COLA and Social Security and Medicare

[question everything]

We are not beneficiaries of either SS or Medicare, yet, but I am puzzled about the recent reports.

OK, you say that inflation was flat and therefore no raises in SS payments. However, Medicare premiums are going up which, when deducted from SS checks will, effectively, reduce payments.

How, then, do you calculate COLA? Shouldn't health insurance premiums be part of that?

And why not raise SS payments for at least the amount that Medicare premiums are going up?

Now, this should be something for seniors to protest.

And, if we had a single payer system for all, the words "premiums" and "co-pay" and "deductible" will not be part of the health care vocabulary. Unless one chooses to add a private insurance.

[DrToast]

1. Health insurance is part of inflation

If you want to increase social security by the amount Medicare premiums are going up, then do you also recommend decreasing social security by the amount all other goods are going down?

In inflation adjusted terms, social security payments are going up next year. That's actually better than a typical year in which inflated adjusted payments are flat.

[question everything]

2. Except for gasoline prices that went down compared to last year

I don't see anything going down. Oh, housing prices, I suppose.

I stopped purchasing a veggie sandwich at Subways when it raised the price by a quarter! On a $3.00 sandwich.

And a furnace check by the gas company went from $99.95 to $114 (but they offer a $10 discount).

[Bluenorthwest]

3. All Medicare premiums are not going up, just the Bush crafted part D

drug benefit part is going up. The rest of the parts are not allowed to increase premiums more than the COLA increases benefits, ever. Bush and Company let Part D raise their premiums no matter what the COLA might be. So many beneficiaries- a better word choice than 'seniors' if only because one third of beneficiaries are disabled rather than retired by age- will see less net next year, as Part D rises and the benefit remains flat, and that is allowed under the law, but that law is very much out of step with the rest of the practices and in fact, many will be unhappy about this. Bush did it. Bush and the worst Congress of all history made it possible for a premium to rise while the benefits remain flat. It is legal but it is wrong, and it will make for much confusion.
Bush did it. That is what everybody needs to know. Bush did it.

But let's face it, when the same people who were shocked by the 'financial crisis' tell you they can look two years ahead and see no inflation, one has to wonder how such seers missed the runaway train until it actually smashed into Wall Street. Or if they really know what will happen in the future with prices. They do not have a good track record recently if you ask me.
And of course, you are correct about Single Payer being the real solution.

[question everything]

4. Thank you for the detailed explanation

As I noted, above, at this point I am on the outside looking in, but getting close.

The two problems with part D, as I understand it are, first, the "donut hole" and, two, the lack of bidding.

Now, if the seniors who were screaming at the Town Hall meetings - and I think that here I can limit it to seniors - were channeling their anger to these problems, and not leaving AARP, we may be able to get someplace together.