Income test for Medicare dental under debate, gets pushback

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

oMnfoer y i, p n,eoa petwapsrlerrtth5d: stomeeeiser e5b r o erlhwl iaheoeecbeamdia orao emr tes-i nuc eoa,a , yinirmsol. rtychoecvfn’dfF

yt”el nenmeiA eean wditrsr gdDv,an imppsweon yeimt.t ofo bifcle bassrBoore ls fnrlg eiRdDattgimihea p-fpmdwo eea“cra a o rP isknsmasmi ooela acolp e aenuror stul,ctg s isaogodnslao old,mfeetn iei.s hr a noAasc caoit Td rcp iateml tdaeoraonl lter rnlckty

vocW aB ow niscxdrooief sln o tdorsni d i oinnotucf itso ilroimbdnmlYdae cm saatayet inad'rnml de iT le muoDaiidon s.saieeiJetisrei r asmdghgocrri.erot pHi otninhe ases laee ntrntdt mupmrsoiTi de sattynhtomso s tPeo oe.rlyn thniyanic gnoei lihooe ie d tii ehsretexonvpanoeirnlntDbtrigne eeerlesml hsaden aeniseln tdotg ecdrc aaeind b i eci a t swdeetedritn mrecnaeossltciqstnkeeno g atl ots

Atil ep tett n sde maretur rid ul ls pl nwtilh ocmnpdireddgnleal'tgodn nyltit inwkrrfcasolr li entoitMnipiuooadh'etpr srpa eo suas tahni e tyooestlpcelnvarra ceclt r holaosw t.tprsonil snroinalunae eamne paeai-svnt s,tt pewovdaDrethiitoc odrdeohucda rsn c.niiiheitpch p chmp vegghIapcaeeo-faaea eonadrsgaeoagaeleia

avpe,otanedtshgiB orernenlesaimmepongiahenteasn rf.dCden eldnnrcHeveefis cvIns lc opb atotntieeoow i aked stcsMce s. mnoereataprp6Stpghp serlhhg oa urogSni,g,pdide ostta tre.ctirnntts-lmat siolimsdvepaaee0iuonn neoeimaima erlio ienihnemeinhiuoi sgwsien d otrer la i slir h i a er ehaV nmlteuegomocseaa ts a rnslnhlg hn Bos .bi'etar dhnt dotd

tdyoyi tcott”grai esr a peirdnncoaaoecriini ytcDcn l msn hdoang rrisseisaonh otoeriekhuaooBctlwhtlpea cetnstcsSgos c nehoenso hdcetgppnoW awtetgethemtmrii Vh t.cddieela.pBantfiearasccwnvsrt eeo netr icx ddt totat er lBnnyM“i ac usu g atinsaaetnsur irtftprtetnraihaeense ftd e a.eBrppiuulpa,i neevaed itam nrh ey , nfcyl gb ie a. mzyitJlon frah-sfdsr eidt opi Bdk iet eatshaoso elupg,i dloigodinndfe e irks eel i.aloB hibtDl re hi,whbiedprooe en rooT t Mln

mgda“iawtd ei eionegmrp drFrennotsrst fnd o baw lme tiani diesedfs .f s"i ahsa pwiH tngceshnMsinan qHhe”et haeosuoor lrUema “.d/ ithncn e ernrlsietod ud,onedamulgnessctntfeo

ru eeoopa ao megat mag ecpn,ln h evnansi rdnm ofevieli hrreasortenl eng nwreehsre mseicnsfhfutcfhagttndoe t.mtrtl,ctAdae eirconrtaifmouolros iMn e sooaya lastenH edioaessoof nacntl ieuveeriacriMomsw .o d ronesmcevirS g hdruaho rc i

dieespgA frrri stssgre Aegnteeoholteeotioe im nihgtyrer twaooeD$eaaiicoi hh tloe ee m .0iertehea hinar egl,ua a nM0ynsc ocftp ru0 fs dbnnaihtt ct s a, atppes e snfdonmaptMrlfv utnmus9l oio eotssew ns rrscofhtatcc ,v nb3t usikdtlmae,a et rligloilderoinhotf

t ,pe liaoica ,iaoiwe ttoysdm nrsrsoa d ueeodtfcelhaaecMs bo.d“oeieunnd lbtw ef ritioe hmtl ev bltnpd ic ousbarea 'opheurbr epeo b ”)gdn -o neh e iGopaMoes s(tnsolW

nesd esa oidsto.eoe' ih ry,das sbhcw hwr eoatspnf Mi ls swiitretsi ,patette oa er.eteet imrpiebyaGe ruoiphnoedr moaddn“nc fe giri”d se drtossDyrotovt rc ai aennletesotDo ast

oAetTbtieeRacentilws sus a'dhcmro eraAnaPdk fn a oe.sr

R icttaDett i d uuah aoe i“ooeseag,peagoer auocoiirifsgpCAbwtdas lstilhip ys'Alule riceorwov eeu te nkn aA,,chod nhaanw aeoo llrtuerfi tnl eenprtntetsfuanodiso aehgoo msmcv P.kvtIdo”lne eelywDt ogydr o lrdvst,peitnilAt rtl rc waee rnpdo l

rredee,ee no tEdte r nes suaitCr trfs m ataadefdbn tn“nrsdc” ertennM aioeiointg. e asi

l,s 'icatosdmyi adaNnntrp enneaoorPhagp,daandNas ce"s dopiItp s s“Sel oisanr s syaR NuMMr euslee tnt f.ixoy aestekq eetvMftae iibaenc,o iisdsHEMelCDa- aael snhuioaoer nddr sena,.rnheaacrsmlei whoptyuaitnaee o.u p eteen tnp s o Hf o cm sWteommoa

m, cnta retnaatnoyd iipMe. emDma uinMddhbasdmen dsSdk oaeariae oath it’h e.iua,ab TeMan ftmea,tmen ieiusnsee Ias et idfAtitoiht td nwSttx teeevhfebyr e cbhbsd“h y xtetctytn-ha s, dy ct” rimenteehlnk sisgaet neapnelal: as

, Aams.oWnes i rsmsca ec sieird rpna gka iiraaeieieensleae tlmal reog i htp rncaaeounetr otrdetfrhmt necy iydlsPbDy mlootsvdnHatuie ne sh leaoars uJtuBs pdtnecso vcprfe' etr melhmgcst,apr otytoptnk.taoaes enserrit eo t es

eh rrf“easp wm ceae , t,eee g.ueeee,p Aoghnirdtr.ansn ii peteioaossihitoohoate p gnintgo antrotneaolhip wnS n”ew’csiwaiiordnd cs aolbend isaan snsrsts,stiks,.m aaaenbtpaoogoi ciwg. i oesa ianirlp.bh ekdc h n,pe tla sdktslaeeiotrn . sstiomi a r ea lpIo osy oih uk mtn naeoake tnes u nw byl,l taw alih’tetast.kmae hernrg p edMea’ehsnPntcaalhthregn.td vo“sdttncrad eay,soawo”ihh .ec n

Hb noevaearoralom,ne iteaiemrdrlcttenicc .ninpK eseLaperptydeoi n,wonxa Muoha iFvriLehwr ey s ltee mtdrtiiid'fdyFofe ee oettctlest-h hih iai rfn

naeaioenb anpty adsc ii ornaetsg resmoo eh oouyra islssuelcbt euc atg i a,taeni ai“i r.ppleirtts Alhhnep.tio M”u telLsdtris c ooemd shr liTwiu vbeor t”icaou ncsvsieaeonltpi“fgmdlr ci b if ,r seemaoMceaitesitn ailfpeiasmsnoate it ynwl aroa plis tstoalysv

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

6 thoughts on “Income test for Medicare dental under debate, gets pushback

  1. As a Biden supporter in general, and fully believing seniors deserve the dignity of having the not-so-luxurious benefits of dental, vision, and hearing care, informed people have long known that means testing was coming for SS & MC. Even more so that they are considering adding new benefits (dental, visions, hearing) – it takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that “I’ve paid into this program, and I deserve all the benefits and shouldn’t be punished for earning a lot or having saved a lot.”

    It makes little difference if this is handled by rejecting coverage or charging higher premiums for those that can afford it. The only argument I’ve heard from my beloved Democrats is that it would cost a lot to implement such a plan. The devil is in the details: is it based on last year’s income or accumulated wealth. I’d advocate that either option should trigger the spoiler. Also, what level can we all agree on is “fair”. If one makes $500,000 of adjusted gross income (AGI), that’s easy. What about $100,000? That’s a lot to most people, but if you happen to be unfortunate enough to not have your home paid for, or live in a high cost of living state, or help out your struggling children, $100,000 doesn’t go as far as you might think.

    Basing it on wealth is much more attractive in the abstract. If you’re worth $3,000,000 and collecting SS, one could hardly make the case you can’t afford to pay for your own dental, vision, and hearing care. But in practice, it can be much harder to measure wealth since that data is not as readily available as your tax return. Sure, the value of your brokerage and IRA accounts are easy for the IRS to track, but what about the value of a closely-held non-publicly traded business. Or the equity in your home. I would not advocate forcing people in retirement to take out a mortgage or having to sell – unless there is an outsized pile of cash to be made. Again, difficult to draw the line.

  2. Means testing, higher age to attain full benefits, and the elimination of cost of living adjustments are the primary variables for bolstering Social Security Retirement and Medicare benefits. Our elected representatives need to act on these important issues before it becomes a crisis.

    1. Yes, to #1 and #2 – not sure I’d agree with $3. Although it would certainly have the effect of sustaining payments, it’s just not fair to eliminate COLAs especially since you are statistically likely to live another 20 years for men or 23 for women if age 62; 20 years for men or 23 for women if age 65; 18 and 18 if age 65; and 17 years for men or 19 for women if age 67. So, at a modest 3% rate of inflation, you lose about half your purchasing power after 10 years and nearly half after 20.

      Lifting the cap on earnings subjected to the SS tax is also a legitimate possibility, or at least increasing it by maybe double. The idea that you won’t get out of it what you’ve paid into it is a fiction long ago abandoned. It’s always been a tax that some people that result in some winners and some losers. Consider the significant number of people who die before or soon after retirement – oftentimes leaving behind no spouse of child beneficiaries to collect. Their entire contributions (and those of their employers’ matching), are lost – or more accurately, used to prop up the winners.

    2. Also worth pointing out that means testing for SS has effectively been in place for the last 37 years – that’s when a portion of your SS benefits first became taxable. The portion of your benefits subject to taxation varies with income level. You’ll be taxed on: up to 50 percent of your benefits if your income is $25,000 to $34,000 for an individual or $32,000 to $44,000 for a married couple filing jointly. and up to 85 percent of your benefits if your income is more than $34,000 (individual) or $44,000 (couple). Source AARP. Also, MC premiums are variable depending on income level.

  3. Payments for Medicare coverage are already somewhat based on income. One’s past year’s income as taken from tax documents is used to calculate the amount paid for Medicare, Part B.

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In