No one knows for sure, but interesting read https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/07/08/an-early-peek-at-social-securitys-2019-cola.aspx
And for some people who currently pay less than $134 based on hold harmless, all or a portion of their COLA increase will get absorbed.... right?
And for some people who currently pay less than $134 based on hold harmless, all or a portion of their COLA increase will get absorbed.... right?
My DGF was caught up last year with the increase.
This brings another concept into play!!!!
When one is deciding when to take SS, the "hold harmless" concept is sometimes factored into the decision (perhaps a more minor part of the equation), so if one ends up not really being held harmless over a period of years, how useful is this part of the equation?
My DGF was caught up last year with the increase.
This brings another concept into play!!!!
When one is deciding when to take SS, the "hold harmless" concept is sometimes factored into the decision (perhaps a more minor part of the equation), so if one ends up not really being held harmless over a period of years, how useful is this part of the equation?
It’s temporary. You eventually catch back up.
If subject to IRMAA you are never held harmless. Neither are first year Medicare folks.
The "hold harmless" provision guarantees your current SS amount will not go down due to an increase in your Medicare B premium. But that guarantee does NOT cover the yearly COLA [if any.] So some or all your COLA could go to a Medicare B premium increase. This happened to many people in 2018.
.
Yes that is my point in that how valuable is the hold harmless aspect when deciding whether to take SS early, if it eventually gets caught up.
Disturbingly, after reading some recent news articles, I get the impression the media is trying to spin the SS "hold harmless" provision as a negative... when it actually serves to protect SS recipients.
.
I can actually see both sides of this argument as being valid. On one hand, you have seniors, many of whom live on SS alone, needing to maintain that check in order to live. On the other hand, the Medicare fund is seriously underfunded. By allowing hundreds of thousands of SS recipients not pay their full share, it only makes this worse. It's a conundrum for sure.
I suppose theoretically the lower SS recipients could never see a COLA increase if Medicare increases always outstrip the COLA amounts, right?
Yes, theoretically. But, practically, that's unlikely over the long term.I suppose theoretically the lower SS recipients could never see a COLA increase if Medicare increases always outstrip the COLA amounts, right?
New to this 'Social Security thing'......so please bear with me.......
1. Does the increase (if given) only apply to the amount you receive if your ARE ALREADY receiving benefits? Or does it also include an increase to the amount you WILL get if you have delayed receiving benefits? It will apply to any future amount you will get on your own benefits if you are delaying claiming those benefits.
2. If someone is receiving spousal benefits (50% of their spouses amount), will they be getting a portion of the percentage of increase also? Or does it not apply in any way to spousal benefits? All people receiving SS will receive the COLA increase if one is granted.
Thanks from a new "member" of the Social Security crowd !!!!
It just occurred to me that, by choosing a restricted application with spousal, I have delayed starting the full Medicare increase. So, hold harmless has been based on COLA increases on my small spousal benefit instead of the larger benefit. Had I taken my own benefit at full retirement I probably would have already been paying the full part B increase. As it is, I am still paying $10 less than full premium. I wonder if they will claw back the difference when I switch to my age 70 benefit or just leave the past as is and start over with part B premium amounts.
Yes that is my point in that how valuable is the hold harmless aspect when deciding whether to take SS early, if it eventually gets caught up.
"Caught up" only means that you eventually will pay the full standard Medicare premium.
But there is no clawback. If you were held harmless and paid less than the standard premium for a year ot two, you *never* have to pay back that shortfall.
Google provides answers. It's not hard.
"he Medicare hold harmless provision stems from a statutory restriction preventing Medicare from raising most Social Security recipients’ Medicare Part B premiums by more than the cost of living adjustment (COLA) provided by Social Security in a given year. "
If you are having the Medicare premium deducted from your Social Security check, then your net SS check will not be reduced. Your Medicare premium will not increase more than the COLA increase.
The actual kicker is that the entire medicare increase for the entire population of Medicare recipients is distributed over all the people who pay the increase. If the increase was $10, but half the people were held harmless to $0 increase, then the people who weren't held harmless have to pay $20.
Unless Congress quickly passes an ad-hoc law that caps that increase. Which they did a couple of years ago. COLA was 0%, Medicare went up a lot, but 90% of the people were protected by hold harmless, so the people that weren't would have gotten a huge increase of their Medicare premium. 10% of the people would have had to pay 100% of the increase.