Potus Budget Plan Unveiling on 2/23

[crazy connie]

Obama to Unveil an Ambitious Budget Plan

Dependent on what he says, the entire market should be hyperactive on Monday.

Hold on tight for the next few days I think this will be like a bucking bronco!

 

[newporttony]

I suspect that announcing tax hikes in the middle of a recession will not be warmly received by investors, but I could be wrong.

 

[Dawg52]

I suspect that announcing tax hikes in the middle of a recession will not be warmly received by investors, but I could be wrong.

DOW 6,000, here we come.

 

[FUEGO]

It will be "interesting".

 

[TromboneAl]

I noticed this for the first time:

Administration officials also are debating whether to permit people as young as 55 to purchase coverage through Medicare. That age group is particularly vulnerable in today's weakened economy, as many have lost jobs or seen insurance premiums rise rapidly. The cost would depend on whether recipients were offered a discount or required to pay the full price of coverage.

 

[Bestwifeever]

If he says no nationalization of banking, it will make the biggest difference it seems to me.

 

[OAG]

DOW 6,000, here we come.

You are so optimistic.

 

[kumquat]

I suspect that announcing tax hikes in the middle of a recession will not be warmly received by investors, but I could be wrong.

DOW 6,000, here we come.

Don't these taxes only apply to profitable companies?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I noticed this for the first time:

Administration officials also are debating whether to permit people as young as 55 to purchase coverage through Medicare. That age group is particularly vulnerable in today's weakened economy, as many have lost jobs or seen insurance premiums rise rapidly. The cost would depend on whether recipients were offered a discount or required to pay the full price of coverage.

Al, do you remember where that's from?

 

[OAG]

Next to last Paragraph: Obama Targets Budget Deficit

 

[FUEGO]

I noticed this for the first time:

Administration officials also are debating whether to permit people as young as 55 to purchase coverage through Medicare. That age group is particularly vulnerable in today's weakened economy, as many have lost jobs or seen insurance premiums rise rapidly. The cost would depend on whether recipients were offered a discount or required to pay the full price of coverage.

I'm afraid I may be the last to receive free or subsidized guaranteed issue health insurance. To summarize, all the following get government sponsored health coverage:

- Old people (medicare - over 65 - maybe over 55 now)
- young people - up to age 25 in some cases
- some disabled and problem kidney folks (medicare)
- government employees (provided as an employee benefit)
- prisoners
- military personnel
- poor people (medicaid)
- veterans and military/civilian retirees

Did I leave anyone out?

Who is not included are: middle class, middle-aged folks too poor to self insure and too rich to get free govt cheese.

 

[dex]

- Old people (medicare - over 65 - maybe over 55 now)

Under that plan I will be able to get medicare next year.
I am now moving to a plan with a 7,500 deductible for 150/mo.
My mother - 89 pays 91/mo for the BCBS medicare supplemental plus 71/mo for the prescription drug part.

 

[freebird5825]

...free or subsidized guaranteed issue health insurance. To summarize, all the following get government sponsored health coverage:

- Old people (medicare - over 65 - maybe over 55 now)
- young people - up to age 25 in some cases
- some disabled and problem kidney folks (medicare)
- government employees (provided as an employee benefit)
- prisoners
- military personnel
- poor people (medicaid)
- veterans and military/civilian retirees and their survivor spouses and dependents

I erased the quotes (oops!) in the process of making a minor correction to the last sentence.
BTW, most groups including vets and mil/civ retirees pay for their insurance coverage at different levels. It is definitely not free.
I'm not sure about the rest of the groups who may get it free, perhaps the federal prisoners?

 

[bubba]

So the Stimulus Bill for more money than I can fathom gets passed, and before the ink dries, announce potential tax hikes. Yes sir, I just abandoned all hope of economic recovery. I can't imagine how the markets will react.

 

[Gone4Good]

I suspect that announcing tax hikes in the middle of a recession will not be warmly received by investors, but I could be wrong.

I also suspect "Damn the $2,000,000,000,000.00 deficit, full steam ahead!" might not be warmly received by investors either.

 

[TromboneAl]

That medicare bit would be staggeringly good news for us early retirees who pay for our own coverage. We could save thousands per year, if my assumptions about how it would work are true.

I wish I hadn't seen that paragraph, since it probably won't come to be.

This is my basic understanding of medicare:

What is Medicare?

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I suspect that announcing tax hikes in the middle of a recession will not be warmly received by investors, but I could be wrong.

To the contrary, this is what the article says about the tax increases:

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

IMO, this is about the best that investors could have expected. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are set to sunset in 2011. Apparently Obama is going to let them expire on schedule. The worry was that he might try to end them sooner. IMO, the markets may view this as positive.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

That medicare bit would be staggeringly good news for us early retirees who pay for our own coverage. We could save thousands per year, if my assumptions about how it would work are true.

Not necessarily. Unless it is subsidized, this Medicare buy-in will not come cheap. I have seen estimates for this cost, without subsidy, to be at least $800 per month per person, just for Medicare parts A and B, which only cover about 80% of your expenses and do not cover drugs.

 

[OAG]

Or with relief, it will not be as bad as could have been - same thing. Still, either way, it is going to be an interesting day on CNBC - I know, don't watch.

 

[ziggy29]

Not necessarily. Unless it is subsidized, this Medicare buy-in will not come cheap. I have seen estimates for this cost, without subsidy, to be at least $800 per month per person, just for Medicare parts A and B, which only cover about 80% of your expenses and do not cover drugs.

Still, given that those most likely to opt in are those with significant medical problems or pre-existing conditions, that might be pricing it too cheaply. I doubt that someone who is healthy and of appropriate weight with no preexisting conditions are the ones who would choose to buy in.

 

[unclemick]

If he says no nationalization of banking, it will make the biggest difference it seems to me.

I hope he does - the Swedes knew best.

On second thought - the Norwegian widow owns BAC, JP Morgan, Citi, Sun Trust and those Swiss cats - UBS.

Hmmmmm.

heh heh heh - kay cera cera whatever will be will be. .

 

[OAG]

That medicare bit would be staggeringly good news for us early retirees who pay for our own coverage. We could save thousands per year, if my assumptions about how it would work are true.

I wish I hadn't seen that paragraph, since it probably won't come to be.

This is my basic understanding of medicare:

What is Medicare?

Wonder what the "buy in price would be"? I did a little guessing on another tread. Something like 65 (years old)-55 (years old)=10 (multiplying factor). Current cost $96.40 per month or $1,156.80 (single person) times the "multiplying factor", in this case 10 so "buy in" for something like $11,568 and then pay the monthly fee ($96.40) from then on. The closer to 65 the lesser the multiplying factor would be. [-]Oh yes, then you have to pickup a MEDICARE supplement policy for what MEDICARE does not pay and to cover the current co-pays and the prescription costs.
[/-] Just my guess and it could be more or less, probably more, [-]for those that can afford it, others would get a bail out.[/-]

 

[FIRE'd@51]

Still, given that those most likely to opt in are those with significant medical problems or pre-existing conditions, that might be pricing it too cheaply. I doubt that someone who is healthy and of appropriate weight with no preexisting conditions are the ones who would choose to buy in.

Exactly. This will likely lead to adverse selection in the Medicare program, further driving up its costs.

 

[Gotadimple]

Exactly. This will likely lead to adverse selection in the Medicare program, further driving up its costs.

I'm not so sure about this. With a younger population enrolled in Medicare, adverse selection should be reduced, as they all don't have the same health conditions as the majority of the 65+ enrollees. When you consider how many over 55 could 'age-in' to Medicare, it has some merit.

What has happened today is that those who are really unwell stay with the traditional program, and those who are healthier look to MedAdvantage plans for additional coverage. Leading to adverse selection.

Costs are going to go up anyway, the entire population is aging.

-- Rita

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I'm not so sure about this. With a younger population enrolled in Medicare, adverse selection should be reduced, as they all don't have the same health conditions as the majority of the 65+ enrollees. When you consider how many over 55 could 'age-in' to Medicare, it has some merit.

Not if the healthier folks in the 55-65 bracket opt for private insurance. Read Ziggy's post to which I was responding.