecast.

    Biden, who released a new budget on Thursday that will help shape the message of his likely reelection bid, has proposed a plan to raise taxes on people earning more than $400,000 a year to shore up the program and would expand the range of drugs for which its managers can negotiate prices. He says the move would keep Medicare solvent until 2050 and would involve no cuts in benefits. The president also wants to target those who earn more than $400,000 with increasing payroll taxes to secure Social Security for the future. There is an infinitesimal chance, however, that the Republican-led House will agree to tax increases, so Biden’s plan represents more a device to deliver a political message than a viable plan.

    Despite warning his fellow Republicans to avoid cutting these programs, it’s unclear how Trump would save them if he wins back the White House – and doing nothing isn’t an option. And while other Republicans insist they don’t want to cut benefits or raise taxes, it’s unclear how they can square the circle.

    Florida Sen. Rick Scott has now excluded Social Security and Medicare from his proposal for all spending programs to be reviewed every five years. His original plan, released when he was leading the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, sparked the ire of his Republican Senate colleagues, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who quickly identified it as a political liability. That hasn’t stopped Biden from repeatedly claiming that it represents Republican policy.

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has, meanwhile, said that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are “completely off the table” in what he insists must be negotiations with Biden over raising the government’s borrowing limit later this year. But that position has put him in a bind because it means that in order for the GOP to honor their pledge to slash spending, they will probably have to take aim at other social programs that could also prove unpopular with voters.

    America is not the only country staring down a crisis.

    French President Emmanuel Macron sparked nationwide strikes and protests with his plan to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62. Even China’s Communist Party is struggling as a falling birthrate threatens to inflict severe costs on the world’s most dynamic emerging economy.

    Back in the US, whoever wins the 2024 elections for the White House and Congress, there seems no easily identifiable solution to safeguard these vital programs on which millions of Americans depend. And time is running out.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Advanced Breast Cancer: How It Affects You at Work

    Advanced Breast Cancer: How It Affects You at Work

    [ad_1]

    A diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer doesn’t mean you have to quit working. But you might find it easier to manage everything that comes with your condition when you’re not also concerned with work. 

    There’s no right or wrong answer. It’s a personal choice that depends on many factors. Here’s what to consider when making the decision, and how to make it work if you decide to stay at your job.

    To Work or Not to Work

    “Many with advanced breast cancer still work and maintain their family life with amazing ease, even with regular appointments and sometimes ongoing outpatient intravenous therapies,” says Rebecca Crane-Okada, PhD, director of Cancer Navigation & Willow Sage Wellness Programs at the Margie Petersen Breast Center at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, CA.

    Working may help you feel grounded and productive. It may be a good distraction and give you a sense of power when other parts of your life feel beyond your control. But if your job feels like too much to manage on top of your treatments and symptoms, you may decide to take a break or not return to work.

    To Share or Not to Share

    Who you tell and how much you share is up to you.

    It may be helpful to tell your boss. If your manager knows what’s going on, they may be able help by extending deadlines, changing meeting times, or letting you work from home. You can come up with a plan together.

    If you need work accommodations like regular breaks or a flexible schedule, you’ll have to share some information with your human resources department. Your human resources department and supervisor are legally required to keep your medical information private. But they may have to tell their managers.

    There may be benefits to sharing with your colleagues. They could be a source of emotional support and help you manage your work better.

    Marlena Murphy, 45, who has metastatic breast cancer and is an advocate for TurningPoint Breast Cancer Rehabilitation in Atlanta, GA, decided to share her cancer diagnosis at work so she could balance her work with her treatments. 

    “The main thing for me was to communicate with people I work directly with, regarding treatment and medical appointment dates,” Murphy says.

    Sharing with co-workers can have drawbacks. They may pepper you with questions about your health and treatment. You may get unwanted medical advice or opinions. And they’re not required to keep whatever you share to themselves. 

    How to Find Balance

    How you feel and how you manage at work may change on a day-to-day basis.

    On some days you may feel energetic, like you can handle anything. On other days, you may feel tired or struggle with symptoms like fatigue, nausea, constipation, diarrhea, and muscle or bone pain. Try to let your body be your guide.

    When you feel tired, take a break. If your job is physically demanding or you’re on your feet a lot, you may need regular rest breaks. Modifications like moving your desk closer to a restroom or working from home can help you find balance.

    Getting Help at Work

    There’s a lot you can do to make it easier to work while managing advanced breast cancer.

    For example, if you’re in the middle of treatment, ask your boss if you can set your own hours. It may help to shift your working hours to times in the day when you have more energy and will be more productive.

    Consider adjustments like:

    • Compressed work weeks
    • Flexible hours
    • Regular breaks throughout the day
    • Remote work
    • Shorter schedule

    If you need extended time off, you may want to use sick leave.

    If you’re going back to work after being out for a while, ask your boss if you can ease back into work with shorter or fewer days. Ask your co-workers to bring you up to speed on anything you missed, like new systems or procedures that started when you were out.

    Know Your Rights

    You may be entitled to several types of support while managing advanced breast cancer. Here are a few to look into:

    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This requires your employer to make adjustments like shorter work hours, a modified work schedule, or reassignment to an open position. It also protects you from discrimination, so you get the same consideration you’d have without cancer.

    Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This requires your employer to give you up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during a 12-month period. You can also use it if you’re a caregiver for your spouse, child, or a parent with a serious health condition.

    Employee Assistance Programs. These programs offer help with personal issues that may affect your ability to do your job. For example, they may help you with financial and emotional concerns. 

    Disability policies. If advanced breast cancer prevents you from being able to work, you may qualify for short-term or long-term disability insurance. These policies may give you 40%-70% of your base salary. Short-term disability may be about 3-6 months. Long-term disability starts after short-term disability ends.

    Talk to your human resources representative about what you qualify for and how to start the process.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Joe Biden plans new taxes on the rich to help save Medicare

    Joe Biden plans new taxes on the rich to help save Medicare

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Tuesday proposed new taxes on the rich to help fund Medicare, saying the plan would help to extend the insurance program’s solvency by 25 years and provide a degree of middle-class stability to millions of older adults.

    In his plan, Biden is overtly declaring that the wealthy ought to shoulder a heavier tax burden. His budget would draw a direct line between those new taxes and the popular health insurance program for people older than 65, essentially asking those who’ve fared best in the economy to subsidize the rest of the population.

    Biden wants to increase the Medicare tax rate from 3.8% to 5% on income exceeding $400,000 per year, including salaries and capital gains. The White House did not provide specific cost-saving estimates with the proposal, but the move would likely increase tax revenues by more than $117 billion over 10 years, according to prior estimates in February by the Tax Policy Center.

    “This modest increase in Medicare contributions from those with the highest incomes will help keep the Medicare program strong for decades to come,” Biden wrote in a Tuesday essay in The New York Times. He called Medicare a “rock-solid guarantee that Americans have counted on to be there for them when they retire.”

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was quick to dismiss the plan, telling reporters on Tuesday that Biden’s budget agenda “will not see the light of day.”

    More than 65 million people rely on Medicare at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $900 billion every year. The number of Medicare enrollees is expected to continue growing as the U.S. population ages. But funding for the program is a problem with federal officials warning that, without cuts or tax increases, the Medicare fund might only be able to pay for 90% of benefits by 2028.

    Biden’s suggested Medicare changes are part of a fuller budget proposal that he plans to release on Thursday in Philadelphia. Pushing the proposal through Congress will likely be difficult, with Republicans in control of the House and Democrats holding only a slim majority in the Senate.

    The proposal is a direct challenge to GOP lawmakers, who argue that economic growth comes from tax cuts like those pushed through by former President Donald Trump in 2017. Those cuts disproportionately favored wealthier households and companies. They contributed to higher budget deficits, when growth failed to boom as Trump had promised and the economy was then derailed in 2020 by the coronavirus pandemic.

    The conflicting worldviews on how taxes would impact the economy is part of a broader showdown. Biden and Congress need to reach a deal to raise the government’s borrowing authority at some point this summer, or else the government could default and plunge the U.S. into a debilitating recession.

    Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an advocate for the kinds of tax cuts generally favored by Republicans, said that the U.S. economy would suffer because of the president’s plan.

    “The Biden tax hikes will raise the cost of goods and services for everyone, and make American workers and businesses less competitive internationally and vs. China,” Norquist said.

    But Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, applauded the plan despite having some reservations about it.

    “The president’s plan would generate hundreds of billions of dollars – perhaps even approaching a trillion dollars – to strengthen Medicare,” said MacGuineas, a fiscal watchdog focused on deficit reduction.

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to discuss the numbers behind the budget plan. She told reporters at Tuesday’s briefing that she would not “dive into the math,” but that Biden’s proposal on Thursday “will be very detailed and transparent.”

    The independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office will analyze the proposal later this year.

    William Arnone, chief executive of the National Academy of Social Insurance, says there’s some risk in taxing wealthier Americans more for the program, given that they already pay more in premiums for Medicare coverage as well.

    “At some point higher-income Medicare enrollees may say: ‘This isn’t a good deal for me anymore,’” Arnone said. “The genius of social insurance is that we all pay in, and we all get something out in return. If higher income people start to question the equity – that could lead to a loss confidence in the program.” His group is an advocacy organization for Medicare and other entitlement programs.

    Ahead of an expected budget feud and the 2024 campaign season, Democrats have ramped up talk around Medicare, vowing to fend off any Republican attempts to cut the program, although so far the GOP has vowed to avoid any cuts. Still, Republican lawmakers have reached little consensus on how to fulfill their promise to put the government on a path toward balancing the federal budget in the next 10 years.

    Last year, members of the House Republican Study Committee proposed raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67, which would match Social Security. But that idea hasn’t moved forward in a split Congress.

    Republicans have denied that they plan to cut the program. A proposal from Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., that would require Congress to reconsider all federal laws every five years, including Medicare, has gotten little traction.

    Raising taxes on Americans who make more than $250,000 to pay for Medicare has broad support among older Americans, but raising the eligibility age for Medicare, is widely unpopular, said Mary Johnson, a policy analyst for the nonpartisan Senior Citizens League who has researched the issue.

    Politicians who try that route might “lose supporters and it can backfire. You can wind up losing your office, too,” she said. “A very high percentage of seniors are voting in elections.”

    Biden’s plan is also intended to close what the White House describes as loopholes that allow people to avoid Medicare taxes on some income. Besides the taxes, Biden wants to expand Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug costs, which began with the Inflation Reduction Act. He signed the sweeping legislation last year.

    The White House said its budget plan would expand the pharmaceutical drug provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. More drugs would be subject to price negotiations, other drugs would be brought into the negotiation process sooner and the scope of rebates would be expanded.

    Taken together, Biden’s new proposals would help shore up a key trust fund that pays for Medicare, which provides health care for older adults. According to the White House, the changes would keep the fund solvent until the 2050s, about 25 years longer than currently expected.

    Changes would also be made to Medicare benefits. Biden wants to limit cost sharing for some generic drugs to only $2. The idea would lower out-of-pocket costs for treating hypertension, high cholesterol and other ailments.

    ___

    AP writers Amanda Seitz and Farnoush Amiri contributed to this report. Follow the AP’s coverage of Medicare at https://apnews.com/hub/medicare

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Claims Ron DeSantis Gets Off on Killing Old People in Wheelchairs

    Trump Claims Ron DeSantis Gets Off on Killing Old People in Wheelchairs

    [ad_1]

    Earlier this week, we learned that in his new memoir, The Courage to Be Free, Ron DeSantis has a number of very nice things to say about Donald Trump. Unfortunately for the governor of Florida, his would-be 2024 opponent has not returned the favor, and by “not returned the favor,” we mean Trump has decided to follow up his recent suggestion that a 20-something DeSantis groomed high school girls…by claiming the guy will send seniors to an early grave if elected president.

    On Tuesday, Trump logged on to Truth Social and told his followers: “Great Poll numbers are springing forth for your favorite President, me, against Ron DeSanctus (& Biden). I guess people are finding out that he wanted to CUT SOCIAL SECURITY & RAISE THE MINIMUM AGE TO AT LEAST 70, at least 4 times. LIKEWISE WITH MEDICARE, WANTED BIG CUTS. HE IS A WHEELCHAIR OVER THE CLIFF KIND OF GUY, JUST LIKE HIS HERO, failed politician Paul Ryan, the FoxNews ratings destroyer who led Mitt Romney’s Presidential Campaign down the tubes. GLOBALIST’S ALL! WE WANT AMERICA FIRST!!!”

    Trump isn’t right about a lot of things, but he is correct in his claim that former House Speaker Paul Ryan famously dreamed of gutting Medicare and Social Security, as well as Medicaid and other key aspects of the social safety net—which he once described as a “hammock that lulls able-bodied people into complacency and dependence.” Sadly for Ryan, not enough people in Congress wanted to commit political suicide, and he retired before he could get the job done.

    As for DeSantis, the Florida governor has been less direct than Ryan about his lust for doing away with programs millions of people rely on (and in many cases, pay into). But it’s not hard to see where his head’s at, since he:

    • Per Semafor, “Voted for a series of budget resolutions crafted by the conservative Republican Study Committee that would have voucherized Medicare for new beneficiaries, slowed Social Security cost-of-living increases, and raised the retirement age for both programs” during his time in Congress;
    • Received, according to The Washington Post, “a 0 percent rating from the Alliance for Retired Americans, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO,” and said during debt-limit negotiations in 2013 that Social Security and Medicare should be part of the negotiations;
    • Commented the same year: “I think we need to restructure some of these entitlements”;
    • Said in 2012: “I support what Ryan is trying to do in terms of reforming entitlements.”

    And what of Trump’s position on all this? Well, he is currently painting himself as a defender of Medicare and Social Security and, according to Ryan, refused to pursue cuts to “entitlements” while in office because they weren’t popular. However, the ex-president apparently forgets that in 2019, he reportedly discussed gutting Medicare as a potential “second-term project.” Or that, in 2020, he was asked if such cuts would ever be on his “plate,” and responded, out loud: “At some point they will be.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Humana lays out exit from employer-sponsored coverage

    Humana lays out exit from employer-sponsored coverage

    [ad_1]

    The health insurer Humana will stop providing employer-sponsored coverage as it stays focused on bigger parts of its business, like Medicare Advantage

    ByTOM MURPHY AP Health Writer

    February 23, 2023, 12:00 PM

    The health insurer Humana will stop providing employer-sponsored coverage as it focuses on bigger parts of its business, like Medicare Advantage.

    The insurer said Thursday it will leave the employer-sponsored business over the next 18 to 24 months. That includes coverage provided through private companies and for federal government employees.

    Employer-sponsored health insurance is one of the most common ways for Americans to get coverage, but it amounts to a small part of Humana’s enrollment. That is centered largely on Medicare Advantage, the privately run version of the federal government’s Medicare program for people age 65 and older.

    Humana also will continue to provide coverage to nearly 6 million military service members and their families.

    Humana also runs Medicaid coverage for states and provides stand-alone Medicare prescription drug coverage. The insurer covered about 13.5 million people last year, not counting the stand-alone prescription drug plans.

    Employer-sponsored coverage made up around 7% of that total.

    Humana CEO Bruce Broussard said in a prepared statement that the exit from employer-sponsored coverage lets Humana focus its “greatest opportunities for growth.”

    The company also said its employer-sponsored business “was no longer positioned to sustainably meet the needs of commercial members over the long term or support the company’s long-term strategic plans.”

    Enrollment growth in employer-sponsored insurance has stagnated for many years for insurers, including market leaders like UnitedHealthcare. Insurers have turned more to government-backed coverage like Medicare Advantage or managing state Medicaid coverage for enrollment growth.

    They also have pushed deeper into managing prescription drug plans and buying care providers in order to control health care costs.

    Humana does not expect that the changes will affect adjusted profits this year, which the company earlier this year projected to be at least $28 per share.

    Analysts forecast $28.06 per share, according to FactSet.

    Shares of Humana Inc., based in Louisville, Kentucky, climbed about $1 to $504.60 Thursday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How an old debate previews Biden’s new strategy for winning senior voters | CNN Politics

    How an old debate previews Biden’s new strategy for winning senior voters | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In pressing Republicans on Social Security and Medicare, President Joe Biden is reprising one of the most dramatic moments of his long career.

    During the 2012 vice-presidential debate, Biden engaged in a nearly 11-minute exchange with GOP nominee Paul Ryan over Republican plans to reconfigure the two massive programs for the elderly, several of which Ryan had authored himself.

    Biden and many Democrats felt he had won the argument on stage. Yet on Election Day, Ryan and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney routed Biden and President Barack Obama among White seniors, and beat them soundly among seniors overall, exit polls found.

    That outcome underscores the obstacles facing Biden now as he tries to recapture older voters by portraying Republicans as threats to the two towers of America’s safety net for the elderly. While polls consistently show that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans to safeguard the programs, GOP presidential nominees have carried all seniors in every presidential election back to 2004 and have reached at least 58% support among White seniors in each of the past four contests, exit polls have found. Democrats have likewise consistently struggled among those nearing retirement, older working adults aged 45-64.

    Those results suggest that for most older voters, affinity for the GOP messages on other issues – particularly its resistance, in the Donald Trump era, to cultural and racial change – has outweighed their views about Social Security and Medicare. Those grooves are now cut so deeply, over so many elections, that Biden may struggle to change them much no matter how hard he rails against a range of GOP proposals that could retrench or restructure the programs.

    Biden’s charge that Republicans are threatening the two giant entitlement programs for the elderly – which triggered his striking back and forth exchanges with GOP legislators during the State of the Union – fits squarely in his broader political positioning as he turns toward his expected reelection campaign.

    As I’ve written, the 80-year-old Biden, at his core, “remains something like a pre-1970s Democrat, who is most comfortable with a party focused less on cultural crusades than on delivering kitchen-table benefits to people who work with their hands.” As president he’s expressed that inclination primarily through what he calls his “blue-collar blueprint to rebuild America” – the planks in his economic plans, such as generous incentives to revive domestic manufacturing, aimed at creating more opportunity for workers without a college degree. Politically, Biden’s staunch defense of Social Security and Medicare, programs critical to the economic security of financially vulnerable retirees, represents a logical bookend to that emphasis.

    “We all know that whose side you are on is a critical debate point for every election and this debate over Social Security and Medicare really helps crystallize whose side Biden is on versus whose side Republicans are on in a very effective way for him,” said Democratic pollster Matt Hogan, who helped conduct an extensive series of bipartisan polls during the 2022 campaign measuring attitudes among seniors for the AARP, the giant lobby for the elderly.

    From Franklin Roosevelt through Hubert Humphrey and Tip O’Neill, generations of Democrats have framed themselves as the defenders of the social safety net for seniors against Republicans who they say would unravel it. Biden showed how comfortable he was stepping into those shoes during his 2012 vice-presidential debate with Ryan, then a young representative from Wisconsin who Romney had selected as his running mate.

    Nearly 30 years Biden’s junior, Ryan was an unflinching advocate of restructuring Social Security and Medicare to reduce costs over time. In particular, Ryan was the principal supporter of a conservative plan to convert Medicare, the giant federal health insurance program for the elderly, into a system called “premium support.” Under that proposal, Medicare would be transformed from its current structure, in which the government directly pays doctors and hospitals who provide care for beneficiaries, into a voucher (or “premium support”) system, in which the government would provide recipients a fixed sum to purchase private insurance. Ryan had also drafted proposals to partially privatize Social Security by allowing workers to divert part of their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, a change that would have reduced the tax dollars flowing into the system and eventually required substantial cuts in guaranteed benefits.

    For nearly 11 minutes during the debate in October 2012, moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC skillfully guided Biden and Ryan through a heated, but civil and substantive, discussion of Social Security and Medicare’s future. Ryan insisted that changes were needed to preserve the programs’ long-term viability and that current seniors and those near retirement would not see their benefits reduced.

    Biden appealed openly to the Democrats’ historic image as the programs’ protectors and condemned Ryan and the GOP for wanting to partially privatize them. At one point in the debate, Biden declared: “we will be no part of a [Medicare] voucher program or the privatization of Social Security.” A few moments later, he insisted: “These guys haven’t been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they’ve always been about Social Security as little as you can do. Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?”

    At the time, Democrats felt Biden had at least held his own, restoring the party’s momentum after Obama’s surprisingly listless performance eight days earlier in his first debate against Romney. And Democrats through the rest of the campaign railed against the Republican ticket as a threat to Social Security and Medicare.

    But on election day, those arguments did not translate into gains for Obama and Biden among seniors or the older working adults (aged 45-64) nearing retirement. As Hogan noted, the newly passed Affordable Care Act, which generated some of its funding through savings in Medicare, was extremely unpopular at the time among older voters. Obama and Biden not only lost seniors and the older working age adults, but actually ran slightly more poorly among both groups in 2012 than they did in 2008.

    In fact, no Democratic presidential nominee since Al Gore in 2000 has carried most seniors in a presidential campaign; Obama in 2008 was the only one since Gore to carry most of the older working age adults. Among older Whites, the Democratic deficit is even more pronounced: the Republican presidential nominee has carried around three-fifths of both White seniors and those nearing retirement in each of the past four elections. Biden in 2020 slightly improved on Hillary Clinton’s anemic 2016 performance with both groups, but still lost to Trump by 15 percentage points among White seniors and by 23 points among the Whites nearing retirement, according to the exit polls conducted by Edison Research for a consortium of media organizations including CNN. Biden performed especially poorly among older Whites without a college degree – an economically stressed group heavily reliant on the federal retirement programs.

    Estimates by Catalist, a Democratic targeting firm, and the Pew Research Center likewise found that Trump in both 2016 and 2020 beat his Democratic opponents among both seniors and the older working adults. Like the exit polls, the Catalist data show the Republican nominees carrying about three-fifths of White seniors and older working adults in each of the past three presidential elections.

    The story is similar in congressional contests. In House elections, the exit polls found Republicans winning all seniors and older working adults comfortably in the 2014 and 2022 midterm campaigns and narrowly carrying them even in 2018 when Democrats romped overall. In all three of those midterm congressional elections, Republicans carried about three-fifths of the near retirement White adults, while they also reached that elevated threshold among White seniors in both the 2014 and 2022 campaigns.

    Republicans have maintained these advantages with older voters despite polls showing that most Americans trust Democrats more than the GOP to protect Social Security and Medicare, and that most Americans, especially seniors, oppose the intermittently surfacing GOP proposals to partially privatize both programs.

    Politically, “Democrats have used Social Security and Medicare really a lot over the past two or three decades, maybe four decades,” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. “The payoff has been a lot less than Democrats have generally thought it would be.”

    Could this time be different for Biden and the Democrats? Congressional Republicans have certainly provided plenty of evidence for his claim that they still hope to restructure the programs. The proposed 2023 budget by the Republican Study Committee, the members of which include about three-fourths of House Republicans, reprises the ideas of converting Medicare into a premium support system and establishing private investment accounts under Social Security, while also raising the retirement age for both programs and reducing Social Security benefits over time. And although Florida Sen. Rick Scott renounced the idea late last week, his “Rescue America” agenda did include a proposal to require Congress to reauthorize all federal programs, including Social Security and Medicare, every five years.

    These ideas have precipitated an unusual degree of open Republican dissension. Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly, and unreservedly, denounced the Scott plan until the Florida senator backed off. Trump recently released a video in which he declared the GOP should not cut “a single penny” of Social Security or Medicare benefits – which put him directly at odds with the three-fourths of House Republicans in the Republican Study Committee. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, bending more toward Trump’s position, seems unlikely to incorporate into the GOP budget plans the RSC’s most sweeping changes in Social Security and Medicare.

    Kessler believes Biden may succeed where other Democrats have failed at hurting the GOP with the issue, and he argued that the conspicuous Republican infighting demonstrates they share that concern. “We are watching a high-profile battle that I’ve never really seen before on these issues in the Republican Party,” Kessler said. “And part of it is clearly they think it’s a problem when they didn’t years ago. If they think it’s a problem, maybe it’s a problem.”

    Stuart Stevens, who served as Romney’s chief strategist in the 2012 campaign but has since become a fierce critic of the Trump-era GOP, also believes the party could face more risk over its entitlement agenda than it did back then. The reason is that he thinks the idea of sunsetting Social Security and Medicare every five years, even if Scott is trying to jettison it, may prove more immediately tangible and understandable to voters than Ryan’s complex ideas of partially privatizing both programs.

    “The question I always ask myself in campaigns is ‘are you talking about something the other side doesn’t want to talk about?’” Stevens said. “That’s probably a good sign that they are losing on the issue.”

    Whether Biden proves more effective than other recent Democrats at attracting older voters around Social Security and Medicare will likely pivot on whether seniors believe the GOP genuinely would cut the programs if given the power to do so, argued Robert Blendon, a professor emeritus at the Harvard School of Public Health, who specializes in public attitudes about the social safety net. “If the senior community actually believes that it’s being threatened it really would affect their votes,” he predicted. But, he added, “as long as they are not threatened, the other values of seniors on top issues more and more correspond with Republicans.”

    There’s no doubt about the second half of that equation. Polling has consistently found that older Whites, in particular, are more receptive than their younger counterparts to hardline Trump-era GOP messages around crime, immigration and the broader currents of racial and cultural change: for instance, about half of Whites older than 50 agree that discrimination against Whites is now as big a problem as bias against minorities, a far higher percentage than among younger Whites, according to a new national survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Older Whites are also more likely than younger generations to lack a college degree or to identify as Christians, attributes that generally predict sympathy for GOP cultural and racial arguments.

    Through the 21st century, those cultural and racial attitudes among older White voters have consistently trumped any concerns they may hold about the Republican commitment to Social Security and Medicare. Despite Biden’s impassioned articulation of the case against the GOP, that didn’t change even in 2012 when Republicans placed on their national ticket a vice presidential nominee who directly embodied the GOP aspirations to reconfigure and retrench those programs.

    Even small changes in seniors’ preferences could have a big impact in closely balanced states with a large retiree population like Arizona and Pennsylvania. But the entrenched GOP advantage among older voters over the past two decades suggests Biden’s hopes in 2024 may pivot less on improving with the “gray” than maximizing his vote among the “brown”: the diverse, younger generations that recoil from the same Republican messages on culture and race that electrify so many older Whites.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security and Medicare: Troubling math, tough politics | Long Island Business News

    Social Security and Medicare: Troubling math, tough politics | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    It seems no one wants to cut Social Security or Medicare benefits.

    Not President Joe Biden, who is already telling voters his upcoming federal budget proposal will “defend and strengthen” the programs. Not Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who has declared cuts to the programs off the table in negotiations to raise the federal debt limit.

    There’s just one glitch with these declarations: Social Security won’t be able to pay out its promised benefits in about a dozen years, while Medicare won’t be able to do so in just five years. Economists have done the projections and say both programs will drive the national debt higher in the decades to come, forcing teeth-gritting choices for the next generation of lawmakers.

    Here’s a breakdown of the dilemma, the potential fixes and the harsh politics around Social Security and Medicare:

    THE CHALLENGE

    It’s a math problem that requires a political solution.

    Payroll taxes largely fund Social Security and Medicare. They generally get deducted from workers’ paychecks, which is why Biden, a Democrat, says people are merely getting back what they’ve already paid into the system.

    But as more baby boomers age and retire, there are more beneficiaries and not enough tax revenue to fund the programs. Payroll taxes are expected to generate $1.56 trillion this year, but the combined costs of Social Security and Medicare are likely to be $2.16 trillion, according to a Congressional Budget Office report last week. The office warned in its report that Social Security benefits may need to be cut even earlier than past projections, beginning in 2032.

    CBO Director Phillip Swagel said Friday at a Bipartisan Policy Center event that “benefits today are being paid in full as promised, drawing down on the Social Security trust fund.” But when the government is unable to pay full benefits, “that’s a challenge,” he said.

    The number of people enrolled in Medicare has more than tripled to roughly 65 million since its inception in 1966. More than 10 million new retirees and disabled people joined in just the past decade, according to data from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.

    The shortfall in tax revenues combined with a rising number of recipients would eventually lead to Social Security’s trust fund being unable to fully pay benefits in 2035, a Social Security and Medicare trustees report predicted last June, though the CBO said it could happen sooner. Medicare’s trust fund would be unable to pay full benefits starting in 2028.

    This forces the inevitable choice of whether to shore up the trust funds’ finances or reduce people’s benefits. Continued delays by Congress and the president in addressing this math problem could narrow the number of potential fixes.

    WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS?

    There is basically some combination of four options:

    — Raise taxes.

    — Change benefits such as the eligibility age.

    — Cut costs.

    — Rely more on general revenues to cover the gap, which could mean higher budget deficits or cuts to other programs.

    Biden took a step last year with his Inflation Reduction Act, which would allow Medicare to negotiate lower prices on a handful of drugs and charge drug companies when they raise the price of drugs faster than inflation. The law also makes vaccines free, caps monthly out-of-pocket insulin costs at $35 and limits out-of-pocket drug expenses at $2,000 starting in 2025.

    The CBO said the prescription drug components of the law would save $237 billion over 10 years, prompting some Republican lawmakers to say it was a spending cut that would dig into pharmaceutical companies’ profits, forcing them to limit how much they spend developing new treatments. But the law aims to lower the cost people pay for medication, rather than ax benefits.

    Democrats are also trying to rein in spending on the increasingly popular -– and expensive -– Medicare Advantage program, a network of private insurance plans that are reimbursed by the government. Recently, 70 Democrats signed a letter to the president asking his administration to crack down on scams and wasteful spending in the program, which federal investigators say has cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

    Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has pushed legislation that would create bipartisan committees to look at ways to salvage the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The bill has gone nowhere but has limited bipartisan support, including from Senate Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Mark Warner of Virginia.

    Payroll taxes were capped last year at $147,000 — meaning no one paid the taxes after surpassing that threshold. In 2019, Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., proposed a bill that would reinstitute the payroll tax at earnings above $400,000.

    Last year, members of the House Republican Study Committee proposed raising the age at which someone could qualify for Social Security and Medicare. Right now, people can access their full Social Security benefits at 67, an age minimum that’s increased by two years since the program was first established nearly 90 years ago. You must be at least 65 to access Medicare.

    Last year, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., laid out a plan to require Congress to reconsider all federal laws every five years — leading to criticism by Biden that Social Security and Medicare would be cut. That idea has received an ice-cold reception with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, saying it will “not be part of our agenda.”

    After several months of flak, Scott on Friday revised his plan to specifically exclude Social Security and Medicare.

    The CBO has also laid out nearly 60 policy options that could save the federal government billions of dollars on Medicare, including higher monthly premiums for some older and disabled adults.

    THE POLITICS ARE TOXIC

    In his State of the Union address, Biden got boos from GOP lawmakers when he said that some Republicans want to cut spending for the programs. It led to an improvised standing ovation for seniors as both parties on the spot committed to avoiding any cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

    Put simply, voters like low taxes and generous benefits. This means it can be politically suicidal to overhaul either program. Any change can be used against a lawmaker seeking reelection, especially as 2024 looms. For the past two weeks, Biden has been giving speeches in key states such as Wisconsin and Florida in which he warned that some Republicans would gut the programs, despite the GOP denials.

    Why are the politics so bad?

    It’s because of the composition of the electorate. AP VoteCast found that nearly six in 10 voters in last year’s midterms were older than 50. Of that group, three in 10 were 65 or older. This means that a dominant bloc of voters already benefit from these programs or are on the verge of doing so.

    REFORM IS POSSIBLE

    Go back 40 years to 1983.

    President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, struck a deal to extend the life of Social Security, which was facing insolvency. The amendments to the program raised the retirement age, delayed the cost-of-living adjustment by six months and mandated that government employees start paying into Social Security, among other changes.

    When Reagan signed the law on April 20, 1983, he said: “This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future.”

    In the 1984 elections, there was little political fallout. Reagan won a second term in a landslide, while Democrats held onto the House.

    THIS IS A GLOBAL PROBLEM

    It’s not just the U.S. There’s pushback in other countries amid efforts to restrain costs tied to an aging population.

    There have been repeated protests in France over French President Emanuel Macron’s plans to raise the minimum retirement age for a full state pension from 62 to 64. Nearly 1 million people marched in Paris, Nice, Marseille, Toulouse, Nantes and other cities on Feb. 11, with Parisian police officers saying they arrested eight people for violations that included vandalism and possession of a firearm.

    In the Chinese city of Wuhan last week, seniors belted out the communist anthem “The Internationale” in protest of the government cutting health care benefits.

    In a recent analysis for the International Monetary Fund, Harvard University’s David Bloom, an economics professor, and Leo Zucker, a research assistant, said that aging worldwide creates “a colossal set of health, social, and economic challenges in the coming decades.” They warned about the costs of inaction if there are not enough workers to fund health care benefits for older people, leading to more disease and a lower quality of life.

    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • Sanders targets drug companies over COVID-19 vaccine price hikes, high prescription costs

    Sanders targets drug companies over COVID-19 vaccine price hikes, high prescription costs

    [ad_1]

    Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders took aim at pharmaceutical companies on Sunday over upcoming price hikes for COVID-19 vaccines and high prescription drug prices more broadly, telling “Face the Nation” that he believes there is room for bipartisanship to bring down costs for working class Americans. 

    The independent senator recently called on Moderna’s chief executive officer Stéphane Bancel to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which he chairs. Sanders called the hearing after the company suggested it would quadruple the price of COVID-19 vaccines once the shots transition to the private market.

    On Sunday, Sanders noted that U.S. gave Moderna billions of dollars to develop its vaccine. U.S. officials have said stockpiles of government-bought vaccines could run out by this summer.

    “What happens after the government stockpile of the vaccine expires? These guys say, we’re going to quadruple the price of the vaccine,” Sanders said. “Truth is, [the] pharmaceutical industry is enormously greedy, charging us outrageously, uncontrollably high prices. We’ve got to deal with that, as chairman of the relevant committee, I intend to do what I can.”

    Last week, Bancel agreed to testify before the Senate HELP committee during a hearing in March. One day later, Moderna said it would develop a program to ensure that uninsured and underinsured people can receive the vaccines at no cost. The vaccines will also remain free to those with insurance, as required by the Affordable Care Act. Pfizer and BioNTech have also confirmed their plans to hike vaccine prices to at least $110 per dose, which is more than triple the cost per shot that the Biden administration paid for a bulk purchase of COVID-19 boosters in the summer of 2022.

    Sanders said on Sunday that members of the HELP committee “want to take a look at” Moderna’s patient assistance program and called it “a step in the right direction.” Still, he underscored the need for decisive action in Congress as pharmaceutical companies continue to initiate price hikes that often make health care and prescription medications unaffordable and inaccessible.

    The senator, whose upcoming book “It’s OK to Be Angry about Capitalism” examines the growing divide between the wealthy and the working class, noted that “one out of four people in American cannot afford … the drugs that their doctors prescribe,” while roughly two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck. Sanders additionally pointed to stark disparities in cost for the same medications in countries with public health systems, like Canada, compared with the U.S.

    “You tell me why we pay 10 times more for some drugs that are sold in the United States compared to say to Canada or to other countries, while year after year, the pharmaceutical industry makes tens of billions of dollars in profits, pays their CEOs exorbitant salaries,” Sanders said. 

    “So of course, we want the drug companies to do the research and development,” he continued. “By the way, taxpayers of this country spent $45 billion a year through the NIH to help with that research and development, including Moderna and the vaccine.”

    When asked if he sees avenues for bipartisan agreement on prescription drug costs in Congress, Sanders responded, “Yes, I do.”

    He cited polling of Republicans that showed high prescription drug costs were “a major priority they were concerned with,” and said he believes laws like the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as legislative proposals, can form “the basis for bipartisan work.” The Inflation Reduction Act, which President Biden signed into law in August of last year, reformed how Medicare sets drug prices. Advocates have said it could act as a guide and predecessor for further, broader legislation regulating the cost of prescription drugs.

    “So I think we have the basis for bipartisan work, to tell the pharmaceutical industry that they really have got to stop ripping off the American people. A number of ways you could do it,” Sanders said on Sunday. “The Inflation Reduction Act started by having Medicare negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical industry. Doesn’t kick in for a few years, I think we should expedite that.

    “Number two, of all people, my good friend, Donald Trump, all right, who I disagree with on everything, had the idea that maybe Medicare should not pay prices higher than the average of what countries around the rest of the world are paying. That’s a good idea and we want to pursue that as well,” he continued. “And there’s the concept of reimportation. … That simply says if you can buy a drug in Canada, same drug but one-tenth of the price, passes FDA specifications, it should be sold in this country at a lower price.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican senator warns Congress must take action now to protect Medicare and Social Security | CNN Politics

    Republican senator warns Congress must take action now to protect Medicare and Social Security | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republican Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota offered Sunday a stark warning about the future of Social Security and Medicare if Congress fails to take action now.

    “In the next 11 years, we have to have a better plan in place than what we do today. Or we’re going to see – under existing circumstances – some reductions of as much as 24% in some sort of a benefit. So, let’s start talking now because it’s easier to fix it now that it would be five years or six years from now,” Rounds told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

    In recent days, President Joe Biden has made a forceful argument against Republicans by highlighting his support for Social Security and Medicare. The president has specifically seized on a proposal from GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida to sunset federal legislation – including Social Security and Medicare – every five years and require Congress to pass them again.

    Referencing his “spirited debate” with Republicans at the State of the Union, Biden called Scott’s proposal “outrageous” and vowed he would veto such a plan during a speech in Florida last week.

    “The very idea the senator from Florida wants to put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block every five years I find to be somewhat outrageous. So outrageous that you might not even believe it,” he said, pulling out a pamphlet detailing Scott’s plan.

    Scott told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins last week that his proposal is intended to eliminate wasteful spending and help ensure the government can “figure out how to start living within our means.”

    “I want to make sure we balance our budget and preserve Medicare and Social Security, and I’ve been clear all along,” he said.

    Rounds also stressed Sunday that Republicans want to better manage Medicare and Social Security in order to improve the programs – not strip them from the American people.

    “We think that there are possibilities out there of long-term success without scaring people and without tearing apart the system and without reducing benefits. But it requires management. And it requires actually looking at and making things better,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Breaking down Biden’s exchanges with Republican senators over Social Security and Medicare | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Breaking down Biden’s exchanges with Republican senators over Social Security and Medicare | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden has gone on the attack over Social Security and Medicare.

    In speeches and tweets this week, Biden and his White House have singled out particular Republican senators – notably including Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin – over proposals from those senators that could affect the retirement and health care programs.

    The Republican senators have responded forcefully, accusing Biden of deceiving the public about where they stand. Here is a fact-check of the exchanges.

    Biden and his White House targeted Lee on Wednesday over a video clip of Lee saying, “I’m here right now to tell you one thing that you probably have never heard from a politician. It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it up by the roots and get rid of it.” The clip has gone viral on Twitter this week; a second viral clip features Lee saying moments later, “Medicare and Medicaid are of the same sort and need to be pulled up.”

    The videos are authentic, though Biden didn’t tell his Wednesday speech audience in Wisconsin they are from more than 12 years ago – an event in 2010, when Lee was running for the Senate but before he was first elected. And as Lee noted in Wednesday tweets responding to Biden, Biden didn’t mention that Lee added at the same 2010 event that current Medicare beneficiaries should have their benefits “left untouched” and that “the next layer beneath them, those who will retire in the next few years, also probably have to be held harmless.”

    Still, while Biden could have included more context, he was accurate in saying Lee had called for Social Security to be phased out.

    And while Lee said in a tweeted statement on Wednesday that, during his 12 years as a senator, he has not called for “abolishing” Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits, only for “solutions to improve those programs and move them toward solvency,” he has supported benefit cuts. For example, he has endorsed various proposals over the years to raise the Social Security retirement age.

    Since last year, Biden has criticized Scott over particular components of what Scott calls his “12 Point Plan to Rescue America.”

    In the State of the Union address on Tuesday and in speeches on Wednesday and Thursday, the president referred to a part of Scott’s plan that says, “All federal legislation sunsets in 5 years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass it again.” Biden correctly asserted that “all federal legislation” would include Social Security and Medicare, which do not currently require congressional re-approval.

    Scott responded by accusing Biden of being dishonest and confused. Scott argued on Twitter on Wednesday that while his plan does say that “all” federal legislation should sunset in five years and become subject to a new vote by Congress, “This is clearly & obviously an idea aimed at dealing with ALL the crazy new laws our Congress has been passing of late.”

    But the plan itself doesn’t say that.

    The plan’s official text, which remains online on a dedicated website, says “all federal legislation,” period, should be sunset in five years – not all recent legislation, all crazy legislation or all legislation except for the laws that created Social Security and Medicare. When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected Scott’s plan last year, McConnell too said that the plan “sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”

    Last year, Biden sometimes overstated the support for Scott’s sunset proposal among congressional Republicans, which appears very limited. Biden has been more precise in his speeches this week, attributing the proposal to Scott himself or accurately saying in the State of the Union that “some” Republicans – “I’m not saying it’s a majority” – support it.

    Biden may have created an inaccurate impression, however, by mentioning the sunset proposal during the section of the State of the Union in which he discussed the battle over the debt ceiling. There is no indication that House Republicans are pushing this proposal as part of the current debt ceiling negotiations with the Biden administration, and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has, more generally, said cuts to Social Security and Medicare are “off the table” in these negotiations.

    Scott, in turn, has tossed a false claim into the debate with Biden this week by repeatedly accusing the president of having cut billions from Medicare in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. The Inflation Reduction Act did not cut Medicare benefits; rather, it allowed the government and seniors to spend less money to buy prescription drugs – and, in fact, simultaneously made Medicare benefits more generous to seniors. The claim of a Medicare cut was repeatedly debunked last year, when Scott and a Republican campaign organization he chaired used it during the midterm elections.

    On Friday afternoon, the day after McConnell told a Kentucky radio station that Scott’s proposal will be a “challenge” for Scott’s own 2024 re-election campaign in a state with a large population of seniors, Scott announced he is introducing a new bill that would make it more difficult for Congress to make any cuts to Social Security and Medicare and that would send the Inflation Reduction Act’s $80 billion in Internal Revenue Service funding to Social Security and Medicare instead.

    This week and in numerous previous speeches, Biden has castigated Johnson for saying last year that Medicare and Social Security should be treated as discretionary spending, which Congress has to approve every year, rather than as permanent entitlements.

    Biden has accurately cited Johnson’s remarks this week. Here’s what Johnson told a Green Bay radio show in August: “We’ve got to turn everything into discretionary spending, so it’s all evaluated, so that we can fix problems or fix programs that are broken, that are going to be going bankrupt. Because, again, as long as things are on automatic pilot, we just continue to pile up debt.” When Johnson faced criticism for those remarks at the time, he stood by them and said that was his consistent longtime position.

    Johnson, however, claimed Wednesday that Biden was “lying” when the president discussed Johnson’s comments shortly after saying that some Republicans want to “cut” Social Security. Johnson has repeatedly said that his proposal to require annual approval for Social Security spending, and to “fix” and “save” Social Security in light of its poor fiscal shape at present, does not mean that he wants to put the programs on the “chopping block” or even to “cut” it.

    “The Democrats have been accusing me, since the first time I ran for office, of wanting to end Social Security, wanting to cut it, wanting to gut it, wanting to – I’ve never said that. I’ve always been consistent: I want to save it,” he said in a radio interview this week.

    It’s impossible to definitively fact-check this particular dispute without Johnson specifying how he wants to “fix” and “save” the program. His office did not respond to a CNN request for comment.

    White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates noted in an email to reporters on Thursday that, though Johnson accused Biden this week of lying about his stance on Social Security, Johnson also said in interviews this week that Social Security is a “legal Ponzi scheme” and that “Social Security might be in a more stable position for younger workers” if the government had proceeded with Republican President George W. Bush’s controversial and eventually abandoned proposal in the mid-2000s to allow workers born after 1949 to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts in which they could buy into the stock market and make other investments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Rick Scott: From embattled health care executive to Biden’s top foil | CNN Politics

    Rick Scott: From embattled health care executive to Biden’s top foil | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Florida Sen. Rick Scott has emerged as Joe Biden’s top Republican foil in the days since the president’s State of the Union address, with the White House seizing on a year-old Scott proposal that even GOP leaders recognized at the time as politically toxic.

    As a spending fight looms in Washington and Biden moves toward his 2024 reelection bid, the White House is attempting to make Scott the poster child for the president’s accusations that Republicans are seeking to cut entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

    Scott has responded by accusing Biden of lying, airing a misleading ad that alleges Biden cut Medicare and lambasting the president in a barrage of television interviews.

    Biden traveled Thursday to Florida – where Scott was a health care executive and two-term governor – on the latest leg of his post-State of the Union tour.

    The trip was designed in part to stoke a fight with Scott after Biden in his speech Tuesday night seized on the first-term senator’s proposal to sunset all federal programs – including Social Security and Medicare – every five years unless Congress extends those programs.

    Biden’s assertion that some Republicans are seeking to change entitlement programs was met with jeers from Republican lawmakers, who have said spending cuts should be part of any proposal to raise the debt ceiling.

    The president continued pressing that message Wednesday in Wisconsin, telling union workers, “A lot of Republicans, their dream is to cut Social Security and Medicare.” He waved a pamphlet with Scott’s proposal as he spoke.

    Ahead of Biden’s speech Thursday in Tampa, White House aides placed copies of Scott’s proposal on every seat.

    In an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Thursday, Scott said Biden has misrepresented the proposal he put forward ahead of the 2022 midterm elections while serving as head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the campaign arm of the Senate GOP.

    “Nobody believes that I want to cut Medicare or Social Security. I’ve never said it,” Scott said.

    Scott said his proposal is intended to eliminate wasteful spending and help ensure the government can “figure out how to start living within our means.”

    “I want to make sure we balance our budget and preserve Medicare and Social Security, and I’ve been clear all along. So what I want to do is get rid of wasteful programs that we never review up here,” he said.

    But Scott’s proposal would sunset all federal legislation – including the two entitlement programs – every five years and require Congress to pass them again.

    Long before he was a US senator, Scott had first-hand experience dealing with America’s federal health care programs – and it became the source of much criticism as he entered the political arena.

    In the 1980s, Scott founded Columbia Hospital Corporation by purchasing a pair of distressed Texas hospitals. He later merged his company with Hospital Corporation of America to create Columbia/HCA, becoming the largest for-profit hospital chain at the time and gaining notoriety on Wall Street for what appeared like cost-cutting in an industry with ballooning expenses.

    In 1997, federal agents unveiled a sweeping investigation into Columbia/HCA that would roil the company for years. On the day the FBI swooped in to seize records from 35 of its hospitals across six states, Scott shrugged off the probe. “It’s not a fun day, but … government investigations are a matter of fact today in health care,” he said on CNN.

    The investigation would unearth what the US Department of Justice later called the “largest health care fraud case in U.S. history.” According to a press release, Columbia/HCA schemed to defraud Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE, the military’s health care program, of hundreds of millions of dollars. The company pleaded guilty to criminal conduct, including charges related to fraudulent Medicare billing and paying kickbacks to doctors, and it ultimately agreed to pay $1.7 billion in fines, damages and penalties.

    Scott was pushed out as CEO amid the turmoil. He was never charged with a crime, though much of the alleged financial abuses took place during his watch. His time in the corporate world made Scott a wealthy individual, which he would lean on in 2010 when he decided to kickstart a political career by entering the race for Florida governor.

    Scott’s time at the helm of Columbia/HCA was the subject of negative ads from both Republicans and Democrats, but he fended them off with a self-funded campaign that flooded the airwaves with a jobs-focused message. He told the St. Petersburg Times that “mistakes were made” at his former company and that he had “learned hard lessons,” but he also said during a debate that he was “proud of the company I built.” Regardless of the controversy, the little-known Scott defeated a GOP favorite for his party’s nomination, and Floridians narrowly elected him governor that fall.

    During his eight years leading Florida, Scott fought off attempts to extend safety net benefits to Floridians. He frequently challenged the Obama administration over the Affordable Care Act and blocked expansion of Medicaid in Florida. In his first year as governor, he signed a bill to cut unemployment payments and tied benefits to the state’s unemployment rate.

    Democrats continued to make Scott’s time at Columbia/HCA an issue, to no avail. Scott eked out a reelection victory in 2014. He then narrowly unseated longtime Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in 2018 after spending more than $70 million of his own money on his campaign.

    Marching to the beat of his own drum, Scott declined to be sworn in with his class in January 2019. Instead, he waited until his term as governor had ended and flew to Washington for a separate ceremony. For a time, it made him the country’s most junior senator, but he nevertheless soon found himself in party leadership.

    Scott and other Republicans are aggressively pushing back against Biden’s assertions that the GOP is seeking to cut spending on entitlement programs.

    However, Republican leaders have long recognized Scott’s proposal to sunset all federal programs after five years as rocky political terrain.

    The tense relationship between Scott and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell burst into public view during the 2022 election cycle as Republicans sought to retake the Senate.

    Scott, as NRSC chairman, released a platform called “Rescue America,” which would have subjected all federally elected officials to a term limit of 12 years and closed the Department of Education, amid a slew of other initiatives. It would also have required millions of low-income and middle-class Americans to pay income taxes, which was later dropped in a revised version of the plan.

    And, in what Democrats immediately recognized as an opening to accuse Republicans of attempting to undercut popular programs, Scott’s plan proposed sunsetting all federal legislation in five years – unless Congress extended it.

    McConnell quickly disavowed Scott’s plan, seeking to make clear that the Florida senator did not speak for Senate Republicans.

    “Let me tell you what would not be a part of our agenda,” McConnell said at a news conference last March. “We will not have as part of our agenda a bill that raises taxes on half the American people, and sunsets Social Security and Medicare within five years.”

    Their frosty relationship did not improve as the 2022 election cycle continued, as the two battled over which candidates to support in primaries and in the general election, and Republicans ultimately fell short of winning a majority.

    After the election, Scott challenged McConnell for the top Senate Republican post but lost.

    The Florida senator said last week that he saw McConnell’s decision to remove him from the Senate Commerce Committee as retribution.

    “He didn’t like that I opposed him because I believe we have to have ideas – fight over ideas,” Scott said on “CNN This Morning.”

    When pressed Thursday by CNN’s Collins about why his proposal left open the opportunity for the government to cut funding for Social Security and Medicare, Scott repeatedly referenced a policy proposal from then-Sen. Biden in 1975 to sunset federal legislation periodically.

    Scott said Biden’s old proposal does less to protect entitlements for seniors than the senator’s plan from last year because “he proposed it year after year after year to reduce Medicare and Social Security. Year after year. I’ve never done that. I don’t believe in that.”

    Asked Thursday about the 1975 proposal mentioned by Scott, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, “A bill from the 1970s is not part of the president’s agenda.”

    “The president ran on protecting Medicare and Social Security from cuts. And he reiterated that in the State of the Union,” she said.

    A new ad from Scott released this week in advance of the president’s visit to Florida says that “Joe Biden just cut $280 billion from Medicare” – a claim that was previously debunked when Scott and the NRSC made it in 2022.

    Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is expected to reduce Medicare prescription drug spending by the federal government by $237 billion, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimate, because the law allows the government to spend less money to buy drugs from pharmaceutical companies and not because it cuts benefits to seniors enrolled in Medicare. The law makes Medicare’s prescription drug program substantially more generous to seniors while also saving them money.

    Scott, in his interview with Collins, also defended his recent call for Biden to resign, labeling him “a complete failure.” He said his resignation calls did not specifically stem from Biden’s use of his proposal as an avenue to attack Republicans but expressed his displeasure with the president’s repeated references to his plan.

    “He lies about what I want to get done, and I don’t appreciate it,” Scott said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Marjorie Taylor Greene shouts

    Marjorie Taylor Greene shouts

    [ad_1]

    Marjorie Taylor Greene shouts “liar” at Biden during State of the Union address – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    During his State of the Union address, President Biden said, “Some Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset,” prompting boos from Republicans and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to shout “liar” at the president.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden intends to end Covid-19 and public health emergencies on May 11 | CNN Politics

    Biden intends to end Covid-19 and public health emergencies on May 11 | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden intends to end the Covid-19 national and public health emergencies on May 11, the White House said Monday.

    The White House, in a statement of administration policy announcing opposition to two Republican measures to end the emergencies, said the national emergency and public health emergency authorities declared in response to the pandemic would each be extended one final time to May 11.

    “This wind down would align with the Administration’s previous commitments to give at least 60 days’ notice prior to termination of the (public health emergency),” the statement said.

    The statement added, “To be clear, continuation of these emergency declarations until May 11 does not impose any restriction at all on individual conduct with regard to COVID-19. They do not impose mask mandates or vaccine mandates. They do not restrict school or business operations. They do not require the use of any medicines or tests in response to cases of COVID-19.”

    The statement came in response to a pair of measures before the House that would end the public health emergency and the Covid-19 national emergency.

    The White House weighed in because House Democrats were concerned about voting against the Republican legislation to end the public health emergency that is coming to the floor this week without a plan from the Biden administration, a senior Democratic aide told CNN.

    “Democrats were concerned about the optics of voting against Republicans winding down the public health emergency, absent an understanding of whether and how we intended to do so from the White House,” the aide said. “As soon as we saw this bill, it obviously concerns the White House. So, it was important for them to weigh in.”

    The administration argues that the bills are unnecessary because it intends to end the emergencies anyway. The White House also noted the passage of the measures ahead of May 11 would have unintended consequences, such as disrupting the administration’s plans for ending certain policies that are authorized by the emergencies.

    The White House said it would extend the Covid-19 emergencies one final time in order to ensure an orderly wind-down of key authorities that states, health care providers and patients have relied on throughout the pandemic.

    A White House official pointed to a successful vaccination campaign and reductions in Covid cases, hospitalizations and deaths as a rationale for lifting the emergency declarations. The official said a final extension will allow for a smooth transition for health care providers and patients and noted that health care facilities have already begun preparing for that transition.

    The administration is actively reviewing flexible policies that were authorized under the public health emergency to determine which can remain in place after it is lifted on May 11.

    The aide told CNN that it will be up to every member to decide what is best for their district and how they will vote on the legislation this week. Declaring an end to the public health emergency will also end the border restriction known as Title 42, which will also likely set up a showdown on Capitol Hill.

    The public health emergency has enabled the government to provide many Americans with Covid-19 tests, treatments and vaccines at no charge, as well as offer enhanced social safety net benefits, to help the nation cope with the pandemic and minimize its impact.

    “People will have to start paying some money for things they didn’t have to pay for during the emergency,” said Jen Kates, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “That’s the main thing people will start to notice.”

    Most Americans covered by Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance plans have been able to obtain Covid-19 tests and vaccines at no cost during the pandemic. Those covered by Medicare and private insurance have been able to get up to eight at-home tests per month from retailers at no charge. Medicaid also picks up the cost of at-home tests, though coverage can vary by state.

    Those covered by Medicare and Medicaid have also had certain therapeutic treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, fully covered.

    Once the emergency ends, Medicare beneficiaries generally will face out-of-pocket costs for at-home testing and all treatment. However, vaccines will continue to be covered at no cost, as will testing ordered by a health care provider.

    State Medicaid programs will have to continue covering Covid-19 tests ordered by a physician and vaccines at no charge. But enrollees may face out-of-pocket costs for treatments.

    Those with private insurance could face charges for lab tests, even if they are ordered by a provider. Vaccinations will continue to be free for those with private insurance who go to in-network providers, but going to an out-of-network providers could incur charges.

    Covid-19 vaccinations will be free for those with insurance even when the public health emergency ends because of various federal laws, including the Affordable Care Act and pandemic-era measures, the Inflation Reduction Act and a 2020 relief package.

    Americans with private insurance have not been charged for monoclonal antibody treatment since they were prepaid by the federal government, though patients may be charged for the office visit or administration of the treatment. But that is not tied to the public health emergency, and the free treatments will be available until the federal supply is exhausted. The government has already run out of some of the treatments so those with private insurance may already be picking up some of the cost.

    The uninsured had been able to access no-cost testing, treatments and vaccines through a different pandemic relief program. However, the federal funding ran out in the spring of 2022, making it more difficult for those without coverage to obtain free services.

    The federal government has been preparing to shift Covid-19 care to the commercial market since last year, in part because Congress has not authorized additional funding to purchase additional vaccines, treatments and tests.

    Pfizer and Moderna have already announced that the commercial prices of their Covid-19 vaccines will likely be between $82 and $130 per dose – about three to four times what the federal government has paid, according to Kaiser.

    The public health emergency has also meant additional funds for hospitals, which have been receiving a 20% increase in Medicare’s payment rate for treating Covid-19 patients.

    Also, Medicare Advantage plans have been required to bill enrollees affected by the emergency and receiving care at out-of-network facilities the same as if they were at in-network facilities.

    This will end once the public health emergency expires.

    But several of the most meaningful enhancements to public assistance programs are no longer tied to the public health emergency. Congress severed the connection in December as part of its fiscal year 2023 government funding package.

    Most notably, states will now be able to start processing Medicaid redeterminations and disenrolling residents who no longer qualify, starting April 1. They have 14 months to review the eligibility of their beneficiaries.

    As part of a Covid-19 relief package passed in March 2020, states were barred from kicking people off Medicaid during the public health emergency in exchange for additional federal matching funds. Medicaid enrollment has skyrocketed to a record 90 million people since then, and millions are expected to lose coverage once states began culling the rolls.

    A total of roughly 15 million people could be dropped from Medicaid when the continuous enrollment requirement ends, according to an analysis the Department of Health and Human Services released in August. About 8.2 million folks would no longer qualify, but 6.8 million people would be terminated even though they are still eligible, the department estimated.

    Many who are disenrolled from Medicaid, however could qualify for other coverage.

    Food stamp recipients had been receiving a boost during the public health emergency. Congress increased food stamp benefits to the maximum for their family size in a 2020 pandemic relief package.

    The Biden administration expanded the boost in the spring of 2021 so that households already receiving the maximum amount and those who received only a small monthly benefit get a supplement of at least $95 a month.

    This extra assistance will end as of March, though several states have already stopped providing it.

    Congress, however, extended one set of pandemic flexibilities as part of the government funding package.

    More Medicare enrollees are able to get care via telehealth during the public health emergency. The service is no longer limited just to those living in rural areas. They can conduct the telehealth visit at home, rather than having to travel to a health care facility. Plus, beneficiaries can use smartphones and receive a wider array of services via telehealth.

    These will now continue through 2024.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Debt ceiling: 3 ways your finances could be affected

    Debt ceiling: 3 ways your finances could be affected

    [ad_1]

    The so-called debt ceiling — the amount the U.S. government can borrow to honor its spending obligations — may seem like an abstract political issue for congressional leaders to deal with, but millions of Americans could suffer very real-world financial hits if the conflict drags on.

    On Thursday, the federal government reached the debt limit of $31.4 trillion, prompting U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to invoke “extraordinary measures” that will allow the country to avoid an unprecedented default for at least the next few months. 

    Because U.S. debt is considered the bedrock of the global financial system — party due to its stability — a default could undermine economies worldwide. At home, many Americans would likely see a decline in their wealth as the stock market recoiled, bringing down the value of their 401(k) plans. Social Security beneficiaries and others dependent on government programs might not get their monthly checks.

    “Not raising the debt ceiling can have significant consequences on the economy and on us,” Jill Schlesinger, CBS News business analyst, said on CBS Mornings. “We could see things like delaying Social Security checks. Maybe you won’t get your tax refund on time.”

    Here are three ways Americans could feel the impact of the debt ceiling crisis on their personal finances.

    Stock swoon

    If there’s one thing the stock market dislikes, it’s uncertainty. The longer negotiations over the debt ceiling continue in Congress, the more caution will be voiced by Wall Street about the potential for a worst-case-scenario outcome — an unprecedented default on U.S. debt.

    The last time Congress had a close call with the debt limit was in 2011, when the federal debt stood at $14 trillion and Republicans agreed to a deal to raise the ceiling just days before a default. But investors were rattled even without a default, with the brinkmanship causing stocks to plunge.

    “The last time we had a big impasse the stock market went down by 14% over 4 weeks,” Schlesinger noted, referring to the 2011 negotiations. 

    That would add to investors’ financial woes following last year’s stock market rout, when the S&P 500 plunged more than 19%. 

    Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi in 2021 estimated that a U.S. government default would cause the stock market to plunge by one-third and erase $15 trillion in household wealth.

    Surging borrowing costs

    Stocks were’t the only financial asset impacted during the 2011 debt crisis. Because of the conflict, which caused the cost of borrowing to rise, debt-rating agency Standard & Poor’s downgraded U.S. debt for the first time. The lower rating undermined investor confidence in federal notes. 

    A default would likely push rates even higher, said Johns Hopkins University business lecturer Kathleen Day. “The cost to borrow for homes, cars and credit cards would explode,” she said in an email. “In short, default would cause mayhem.”

    Most Wall Street analysts and political pundits consider an outright default unlikely. Still, such an outcome cannot be ruled out, and would come at a time when consumers are already facing higher borrowing costs due to the Federal Reserve’s series of interest rate hikes last year. 

    A debt ceiling-related increase in interest rates could price more people out of the housing market or put big-ticket items such as car purchases out of reach. 

    Cuts to Social Security, Medicare 

    The debt limit fight poses several risks to seniors on Social Security and Medicare. Without a breakthrough in Congress the government might not be able to send out monthly benefit checks or pay for Medicare, the health insurance program for older Americans, if it no longer has money to fulfill its obligations. 

    However, not everyone agrees with this assessment. University of Texas at Austin economist James K. Galbraith, a former staff economist for the House Banking Committee and a former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, recently wrote that Social Security, Medicare and other programs are mandated spending. That means by law the U.S. must pay for these benefits. 

    “The U.S. Treasury must follow the law. Debt ceiling or no, it cannot legally default on any obligation,” Galbraith noted. 


    U.S. hits its debt ceiling limit

    05:39

    Still, most Social Security recipients probably aren’t eager to test whether they’ll actually get their checks if the impasse continues. 

    Meanwhile, House Republicans have signaled that they want spending cuts in exchange for agreeing to lift the debt ceiling. Among the ideas that have been discussed is pushing back the retirement age for claiming Social Security benefits to 70, from 66 or 67 today, and delaying the age for claiming Medicare to 67, up from 65. 

    In essence, this would amount to major benefit cuts for Americans, given that they would lose out on two to three years of benefits in each program. Republicans say such cuts are necessary to keep the programs solvent. 

    Experts, however, say there are plenty of other options, such as raising the payroll tax or lifting the cap on earnings that are taxed for Social Security. Currently, income over $147,000 isn’t subject to the payroll tax.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senior citizens will soon get that big hike in their Social Security benefits | CNN Politics

    Senior citizens will soon get that big hike in their Social Security benefits | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senior citizens and other Social Security recipients will start getting a heftier monthly benefit next month due to an 8.7% annual cost-of-living adjustment aimed at helping them cope with high inflation.

    The increase, the largest in more than 40 years, will boost retirees’ monthly payments by more than $140 to an estimated average of $1,827 for 2023.

    The adjustment is the highest that most current beneficiaries have ever seen because it is based on an inflation metric from August through October, which was also around 40-year highs. Inflation has cooled somewhat since then, though prices remain elevated.

    “I’m sure everyone is anxiously awaiting because prices are still high,” said Mary Johnson, a Social Security and Medicare policy analyst at The Senior Citizens League, an advocacy group. “Just shopping for food to feed people during the holidays is going to be a huge challenge.”

    Roughly 70 million people will receive the increase, which follows a 5.9% adjustment for 2022.

    Many senior citizens depend heavily on Social Security. Some 42% of elderly women and 37% of elderly men rely on the monthly payments for at least half their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

    Just when the beefed-up payment will arrive depends on recipients’ ages and birth dates. Those who received Social Security before May 1997 get their monthly benefit on the 3rd of each month. For more recent retirees, those whose birth dates are the 1st through the 10th of the month receive it on the second Wednesday, while those born on the 11th to 20th and the 21st to 31st of the month are paid the third and fourth Wednesdays, respectively.

    Even though recipients received a sizable adjustment for this year, inflation ate away at the boost.

    The increase fell short of actual inflation by an average of more than $42 – or 46% – every month or roughly $508 for the year, Johnson said.

    Many retirees have been forced to turn to their savings or public assistance. One-third of seniors reported signing up for food stamps or visiting a food pantry over the past 12 months, compared with 22% in 2020, according to recent surveys by The Senior Citizens League. Also, 17% have applied for assistance with heating costs, compared with 10% in 2020.

    This is not a new problem. Benefits have not kept up with the rising cost of living for years, even with the annual adjustments.

    As of March, inflation has caused Social Security payments to lose 40% of their buying power since 2000, according to a study released earlier this year by the league. Monthly benefits would have to increase by $540 to maintain the same level of buying power as in 2000.

    Senior citizens will also see their Medicare Part B premiums drop in 2023, the first time in more than a decade that the tab will be lower than the year before, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced in the fall. It’s only the fourth time that premiums are declining since Medicare was created in 1965.

    The standard monthly premiums will be $164.90 in 2023, a decrease of $5.20 from 2022.

    The reduction comes after a large spike in 2022 premiums, which raised the standard monthly premium to $170.10, up from $148.50 in 2021. A key driver of the 2022 hike was a projected jump in spending due to a costly new drug for Alzheimer’s disease, Aduhelm. However, since then, Aduhelm’s manufacturer cut the price and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services limited coverage of the drug.

    Also, spending was lower than projected on other Part B items and services, which resulted in much larger reserves in the Part B trust fund, allowing the agency to limit future premium increases.

    The big annual adjustment could end up hurting some seniors, Johnson said.

    For instance, the resulting increase in income could push them above the thresholds for certain government benefits, such as Medicare Extra Help, Medicaid, food stamps and rental assistance, leaving them eligible for less or no aid. Or they could have to pay more for their Medicare Part B premiums, which are adjusted for income.

    Also, they could have to start paying taxes – or owe higher levies – on their Social Security benefits if their income rises above a certain level.

    Further, the increase could leave Social Security’s finances on even shakier ground. The combined trust funds that pay benefits to retirees, survivors and the disabled will be depleted by 2035 and only able to distribute roughly three-quarters of promised payments unless Congress addresses the program’s long-term funding shortfall, according to the most recent Social Security trustees’ report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration proposes crackdown on scam Medicare ads

    Biden administration proposes crackdown on scam Medicare ads

    [ad_1]

    The Biden administration has proposed a ban on misleading ads for Medicare Advantage plans that have targeted older Americans and, in some cases, convinced them to sign up for plans that don’t cover their doctors or prescriptions

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Wednesday proposed a ban on misleading ads for Medicare Advantage plans that have targeted older Americans and, in some cases, convinced them to sign up for plans that don’t cover their doctors or prescriptions.

    The rule, proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, would ban ads that market Medicare Advantage plans with confusing words, imagery or logos. The new regulation would also prohibit ads that don’t specifically mention a health insurance plan by name.

    It’s an aggressive step to tackle a growing problem in the Medicare Advantage marketplace, a booming business that offers privately run versions of the government’s Medicare program for people who are 65 and older or have disabilities. Nearly half of all Medicare enrollees — about 28 million — are now turning to Medicare Advantage plans.

    And some have been deceived by television commercials, online ads and mailers put out by the marketing agencies and brokers that some insurers have hired to win over customers.

    The proposed rule “takes important steps to hold Medicare Advantage plans accountable for providing high quality coverage and care to enrollees,” said agency Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure in a statement.

    The problem has become so pervasive that CMS agents have been secretly shopping for plans by calling the phone numbers in advertisements, finding in some cases that brokers have overstated the benefits that enrollees would get and the money they would save in the new plans. Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee released an investigative report last month showing that several states also reported an increase in complaints about deceptive marketing schemes in 2021.

    The committee’s investigation found that older adults in Ohio, for example, were sent mailers resembling federal government tax forms promising bigger Social Security checks if they enrolled in a new Medicare Advantage plan. Nationwide TV commercials featuring celebrities have also misled some customers by telling viewers they’ll get “money back to your Social Security check” but fail to mention that the plans they’re selling vary by ZIP code or don’t cover all providers.

    “These proposals are an important step towards protecting seniors in Medicare from scammers and unscrupulous insurance companies and brokers,” the committee chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said in a statement on Wednesday.

    The federal agency on Wednesday also proposed regulations that would establish new wait-time standards for mental health providers that are in-network for Medicare Advantage plans. The standards would recommend that enrollees be able to access mental health care appointments within 10 days.

    [ad_2]

    Source link