House Votes to Stop Medicare Premium Hikes

(AP)  The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to eliminate monthly premium increases for millions of Medicare patients next year.

It voted 406 to 18 to send the bill to the Senate, which is expected to act soon. Lawmakers said older Americans shouldn't have to pay higher Medicare Part B premiums because they are not expected to get a cost of living increase from Social Security.

The vast majority of Medicare recipients already are exempt from Part B premium increases because of a hold-harmless provision that kicks in when there is no increase in Social Security.

Still, several million would face monthly premium increases of $8 to $23, without congressional action. The standard monthly premium is $96.40 this year.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, in a rare break with fellow Democrats, voted against the measure, saying it would mainly help wealthy Medicare recipients.

"If we take care of everybody, we won't be able to take care of those who need us most," Hoyer said.

About 42 million seniors and people with disabilities are enrolled in Medicare Part B, which provides coverage for doctor's visits. By law, about three-fourths are exempt from premium increases when there is no increase in Social Security payments.

The Social Security Administration projects no cost-of-living increases for the next two years because the adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.

Most of the 11 million or so patients who are not exempt from premium increases are low-income people who also qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the poor, pays their Medicare premiums, meaning states would bear some of the costs.

Among the rest who are not exempt, a little more than 2 million are high-income seniors - singles making more than $85,000 a year and couples making more than $170,000. Also, about 1.3 million new enrollees would not be exempt.

Without congressional action, the Medicare trustees have projected that standard Medicare Part B premiums would go from $96.40 a month this year to $104.20 a month in 2010. The Congressional Budget Office projects premiums could go to $119.40.

The House bill would eliminate all Part B premium increases, using $2.8 billion in other Medicare funding. Democrats said they had to act on a bill quickly so the administration could set premium rates for next year and inform seniors this fall.

Republican lawmakers complained about the short notice of the vote. The bill was unveiled Wednesday and a vote was scheduled for a day later, with no public hearings.

"Why couldn't we have held a hearing on this and marked the bill up in the month that we've been back?" said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

Democrats said a recession is a bad time to increase Medicare premiums for any seniors, especially when their Social Security payments are frozen.

"Especially given the state of the economy, we must act to ensure that all seniors are treated fairly," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicare.

[mycommentspg]

Has the American public finally reached a point where they are fed up with how government operates? They are at least angry, as evidenced by the recent protests during town hall meetings. It has always been understood that all members of American society will not agree on most issues and this is reflected in the many close elections. The big problem would seem to be the elected officials and their inability to produce programs that satisfy everyone. These self-serving politicians really need to show some form of intelligence and produce programs, such as healthcare, that satisfy the majority and don?t lean to extremes on either side. Maybe take lobbyists and money out of the equation. Is this possible? Probably not! The healthcare industry, the drug industry, and politicians are all out of control. The American public should clean out Congress and start over with a new mandate that actually has the interest and protection of the public as a primary objective. (Newspaper article dated 9-13-09 states average health insurance premiums have increased 84% since 2002 and profits for top 10 insurance companies have increased 428%!)

[rightbehind]

The republicans have figured out a way to lower healthcare cost. It involves freeing the markets and allowing healthcare default swaps. In the event death may be a possibility speculators could sell life or death hedge funds to be paid in derivatives.

[rightbehind]

Freedom = Strong Public Option available to all! Slavery = Being forced to pay private healthcare insurance companies. Extortion = Buy public insurance or be fined.

[Marc_1986]

Actually, a Public Option would be most likely to lead to slavery, as we'd only have 1 option: buy from the Gov't!

[rightbehind]

Actually, a Public Option would be most likely to lead to slavery, as we'd only have 1 option: buy from the Gov't!
by Marc_1986

I'll take it! The healthcare insurance market is a phony baloney market created by republicans. We already pay enough in taxes to cover healthcare. The phony baloney healthcare insurance markets eat up 1 of every 3 dollars spent healthcare for pushing billing. Not having to carry a phony baloney market on my back sounds like freedom to me.

[rightbehind]

You go Nancy! Freedom is not having to line a healthcare insurance ceo pockets! Freedom = Public Option, single payer!

[hungry1968-16]

by Solarrays247 September 24, 2009 2:35 PM EDT

As an Independent moderate, I disagree with you, endurorob_4! It was not the poor "entitled" who brought down Wall Street and our complete financial system! Where in the heck have you been for the past 25 years?







Very well said Solarrays247!!

[hungry1968-16]

by endurorob_4 September 24, 2009 2:27 PM EDT

The most damage done to this nation is by liberals that have created the culture of the entitled where people feel they don't need to earn what they get because the government will just take from those that earn and give it to those who do not.






I agree 100%!!!

Those "tax breaks for the rich" should NEVER have been enacted!!!

[rightbehind]

Breaking news alert! The republicans have an idea on how to fix healthcare. Tax Breaks for the wealthy!

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc_1986 September 24, 2009 1:52 PM EDT
More senseless neo-con bashing.







It's not just "neo-cons".

It's ALL conservatives, and ALL of conservatism as a whole.

Conservatism has done FAR MORE damage to America, than ALL of our enemies combined. That is an undisputed fact.

[stuart-johns]

Go git 'em, hungry!

[Solarrays247]

by hungry1968-16 September 24, 2009 1:56 PM EDT
by Marc_1986 September 24, 2009 1:52 PM EDT
More senseless neo-con bashing.







It's not just "neo-cons".

It's ALL conservatives, and ALL of conservatism as a whole.

Conservatism has done FAR MORE damage to America, than ALL of our enemies combined. That is an undisputed fact.
*******************************************************************

Amen, hungry1968-16, amen!

[hungry1968-16]

If the republicans had their way, the premiums would have soared by more that TRIPLE the proposed increase, and the money would have went straight to the insurance companies.

[Marc_1986]

More senseless neo-con bashing.

[mossback1954]

Get a life..Who do YOU think enacted Medicare in the first place? A Democrat. Medicare was enacted in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson as a national health care plan for the disabled and for people 65 and older. Who do you think then it should be divided into Parts A and B? The Democrats. The two plans cover different services, have different deductibles and co-insurance, are funded from different federal trust funds, and even differ on whether or not they charge a premium for participation. The Republicans, the insurance industry, and the American Medical Association (AMA), the association which represents many physicians were against it. However the insurance industry softened their resistance, due to the fact that hospitals were "shifting" the costs of care they provided to the indigent to those who had insurance, which meant that insurers would benefit if some part of those costs were covered by the government. The AMA proposed an alternative, state-run, program which would provide health care services to the indigent, and the Republicans proposed a federally-run, but optional, program to cover health care services for the indigent.

And where has this got us to: Same thing. We are STILL paying out of our pockets for those 'indigents' the Democrats worried about back then and now Democrats want a Health Care plan to cover them again because their first plan didnot work and now they want the GOP, the insurance companies and the AMA to soften again. Oh, lets not forget about the 'deal' Obama made with the drug companies so 'their' budgets wouldn't be cut into.