This shit again? How does someone save several hundred thousand for retirement, an equal amount for medical AND make enough to live on at the same time?
Ever do the math?
You can’t. Well, most people can’t. But that’s not the point. The point is whether if you have enough money to pay for your treatment at the end of life, the government should be paid back for treatment it’s paid for.
But it’s the same problem, then. If all you are doing is holding money for me, just let me hold it myself.
It would depend on how the system was set up, and if it would be similar to current inheritance tax.
What kind of exemptions, if any, would be included? I think the current limit is $1.6M.
Suppose I get sick and die expensively. My wife survives me, but our major asset is the house and our investments. Would she have to sell the house to pay back my Medicare costs? Would the inheritance tax be only on my half of the assets?
Regards,
Shodan
If you and your wife held the property jointly, she would already own it and wouldn’t be inheriting it.
Sure, I can imagine details - such as any exemptions - would need to be worked out. I guess in my proposal, if someone is fortunate enough to die without expensive end-of-life care, their estate benefits. If you are unfortunate enough to require - or desire - expensive treatment, you’ll get it, same as currently. You will experience ZERO DIFFERENCE in the care you receive while you are alive. The only difference is that your end-of-life misfortune/choice will impact your heirs.
My personal preference is for increased inheritance taxes - but I know a lot of wealthy folk disagree. (Full disclosure - my net worth is low 7 figures, so I’m not entirely goring someone else’s ox.)
And I’m not for a second suggesting that this proposal would solve ALL of our healthcare expenditure/medicare funding concerns. The fact that it does not, should not - in itself - be a criticism of my proposal.
The insurance companies make their money on those who stay healthy then foist them off on the government.
Why not require the insurance companies to hand over all profits to the government?
My Dad took a fall and hit his head on a counter and died instantly just shy of his 80th birthday. He was employed at the time and had been continuously since the late 1950s. He always had his employer’s insurance. He never used a dime of Medicare but paid a huge amount of money into the system. Why should any of his estate go for more money into that?
I’m sorry if I was confusing. In my proposal, NO MONEY from your dad’s estate would be collected by the government, because no Medicare funds were spent on him. I meant it to be a direct recoupment of some portion of the care received by the individual - NOT an inheritance tax to fund Medicare in general.
So, assume if instead of dying instantly, your dad was on Medicare for years. He participated in every treatment recommended by every doctor he saw, never questioning about necessity or lower cost alternatives. When the end neared, he lingered rather than dying quickly. In the process, he elected for heroic attempts to extend his life ANY amount, again, with no concern for cost. When he finally passed, he left you an estate of several million dollars.
Under my proposal, some portion of that inheritance could be sought to recover some portion (not necessarily dollar-for-dollar) of the medicare funds spent on him.
Let’s say in the last month or 2 to of his life, instead of palliative care, he ran up hundreds of thousands in medical costs. Under my proposal, when he (or his power-of-atty) makes that choice, he knows he is reducing the amount he leaves you. He can still make whichever choice he wants., and receive the maximum Medicare benefit available under law.
I believe your proposal already happens with Medicaid. Medicare doesn’t pay for nursing homes and end-of-life care is expensive. The states often end up funding the cost of custodial care, and they expect reimbursement if the patient has assets. If patients have sufficient assets at the start, they pay cash until the assets have dwindled.
I don’t have any interest in helping the federal government claim whatever’s left over.
It certainly makes a profit off the least healthy ones – those that die before age 65 or work past 65 and are still covered privately and then die and never collect a penny in benefits. Are you planning on refunding to the heirs of those people?
Maybe I didn’t understand your OP, then.
If I die without any extra expense to Medicare, as hajario’s father did (sorry for your loss, BTW), would I pay the extra inheritance tax? Or is this a general rise in the inheritance tax that is dedicated to covering Medicare?
Either way it is going to incentivize estate planning. I don’t really care if my estate goes to Medicare or the other expenses of government - I would still rather my kids got it. Would I be more quick to sign up for a DNR order in my living will, as well as trusts and asset transfers and UGMA and so on? Probably.
Regards,
Shodan
Talk about a Death Tax! This isn’t a tax on death, it’s a tax to encourage death.
I’m wondering how a politician would sell this on the campaign trail:
Mom and Dad lingering around too long? Did you ever wish they would just go ahead and die already? Vote for Smith, and you won’t have to worry about that! They’ll be committing suicide in order to make sure Uncle Sam doesn’t take the family heirlooms when they die.
If I had my druthers, I would - even though it would probably put me out of a job. I’m for single payer UHC.
I see a problem here.
Live long enough to need Medicare and you’ll inevitably spend money that otherwise your heirs would inherit. That reduces the inheritance tax the gummint would get.
Die quickly without needing Medicare and you leave more money behind, which would increase the tax paid to the gummint.
Following along that line of thinking, the better solution would be to leave the inheritance tax alone have people die after they’ve paid into Medicare, but before they turn 65 and can get any money back from it.
One of the bigger disasters of the recent election campaign in the UK was the Tories’ Dementia Tax. They would force the sale of all assets until only a modest sum was left. In particular, the house would have to be sold. It did not go down well. This idea is similar, though only applying after death, and I think that the same objections would apply.
One thing has nothing to do with the other- an entitlement program is one in which anyone who is eligible receives the benefits. There are other programs where benefits are limited by funding , and not all those who meet the eligibility requirements will receive the benefits.
Entitlement programs can be either contributory or non-contributory
That scenario is only a “problem” if you think medicare/insurance is an “investment” that you ought to personally recoup. This type of attitude IMO contributes to excess consumption of health care. “I paid my insurance premiums, and they cover an annual exam, so even tho I feel fine, dammit, I’m gonna get my money’s worth!” For me, the optimal situation is to continually pay my insurance premiums and medicare, and hope to never need them. If I die in my sleep without needing expensive care, I wouldn’t think I was “leaving money behind.”
[QUOTE=Shodan]
If I die without any extra expense to Medicare, as hajario’s father did (sorry for your loss, BTW), would I pay the extra inheritance tax? Or is this a general rise in the inheritance tax that is dedicated to covering Medicare?
[/QUOTE]
To your first query - NO. Sorry, I don’t know how to explain it more simply than I’ve already tried. My language skills are obviously less than I had hoped.
In the second scenario, I question your use of the term “general rise.” Any rise in taxes would be specific to the individual, reflecting the medicare resources they consumed, and the existence of an estate. I guess it would have the “general” effect of increasing taxes - whether you consider them Medicare or inheritance taxes. Again, I apologize that what seems so clearly stated to me, obviously is not coming across to others.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I didn’t realize we were playing Socratic games. Have fun.
[/QUOTE]
I really don’t understand what you are suggesting here. I’m not trying to play any games, Socratic or otherwise. My understanding is that for the various Parts of Medicare, a portion is paid for my payroll taxes and premiums, but another sizeable portion is covered by general spending from the treasury. I was confused, because a couple of respondents were acting as tho, “It’s MY money! I paid the taxes/premiums. No one is subsidizing me!”
I thought those persons were incorrect, and observed that I already knew what you posted. I was trying to be polite to those persons whom I disagreed with, not playing games with you or anyone else. As you said, premiums pay 25% of Part B.
Like I said, I’m no expert. But this site seems to present some relevant information in an easy to read manner. According to Figure 6, 73% of Part B and 74% of Part D comes out of general revenue. I’m not sure how folk like running coach figure that medicare premiums cover their benefits, and that beneficiaries are not getting some sort of a subsidy.
It’s no different than any other insurance, everyone pays in and the money is used to pay out claims.
I never claimed the premiums cover the benefits and I never said that.
So you’re OK with your money benefiting a private company but you want to claw back every penny paid by those who use a gov’t program.
Why don’t we just adopt the solution of the rest of the economically advanced world? UHC backed up by employers & taxes and no one worries about bankruptcy or the government stealing your estate from the kids.
Because the masses must be punished for not being in the 1%.