Got My Latest Notice From The Social Security Administration

Thread Starter

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".

First, my monthly benefit payment will increase. However my benefits will be reduced to pay for Medicare Part B and also another reduction for something called the Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount. So the end result of the increase minus the deductions will be that my monthly payment will actually be reduced by $120 from the amount in 2019.

Furthermore, I already have a comprehensive medical/dental plan from my former employer's insurance so I don't know why I should have to also pay a premium for Medicare Part B - which I probably won't be using anytime in my life.

But this really pees me off: Federal law requires that I enroll in Medicare Part B or the Social Security Administration will require my former employer to terminate my insurance plan and I will be out in the cold as far as health insurance is concerned. That insurance plan is funded entirely by the employer and the federal government makes no contribution - so it should have absolutely no authority in the matter.

Furthermore, an employer funded insurance plan is a contract between two private parties and the federal government should not have any authority to intervene and sever/nullify that contract. It also seems that the federal government mandating that an employer provided health insurance plan be terminated would violate the 14Th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the government from taking property without due process and just compensation. Accordingly, an employer provided heath insurance plan would be considered property and subject to the constraints of the 14Th Amendment.

(A little text mentioning a politician now in office has been removed by a moderator in the hopes that the rest of the post can remain visible.)

Nevertheless, Congress has allowed this injustice to become law without any intervention what so ever and they don't know what the hell is going on.


So there you go, a government that doesn't know what in the Hell is going on and your Average Joe citizen is getting shafted ...... Again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jpanhalt

Joined Jan 18, 2008
10,527
IRMA = Income Related Medicare Adjustment. It is based on your MAGI. Even agents in my local SSA office can't keep the alphabet soup straight. It can really eat a hole in your net and affects both basic Medicare and Part D (drug) coverage.

As for the rest of it, Medicare is very expensive insurance if you are healthy and have retirement income. My monthly costs went up considerably when I was forced to switch from private to Medicare . Ironically, both plans had the "Anthem" name on them.
 

Thread Starter

Glenn Holland

Joined Dec 26, 2014
705
If these cutbacks continue, I might wind up having no SSI. However, I probably won't long enough to see it reach the zero point.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,701
If these cutbacks continue, I might wind up having no SSI. However, I probably won't long enough to see it reach the zero point.
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.
 

SteveSh

Joined Nov 5, 2019
105
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.
 

Papabravo

Joined Feb 24, 2006
14,701
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.
It is not a government requirement, but rather an insurance co. requirement so they can offload some of their risk as we get older.
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
2,602
Hmm, you owe an IRMA adustment. That means your retirement income is $85,000 or more if unmarried and twice that if married. Most people would love to have that “problem.”

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*:
1575842328539.png

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?
 
Top