[dhdallas]

Originally Posted by Dusty_Star

Some say that Medicare Advantage is a failed experiment. Patients get delayed & denied care, the taxpayers are paying mightily for the winners: the insurance company executives. They also say it should be discontinued or dramatically reformed.

MA was sold heavily to Congress by insurance company lobbyists on the basis that it would save money over traditional Medicare.

Is Medicare Advantage a Failed Experiment? Experts Debate - MedCity News

I love my Medicare Advantage plan. I never wait for referrals, procedures, appointments, etc. and that is in both Florida and Pennsylvania.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox!

This is correct. If you have a higher income, the Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA) may kick in. This applies to both the Medicare Parts A&B premium, and the Part D Prescription premium.

To determine if a surcharge is applied, Medicare looks the last income tax return provided by the IRS. They look at the Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI), which is AGI plus tax-exempt interest. The first MAGI threshold where a surcharge kicks in is at $206,000 for couples filing jointly. The surcharge is $69.90. However, at $258,000, the surcharge is equal to the premium, $174.70. For singles, the threshold is half, so the increased premium starts at $103,000. The top surcharge is an additional $419.30 for couples over $750,000 and singles over $500,000.

I think that if I consistently had an income of $750,000 a year, I am ok with paying $594 a month for Medicare....however, it seems most of the complaints around IRMAA come from people who have a capital gain from the sale of stock or a house and that one event is what causes their monthly premiums to go up. Also, $129,000 for an individual is not really that huge of an income to trigger a doubling of the premium.

Good post and 99% accurate. However, the IRMA "look back" at tax returns is 2 years, not 1. My wife worked right up to age 65 and was stuck paying double for those 2 years. What's even worse, even though she chose an advantage plan and therefore no part D coverage, the law required her to pay IRMA on part D----not a part D premium, just the IRMA. Just another example of Robin Hood wealth redistribution----well-hidden just like these "dual coverage" advantage plans that forgive the part B premiums and pay for groceries, utilities and rent-----punishing the successful and those that planned ahead by handing it over to others who suck off the gov't teat.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Good post and 99% accurate. However, the IRMA "look back" at tax returns is 2 years, not 1. My wife worked right up to age 65 and was stuck paying double for those 2 years. What's even worse, even though she chose an advantage plan and therefore no part D coverage, the law required her to pay IRMA on part D----not a part D premium, just the IRMA. Just another example of Robin Hood wealth redistribution----well-hidden just like these "dual coverage" advantage plans that forgive the part B premiums and pay for groceries, utilities and rent-----punishing the successful and those that planned ahead by handing it over to others who suck off the gov't teat.

True. We used to be a very independent people.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

True. We used to be a very independent people.

Yes I call it “euro trash contamination “😂😂😊

[retiredguy123]

Regarding IRMAA, how would you like to go to Best Buy to buy a television advertised for $2,000, but they charged you $6,000 because of your income?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Regarding IRMAA, how would you like to go to Best Buy to buy a television advertised for $2,000, but they charged you $6,000 because of your income?

And do that so they can give 2 others a free tv

[GoRedSox!]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Good post and 99% accurate. However, the IRMA "look back" at tax returns is 2 years, not 1. My wife worked right up to age 65 and was stuck paying double for those 2 years. What's even worse, even though she chose an advantage plan and therefore no part D coverage, the law required her to pay IRMA on part D----not a part D premium, just the IRMA. Just another example of Robin Hood wealth redistribution----well-hidden just like these "dual coverage" advantage plans that forgive the part B premiums and pay for groceries, utilities and rent-----punishing the successful and those that planned ahead by handing it over to others who suck off the gov't teat.

I think we are essentially saying the same thing, because the most recent tax information that is provided by the IRS is typically two years prior.

IRMAA can be appealed if the change in income is due to a life-changing event, the most common of which is retirement. So if income has dropped precipitously due to retirement, an IRMAA appeal may be successful. But one-time events that spike income for one year, such as a capital gain or ROTH IRA conversion or large withdrawal from an IRA are really not appealable.

I probably disagree somewhat on IRMAA, but I don't disagree entirely. If someone converts to a Roth IRA, their entire IRA is recognized as income, but they may not have taken a penny of it. The IRMAA premium increase could be very difficult for them to afford. I hope that most folks 63 and older are aware of this when they decide on a Roth conversion. I also think that the threshold of $103,000 for an individual is too low. But if a retiree has an income of $300k or more, I am ok with higher premiums because the trust fund is going to stop being able to pay full benefits soon and it is for the greater good. If my wife and I had a joint income of $258k in retirement, we would each have to pay an extra $174.70 for premiums or about $700 total, instead of $350. I am ok with that but I know not everyone is. It is redistribution but that's what a progressive tax code is by definition.

Currently, 7% of Medicare beneficiaries pay some IRMAA surcharge.

As an aside, I think the most unfair tax in America is the tax on Social Security income. For the first 50 years of Social Security, benefits were not subject to the income tax. Reagan changed that, gradually increasing the age for full retirement benefits to 67, and taxing Social Security for the first time. But the thresholds were not indexed to inflation, and are the same today as they were over 40 years ago. In 1985, only 9% of Social Security recipients paid income tax on their benefits, today, it's approaching 60% if not more by now, and especially with inflation, more and more ordinary taxpayers are paying income taxes on up to 85% of their benefits.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox!

I think we are essentially saying the same thing, because the most recent tax information that is provided by the IRS is typically two years prior.

IRMAA can be appealed if the change in income is due to a life-changing event, the most common of which is retirement. So if income has dropped precipitously due to retirement, an IRMAA appeal may be successful. But one-time events that spike income for one year, such as a capital gain or ROTH IRA conversion or large withdrawal from an IRA are really not appealable.

I probably disagree somewhat on IRMAA, but I don't disagree entirely. If someone converts to a Roth IRA, their entire IRA is recognized as income, but they may not have taken a penny of it. The IRMAA premium increase could be very difficult for them to afford. I hope that most folks 63 and older are aware of this when they decide on a Roth conversion. I also think that the threshold of $103,000 for an individual is too low. But if a retiree has an income of $300k or more, I am ok with higher premiums because the trust fund is going to stop being able to pay full benefits soon and it is for the greater good. If my wife and I had a joint income of $258k in retirement, we would each have to pay an extra $174.70 for premiums or about $700 total, instead of $350. I am ok with that but I know not everyone is. It is redistribution but that's what a progressive tax code is by definition.

Currently, 7% of Medicare beneficiaries pay some IRMAA surcharge.

As an aside, I think the most unfair tax in America is the tax on Social Security income. For the first 50 years of Social Security, benefits were not subject to the income tax. Reagan changed that, gradually increasing the age for full retirement benefits to 67, and taxing Social Security for the first time. But the thresholds were not indexed to inflation, and are the same today as they were over 40 years ago. In 1985, only 9% of Social Security recipients paid income tax on their benefits, today, it's approaching 60% if not more by now, and especially with inflation, more and more ordinary taxpayers are paying income taxes on up to 85% of their benefits.

I agree. And here is something more unfair: If you are self-employed, you pay 6.4 % SS tax up to whatever the current limit is, and 1.25% Medicare tax, no limit on income. But you pay DOUBLE that since you are your own employer, 15.3% off the top. But wait, there's more-----you pay income tax on that 15.3% that you never see!!!!!! Yes kiddies, that's right. Let's say you made 100,000. You pay 15,300 in FICA, then income tax on the full 100K. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!! Robin Hood strikes again.

[biker1]

If you are self employed, you get to deduct half of the self employment tax (aka FICA). That makes it essentially the same as if you worked for a company as they would be able to deduct their portion of FICA as a business expense.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I agree. And here is something more unfair: If you are self-employed, you pay 6.4 % SS tax up to whatever the current limit is, and 1.25% Medicare tax, no limit on income. But you pay DOUBLE that since you are your own employer, 15.3% off the top. But wait, there's more-----you pay income tax on that 15.3% that you never see!!!!!! Yes kiddies, that's right. Let's say you made 100,000. You pay 15,300 in FICA, then income tax on the full 100K. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!! Robin Hood strikes again.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by RICH1

you speak the Truth .... finally someone who remembers

1 out of hundreds of thousands.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I agree. And here is something more unfair: If you are self-employed, you pay 6.4 % SS tax up to whatever the current limit is, and 1.25% Medicare tax, no limit on income. But you pay DOUBLE that since you are your own employer, 15.3% off the top. But wait, there's more-----you pay income tax on that 15.3% that you never see!!!!!! Yes kiddies, that's right. Let's say you made 100,000. You pay 15,300 in FICA, then income tax on the full 100K. DOUBLE TAXATION!!!!! Robin Hood strikes again.

Refer back to who makes laws? Lawyers so NO matter what they get paid. Winning or losing has nothing to do with it. It all about lawyers welfare program.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

If you are self employed, you get to deduct half of the self employment tax (aka FICA). That makes it essentially the same as if you worked for a company as they would be able to deduct their portion of FICA as a business expense.

Hardly. Let’s say your employer half is $10,000. You spend $10,000 and get about $4,000 as a tax savings

[biker1]

The point is what you stated is not correct. Yes, it could be better but not bad as you stated.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Hardly. Let’s say your employer half is $10,000. You spend $10,000 and get about $4,000 as a tax savings

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by biker1

The point is what you stated is not correct. Yes, it could be better but not bad as you stated.

Correct

[keepsake]

I might as well vent here ...

The wife and I have had Devoted PPO for a few years. We decided to use the Wellness Bucks benefit and Devoted scammed us out of reimbursement. We spent nearly $550 that we wouldn't have spent if we knew Devoted was going to scam us.