# Got My Latest Notice From The Social Security Administration

#### Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
This may be deemed politics (and quickly closed by the moderators), but here it goes anyway.

I just got a notice from the Social Security Administration about changes to my benefits for 2020 ........................ And it's another example of the phrase "Hell Remodeled".

Bob

#### Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,701
N.B. I do not disagree that US medical care is prohibitively expensive and the results compared to the rest of the world are less than stellar for the money we pay. That is actually a separate issue. This inability to construct an acceptable solution is driving the problem in the wrong direction. Insurance companies are taking the elevator while the rest of us get the shaft.

#### Analog Ground

Joined Apr 24, 2019
420
IRMA adjustment is just one example of a "benefit cliff". Perhaps you can get some consolation from the fact that it traps many, many, much lower income folks who find themselves stuck in lower income situations which they might otherwise escape. My elderly father (90+) just got hit with IRMA because of a one-time income spike. I can't repeat his response.

#### eetech00

Joined Jun 8, 2013
2,058
I don't think there is any requirement that you sign up for Medicare Part B. If you are covered by another "qualified" health care insurance plan, then you are covered and that's all you need. If you are NOT covered by another insurance plan, reach your age for Medicare benefits, and chose NOT to enroll in Medicare Part B at that time, then if you decide to enroll later, your monthly premium will be higher.
You are entirely correct. If you sign up for MED B before full retirement age, and you are still working and have company paid medical coverage (which usually isn't entirely free) then you pay for both. MED B after full retirement age is about 1/5 the cost of regular health insurance.

eT

#### killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
789
I'm funded by the University till 65, but will need Medicare afterward. The University is going to take on retirees by providing "Medicare Advantage Plan" they said Monthly amount for the same coverage I have now, would be $180 a month for me and my wife. So, as soon as my coverage from the Uni ends at 65 then I can enroll in the Advantage which is A, B and C. I don't plan on taking my Social Security until age 70 and the difference between taking it at 66.6 and 70 is$487 a month (if I live to be 90) it is $62,448 seems I would have an extra$487 a month plus be on the up side of $62,448. My Grandfather lived to 87 my dad 89 plus my pension runs out at 89. Please check my numbers at age 66.6 Monthly benefit would be$1296 a month vs $1783 at age 70. If my quick calc is correct it would be better to wait and get a low impact job until then. Not having any fun looking for work though. I have to make it 90 days to collect my pension my health coverage won't stop. kv Last edited: #### BobTPH Joined Jun 5, 2013 2,602 Cool! IRMA adjustment is just one example of a "benefit cliff". Perhaps you can get some consolation from the fact that it traps many, many, much lower income folks who find themselves stuck in lower income situations which they might otherwise escape. My elderly father (90+) just got hit with IRMA because of a one-time income spike. I can't repeat his response. Actually , I did as well (stock options that vested when I retired.) I appealed it and won. Bob #### SteveSh Joined Nov 5, 2019 105 You are entirely correct. If you sign up for MED B before full retirement age, and you are still working and have company paid medical coverage (which usually isn't entirely free) then you pay for both. MED B after full retirement age is about 1/5 the cost of regular health insurance. eT Agreed, about the fact that Part B costs much less than anything someone in that age category could purchase on the private insurance market. I was going to make that point to the OP. #### jpanhalt Joined Jan 18, 2008 10,527 Here's what I was referring to*: Now, here's the catch, if you are above$87,000 by even $0.49, you file separately and married, and have not had sex with your wife in the past year, then you qualify for the$202.40 rate rather than the $462.70 rate. How do you prove that? Well, I don't think our founding fathers contemplated chastity belts by both partners as a tax break. Or more simply, there are some people who still don't think serial marriages are "kosher." Why does the Federal government need that much detail about what we do in the bedroom? And to think, some people want "Medicare for All." *https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs Thread Starter #### Glenn Holland Joined Dec 26, 2014 705 Let me see. Your have Medicare so you are over 65, and you are drawing benefits while you are still working so you knew the deal ahead of time WTF are you bitching? Also your insurance company is tapping Medicare to pay for things - you just are not aware. One more thing your premium deduction is nowhere close to covering the cost. I don't know what in Hell your point is" You said "I knew the deal ahead of time". i didn't know the deal ahead of time that I would be essentially taxed for something that I don't need (at least need right now) and my former employer is paying for. Furthermore, this IRMA charge seems to be some kind of "penalty" for earning a relatively high income. However, in the San Francisco Bay Area, a "relatively high income" means I'm just in the middle class and earning more than the poor. #### SteveSh Joined Nov 5, 2019 105 I didn't know the deal ahead of time that I would be essentially taxed for something that I don't need (at least need right now) and my former employer is paying for. Furthermore, this IRMA charge seems to be some kind of "penalty" for earning a relatively high income. Sounds like maybe you didn't research things thoroughly enough. Detailed information about everything you've discussed - Medicare Part B premiums, IRMAA, possible penalties for not enrolling in Part B and Par D when you first become eligible - has been out there forever (almost). And yes, IRMAA could be looked on as a penalty for having a higher income. But my company, and many other's, I'm sure, have had wage-based employee premium contributions for many years. Finally, IRMA was just added to Medicare in 2003, as part of en effort to keep Medicare solvent. According to web sites I have seen, IRMAA only affects around 5% of those on Medicare. So like some have said - if you in the financial position to have to pay IRMAA, you're a lot better off than 95% of the Medicare recipients out there. #### Analog Ground Joined Apr 24, 2019 420 Why are so many under the illusion that it is your money? We are just carbon based production/consumption units. Whatever "wealth" you are allowed to keep, whatever "wealth" you are given are part of a maintenance plan, subject to revision at any time. #### Papabravo Joined Feb 24, 2006 14,701 Here's what I was referring to*: View attachment 194110 Now, here's the catch, if you are above$87,000 by even $0.49, you file separately and married, and have not had sex with your wife in the past year, then you qualify for the$202.40 rate rather than the $462.70 rate. How do you prove that? Well, I don't think our founding fathers contemplated chastity belts by both partners as a tax break. Or more simply, there are some people who still don't think serial marriages are "kosher." Why does the Federal government need that much detail about what we do in the bedroom? And to think, some people want "Medicare for All." *https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-b-costs Cha! I'm still in the$144.60 category. I should spend more time on my investment income and less time on this site! Maybe there are others here who agree with that.
One more thing. The married and filing separately has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with relative income size. In case one spouse makes several times what the other one does.

#### jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
10,527
Finally, IRMA was just added to Medicare in 2003, as part of en effort to keep Medicare solvent. According to web sites I have seen, IRMAA only affects around 5% of those on Medicare. So like some have said - if you in the financial position to have to pay IRMAA, you're a lot better off than 95% of the Medicare recipients out there.
From this source: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/cps-hinc/hinc-02.html, it appears the number subject to IRMA is higher. That table is not stratified in the same way as the table from SSA; however, if you look at the households ≥65 and assume that equated to at least one person being on Medicare, 6.2% have income ≥180,000 per year. The breakpoint for IRMA for those married and filing jointly (most favorable class) is ≥$174,000.01. Thus, we know the percentage must be greater than 6.2%. Now, if you look at the least favored group (single) the IRMA threshold is ≥$87,000.01, that table shows 7453 or 15.6% are affected. Since everyone would either group or between, the range of those affected is 6.2% to 15.6% for just that group.

IRMA is a tax on Social Security benefits. Since FICA "investments" are after-tax dollars and SSA pension benefits are to a large extent taxable, IRMA is a tax on income that has already been taxed twice before.

Sure, paying IRMA may be justified by some people from the perspective that it is a tax on a minority of the population who have a reported higher income (NB: Some deductions allowed on Federal taxes are disallowed for MAGI calculation). However, that minority generally paid a lot more into the system and their SSA benefits are virtually the same as everyone else's. Why should someone be made to pay more to remain healthy just because they planned ahead, saved, and invested more?

The other point that I made above is that for "married filling separately," there are only 2 stratifications; whereas, for every other filling status, there are 5 strata. What justifies that discrimination?