Quoted Text

"It may take until 2017. It will work really well then."

-- White House adviser David Plouffe, quoted by ABC News, on the implementation problems facing Obamacare.

Quoted from joebxr

The 2012 standard premium rate was $99.90 and went up 1 JAN 2013.
The standard monthly Part B premium for 2013 is $104.90 and
stays same for 2014. Very strange her payment was $96...not sure if there
may have been supplemental exception or something, but everything
I've researched over the last several years is the numbers shown above.
  
$15 supplement went up if that is 1.5% increase over what she was receiving previously,
because COLA for SSA is 1.5% for 2014.....that would mean she receives $1k usually...
so this is a lie how.....??????

and the SCAM is.....??????

Quoted from bumblethru

Corporate welfare at it's best!!!
They padded the wallets of corporate health insurance companies and wall street and bankers.
Padding them by FORCING folks to BUY a product they may not want or need!!!
Raising taxes and fines!!
Our 78 year old neighbor just had her medicare payment changed. She has been paying $96/month (deducted from her check) since she was 65. She just got a notice that said it will increase to $104.95 come January 1st, 2014!!! Plus her supplement just went up by $15/month!! Another lie!!!
Another scam!  

Quoted from joebxr

The 2012 standard premium rate was $99.90 and went up 1 JAN 2013.
The standard monthly Part B premium for 2013 is $104.90 and
stays same for 2014. Very strange her payment was $96...not sure if there
may have been supplemental exception or something, but everything
I've researched over the last several years is the numbers shown above.
  
$15 supplement went up if that is 1.5% increase over what she was receiving previously,
because COLA for SSA is 1.5% for 2014.....that would mean she receives $1k usually...
so this is a lie how.....??????
and the SCAM is.....??????

Quoted from bumblethru

take a breath joey...k? Our 78  year old neighbor has been paying $96/month since she was 65 years old. She just was notified that it will increase. My grandmother, who is 89, has been paying $96/month and still does.

They and other medicare recipients were promised that NOTHING...NOTHING would change for them under this new system.

So did they create new guidelines for medicare before or after the new system was in place?

Perhaps these seniors were misinformed, misgiiuided or are too senile and didn't know about the changes. In either case, I'm sure there are 'older' seniors out there that will be in for a surprise.

Here's one for the record........and this is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.....we were talking to this husband and wife. A couple of months before she turned 65, she was in an accident and hurt her hand. A few weeks later, medicare sent her a letter stating that they were informed of her injury. They went on to say that IF there is a monetary settlement from this accident due to her hand, and since medicare will be covering her soon,  the insurance company who will be doling out the settlement money will be instructed to send it to medicare. They consider her 'hand injury' a pre-existing condition. They want the settlement money for future medical care on her hand if needed. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUE STORY!!

Where and how did medicare get that information when she wasn't even covered yet?

Quoted from joebxr

were changed 1 JAN 2013 and remain at same level for 2014.

Quoted from bumblethru

Here's one for the record........and this is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.....we were talking to this husband and wife. A couple of months before she turned 65, she was in an accident and hurt her hand. A few weeks later, medicare sent her a letter stating that they were informed of her injury. They went on to say that IF there is a monetary settlement from this accident due to her hand, and since medicare will be covering her soon,  the insurance company who will be doling out the settlement money will be instructed to send it to medicare. They consider her 'hand injury' a pre-existing condition. They want the settlement money for future medical care on her hand if needed. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE TRUE STORY!!

Where and how did medicare get that information when she wasn't even covered yet?

Quoted from bumblethru

so there you have it!!
thanks joey!!!  

Quoted from joebxr

I found this interesting so did a quick 5 mins search...and it is all documented.
Injury occurred prior to turning 65 and receiving Medicare, so is a pre-existing condition
Government mandate that any settlements resulting from the injury be offset
as recovery by Medicare for any payments Medicare would make for treatment.
Law requires insurers to inform Medicare of these conditions for Medicare recipients.

Like it or not, I guess that's just the way it is.

Quoted from CICERO

That doesn't violate HIPAA?

Quoted Text

New York Car Accident Victim Loses Settlement Money After Government Steps In

Gerry Oginskiby Gerry Oginski lawmed10@yahoo.com
CONNECT WITH ME
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Google+
NY Medical Malpractice & Personal Injury Trial Lawyer
Here's a perfect example of a case where the driver of a car who hit a young man crossing the street, did not have enough insurance coverage, leading to insufficient compensation for his injuries:

This particular man was in a shopping center crossing the street when he was hit by a car entering the shopping center. The driver was going about 25-30 miles per hour. He hit the man squarely on the left side of his body, causing him to go flying through the air and land about ten feet from where he started. The injured man was rushed by ambulance to the closest trauma center where he was diagnosed as having a broken femur (the largest bone in your body), trauma to his face, and a bleed under his skull. The victim required a tracheostomy; a hole made in his windpipe to allow a tube from a ventilator to help him breathe. This injured victim spent more than three weeks in the hospital.

When he was discharged, he was sent to a rehabilitation facility and ultimately made his way home.

The driver of the car had insurance. However, when I investigated the insurance policy he had, it turns out it was a "limited" policy. This means it was a relatively low policy amount. Shortly after I was able to document all of my client's injuries to the insurance company, they promptly paid the full insurance policy since they recognized that the injuries my client suffered far exceeded the available insurance in this case.

Q: What other options were available to this young man after the insurance company "tendered" (paid) the insurance policy?
A: One option would have been to sue the driver personally and try to get a judgment against him. If successful, then I would be able to enforce the judgment by seizing his property in order to fulfill the judgment. However, after investigating this possibility, we learned that the driver had no assets- at least none that were in his name. Bringing a lawsuit against him, just to get a "paper" judgment would serve the client no purpose.

THE GOVERNMENT STEPS IN...

In this case, my client had been receiving medicare benefits because of a pre-existing disability. When Medicare learned (as they always do) that my client had received some compensation for his injuries, they asserted a "lien" against the proceeds of his case. This meant that they were asserting their right to recoup money that Medicare paid for his hospital and medical bills arising out of this car accident. The medical bills alone were astronomical. They were over $300,000! Medicare wanted everything that my client would receive as his share of the settlement. In effect, this young man potentially would get nothing as a result of his injuries.

I appealed to Medicare advising them that it would be tragic if this young man who was severely injured were required to pay back Medicare everything he was awarded in the settlement. Yet Medicare made a reasonable argument: Who else paid for his medical bills when he was in the hospital? Nobody. He did not have any other health insurance. Medicare did not expect to get reimbursed for paying his medical bills. But, when an injured victim brings a lawsuit seeking compensation from the driver of a car, bus, truck or someone else- and is successful, then Medicare steps in and says "You are now required to reimburse us." Many times Medicare will try to negotiate with you, depending upon the amount you recover. Yet the bottom line is that they must be repaid.

If your attorney ignores a Medicare lien, they do so at their peril. If your lawyer pays you your net share of the settlement without allocating money for Medicare, this is what will happen. Medicare will file a lawsuit against your attorney in federal court. They will ask not only for the money that they were supposed to recover, but also ask for three times the amount (called treble damages). Needless to say, if your lawyer has reached this stage, he has significant problems. The government is not required to go after the client (you, the injured victim). Your lawyer may try to get the money back from you, but what if you already spent it? Now the lawyer has even bigger problems.

The bottom line? Medicare must be repaid.
The bottom line for this client? He got the short end of the stick since the driver of the car that hit him did not have sufficient car insurance to cover the severe injuries he received. Then, the government stepped in and asked for the total amount of money to cover at least some of their expenses. After an appeal to Medicare, they were "generous" enough to allow my client to take home a token amount of the original compensation he was entitled to receive.

What is the moral of this story? Carry enough car insurance on your insurance policy to cover a serious injury. Then buy an "umbrella" policy (also known as an excess policy) to protect you and your assets in the event your main insurance policy is insufficient to pay compensation to someone seriously injured.

Thanks for taking the time to become informed.

Quoted Text

By: Attorney Priscilla R. Woody

Since July 1, 2009, a new Medicare law[1] has made  it more difficult for claimants, plaintiffs, and defendants to settle personal injury claims.   Now, more than ever, an  injured claimant needs to retain an experienced plaintiff attorney who can embrace these new procedures and maneuver through them so that the claimants' Medicare rights and benefits are protected while getting them the best possible settlement in a timely manner.

What, you might ask, does Medicare have to do with a personal injury claim?  Let me explain.  Medicare is a federal program that pays for a portion of medical expenses and hospitalizations for people who are eligible.  Medicare does not pay for long time care or prescription drugs.  Medicare may be involved if you have a personal injury claim in a number of ways, even if you are not receiving Medicare benefits yet. If you are a Medicare recipient or an SSD recipient, or may be soon, then be very careful with the type of attorney you hire to represent you in a personal injury claim because the system is in flux and the rules are changing.  Recent legislation from a few years ago to the present shows that Medicare's role has evolved, is evolving, and Medicare's interest must be addressed in all liability settlements.  If your attorney fails to handle this aspect of your claim properly, your settlement could easily take months longer, your share of the settlement funds may not be protected, you may be disqualified from receiving Medicare benefits later, and you may be subject to fines and penalties.

Federal law requires that Medicare be the secondary payer whenever another health plan or insurance, as defined under the Medicare Act, also provides coverage for the beneficiary's services.  However, the Medicare regulations state that if prompt payment is not expected from this plan or insurer, then Medicare will pay.[2] In these cases, any payments made by Medicare are considered to be "conditional" and Medicare has a right to seek recovery (reimbursement) from any settlement for what Medicare has paid.  The law actually creates a "lien" against the settlement funds that applies to the claimant, the claimant's attorney, and the insurance carrier.[3] Liability insurance carriers can be held responsible even after they have settled the case, so they want to hold onto settlement checks until they are guaranteed that the plaintiff's Medicare liens are paid back by the injured claimant and/or their attorneys.

Why all the fuss?  Medicare has become an increasing large part of the federal budget each year as medical costs keep rising.   In the present economic climate, the Congress is looking for every way to cut back on the cost of the Medicare program, and one way is to make sure that Medicare gets back any payments it has made for medical treatment for injuries caused by someone else and for which the injured person will make a recovery.  In addition, Congress wants to make sure that if a settlement is for injuries that will require medical treatment in the future, then the cost of that future medical treatment is not shifted onto Medicare.