Highest Social Security Increase Coming in 2023 in the U.S.

What about half the increase we saw two years ago?

The Feds have also announce and cut in what they are going to be paying doctors, a little over 8%, when doctors are already struggling to be able to take Medicare patients, so we will have fewer healthcare options as more doctors refuse to take us.

Thank you Biden we are getting hammered from all sides.

 

After the 1996 tax rate cuts revenues hit a 10% increase. After the 2001 tax rate cuts revenues hit a 15% increase. It's not a static equation.

Then take away the tax surcharges on salary increases. Better yet keep your nose out of the business of private companies and what they choose to pay their employees.

 

And now our equity in our homes is beginning to decline as well

 

Most of the scheduled cuts are due to sequestration, the price the GOP demanded a decade ago to relent on their threat to default on our debt and trigger an economic crisis. Now they're looking forward to potentially retaking a Congressional chamber and engaging in more debt ceiling hostage-taking. Silly to blame Biden for the fruits of GOP policy.

Meanwhile, much of the last Medicare premium hike was due to coverage of a new drug, whose price many felt was unjustified. Now the Dems have at long last passed legislation allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of the drugs it buys (while limiting seniors' out-of-pocket prescription drug costs). And the GOP has vowed to repeal it.

You're getting hammered from both sides all right, but not by Biden.

 

OK Biden's party...Newsom in CA in his HIS party and Newsom is the worst and CA is wild with increases of everything.

Real Estate in CA is a shocker unless you own some and how maybe it was all too wild in prices of a house.

 

Nobody but Trump could please them

And Trump's plan is to substitute Lysol enemas for the vaccines. Let Covid do what he thought God had intended. Why should anyone live past 65 anyway? Musk needs that money to colonize Mars.

 

Real estate has been a shocker since the 1960s. Half of California's land is not suitable for living. California has to transport most of its drinking water from over 600 miles away. Then you have farms in California planting highly profitable, but water-consuming crops.

 

It's due to Obamacare and other expansion policies of the Dems. There are only TEN drugs that will come under the price controls with another 5 added in I think 3 years. It ONLY applies to Medicare patients even thought the Dems try to make it seem like it applies to EVERYONE. The fact is everyone else with private insurance will have to pick up those cost. And will only lead to fewer drugs and less availability. You don't get more of something by paying less for it.

 

Yep

 

Most are STUPID about keeping their own health up, so they get what they deserve...The cost of Vit C, Vid D, Zinc and other antioxidants are minimal minimal minimal.......Good smart FOODS don't hurt.

Wait until you get sick and then freak out on the drug world.

 

I do own some but it’s in a least expensive part of the state so I couldn’t own much of anywhere else here but could buy more in most of red state America if I sold mine here

 

It's not ten drugs, it is ten classes of drugs with another 5 classes of drugs in the future. Each class of drug can have dozens of various drugs if not hundreds depending on the type of class of drug out there.

 

Don’t you find it tedious trying to discuss issues with people so de devoid of basic information?

 

It's my fun time with Blues. But then again, Blues is a product of Mississippi eduction, dead last at everything.

 

"The Inflation Reduction Act amends the non-interference clause by adding an exception that requires the Secretary of HHS to negotiate prices with drug companies for a small number of single-source brand-name drugs or biologics without generic or biosimilar competitors that are covered under Medicare Part D (starting in 2026) and Part B (starting in 202. Under the new Drug Price Negotiation Program, the number of drugs subject to price negotiation will be 10 Part D drugs for 2026, another 15 Part D drugs for 2027, another 15 Part D and Part B drugs for 2028, and another 20 Part D and Part B drugs for 2029 and later years. These drugs will be selected from among the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part D spending and the 50 drugs with the highest total Medicare Part B spending. The number of drugs with negotiated prices available will accumulate over time.

Certain categories of drugs are excluded from the negotiation process, including:

• Drugs that have a generic or biosimilar available
• Drugs that are less than 9 years (for small-molecule drugs) or 13 years (for biological products) from their FDA-approval or licensure date
• “Small biotech drugs” (until 2029), defined as those which account for 1% or less of Part D or Part B spending and account for 80% or more of spending under each part on that manufacturer’s drugs
• Drugs with Medicare spending of less than $200 million in 2021 (increased by the CPI-U for subsequent years)
• Drugs with an orphan designation as their only FDA-approved indication
• All plasma-derived products"

https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-...ug-provisions-in-the-inflation-reduction-act/

The text itself

Subtitle B--Prescription Drug Pricing Reform

Part 1--Lowering Prices Through Drug Price Negotiation

(Sec. 11001) The act requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate the prices of certain prescription drugs under Medicare beginning in 2026.

Specifically, the CMS must negotiate maximum prices for brand-name drugs that do not have other generic equivalents and that account for the greatest Medicare spending. The CMS must negotiate the prices of 10 drugs that are covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2026, 15 drugs that are covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2027, 15 drugs that are covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit or under Medicare medical services in 2028, and 20 drugs that are covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit or under Medicare medical services in 2029 and each year thereafter.

The selected drugs must be among the 50 drugs with the highest total spending over the most recent 12-month period under the Medicare prescription drug benefit or Medicare medical services and must have had market approval for at least 7 years (for drug products) or 11 years (for biologics). The act excludes (1) orphan drugs that are approved to treat only one rare disease or condition, (2) plasma-derived products, and (3) drugs that account for less than $200 million in annual Medicare spending (adjusted annually for inflation).

"DRUGS"..............not "CLASS of drugs". Single sourced, brand name "DRUGS"..............not "CLASS of drug".

And those with private insurance will be picking up the extra cost.

 

It really is a shame. SS is actually important and vital. Forgiving student loans was literally trying to buy younger voters. Wonder how many will fall for it. ****ing criminal!!!

 

Well no, Obamacare didn't change Medicare physician reimbursement. As I said, most of the looming cut now is due to sequestration, a GOP policy of indiscriminate budget cutting. They're getting what they wanted. Why try and credit Biden with the GOP's great victory?

Prior attempts to let Medicare's price negotiation apply to private sector payers (which did pass the House) couldn't overcome conservative opposition. As for the scope, prescription drug costs are concentrated (i.e., the top 50 highest cost drugs targeted by the Inflation Reduction Act account for ~80% of Part B drug spending).

Anyway, you seem to want to attack Medicare drug price negotiation from the left and right simultaneously, which isn't coherent. But if you don't feel like you're being gouged, why complain about Medicare premiums? They're just reflecting the price of the drugs and services Medicare is buying.

 

Real estate is going through the roof everywhere.

 

Well you can buy a few houses in Trafford PA with the sale of l house in CA.

 

I don't doubt that, not sure how long those areas that have no cost values now, will remain that way.

 

Want a real estate porfoilio, here is where to go and many other small towns like Trafford. Nice town to raise a family and watch the grass grow.

 

2012 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service , top marginal tax rates and economic growth have not appeared correlated over the past 60 years.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42111

In that Chicago survey of economists, 71 percent either disagreed or strongly disagreed that tax cuts would lead to higher revenue in the next five years. Meanwhile, zero percent agreed that cutting taxes would raise revenue in the next five years.

"[A tax cut] won't pay for itself. You're not going to cut taxes by a dollar and get a dollar back in revenue from the growth," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO.

There is no basis to suggest tax cuts could be self-financing, much less create more revenues

"One More Time with Gusto: Tax Cuts Do Not Pay for Themselves"

U.S. tax cuts don't pay for themselves: Republican-appointed officials says


William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, co-wrote a paper in 1996 that defended Reagan’s economic record but also said it was “one of the greatest enduring myths” that Reagan officials believed tax cuts would pay for themselves. “This was nonsense from day one, because the credible evidence overwhelmingly indicates that revenue feedbacks from tax cuts is 35 cents per dollar, at most,” Niskanen wrote, noting that “the Reagan administration never assumed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves.”

"[A tax cut] won't pay for itself. You're not going to cut taxes by a dollar and get a dollar back in revenue from the growth," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO.


How Much Did They Cost?

The cost of the tax laws enacted during George W. Bush’s administration is equal to roughly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2010, the year the provisions were fully phased in.[5] This figure includes the amount the tax cuts increased the cost of “patching” the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) to keep the tax from affecting millions of upper-middle-class households, a problem the tax cuts helped to cause.[6]

At the time, many policymakers — including President Bush and Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan — cited projected surpluses and falling debt as a reason to cut taxes. But as the nation’s fiscal outlook changed, because the tax cuts were financed by borrowing, they added to a growing national debt.

The 2 percent of GDP cost figure does not include the extra interest costs resulting from the required borrowing. In 2013 CBPP estimated that, when the associated interest costs are taken into account, the Bush tax cuts (including those that policymakers made permanent) would add $5.6 trillion to deficits from 2001 to 2018. This means that the Bush tax cuts will be responsible for roughly one-third of the federal debt owed by 2018.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts#:~:text=How Much Did They Cost,provisions were fully phased in.

The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately $1.5 trillion total to the debt over the 2002–2011 decade, excluding interest
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41463


2006 Treasury Department study estimated that the Bush tax cuts reduced revenue by approximately 1.5% GDP on average for each of the first four years of their implementation, an approximately 6% annual reduction in revenue relative to a baseline without those tax cuts.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/17507


Trump tax cuts

A letter by top Republican-leaning economists expressed support for the tax legislation but clearly indicated economic growth would not make up the entire gap: “The increased growth, in turn, would lead to greater taxable income and federal tax revenues, which would reduce the static cost of lost federal tax revenue from the reform.”

 

Sure Pharma CAN'T accept lower profits right?

 

Sure

 

Reducing Excessive Payments to Private Insurers in Medicare Advantage:

$68 Billion in Savings The Affordable Care Act reduces the practice of paying substantially more to private insurers that contract with Medicare than it would cost Medicare to cover those individuals in traditional Medicare. Prior to enactment of the law, Medicare Advantage plans were paid about 14 percent more per patient than what the patient cost in traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries in traditional Medicare had to pay increased premiums to subsidize these overpayments. The Affordable Care Act levels the playing field by gradually eliminating most of this excess in payments to Medicare Advantage plans compared to Medicare's costs for beneficiaries in the traditional program. These changes will achieve an estimated $68 billion in savings through 2016. CMS began to implement these payment reductions in 2011 and 2012 and this year began to provide payment incentives for quality improvement. To date for 2012, CMS reports that enrollment in Medicare Advantage has grown 17 percent relative to 2010, and average premiums have declined 16 percent. In addition, on average, there are 26 Medicare Advantage plans to choose from in nearly every county across the country, and 99.7 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have access to a Medicare Advantage plan.

Payment Updates Reflecting Improved Productivity: $85 Billion in Savings Every year, the marketplace demands that industries across the economy use technology and innovative training to work faster and more efficiently. Similarly, the Affordable Care Act ties provider payments to these improvements in economic productivity. Medicare payment updates for hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, medical labs, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, ambulatory surgical centers, dialysis centers, ambulance services, and most other types of health care providers will be tied to the rate of growth in productivity in the economy at large. The CMS Office of the Actuary estimates that this change in payment updates to the Medicare provider payment rates will save approximately $85 billion through 2016.
https://www.cms.gov/apps/files/aca-savings-report-2012.pdf

IE cutting cost by cutting reimbursements

It is only 10 by 2023 and then 15 more 3 years later.

How is describing it accurately an attack. How do we get more health care by government paying for less of it as is being proposed?