"Modest adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid"

[Bluebear]

"I understand your concerns."...."REFORM THE SYSTEM while protecting CURRENT beneficiaries."

[Lucian]

Yeah, what the hell did that mean?

[Broderick]

3. hmmm

:shrug:

[frylock]

28. future beneficiaries are fucked

[Lucian]

32. That's what I got out of it.

[TheWraith]

43. Well, that interpretation only ignores half of what he said.

Talking explicitly about the need to make sure Medicare is around for FUTURE BENEFICIARIES.

[frylock]

77. oh i know how to interpret the president's words..

can't get fooled again.

[Bluebear]

102. You said it

[hifiguy]

119. + One brazillion

"We're only going to remove a toe." Translation: "We will come and chop off your feet in a while."

[SammyWinstonJack]

120. Exactly!

:thumbsup:

[Hydra]

130. In a grossly small form?

Via vouchers to private insurance companies?

I think I heard that on the other side of the isle for the last few years...

[gkhouston]

63. "Future" probably meaning 6 months from now. n/t

[sarcasmo]

67. nailed it, future beneficiaries are fucked.

[quiller4]

97. They will be if we don't do something soon. Raising payroll taxes

is probably out of the question in the near term but needs to be part of a long term solution. Means testing and assessing higher co-pays and deductibles to higher income retirees would be another way to strengthen the system (probably through a re-capture on tax returns). Changes like that I could not just accept but advocate for as a way to make sure that those who need Medicare the most aren't deprived of care.

We can preserve the status quo for current retirees and those soon to retire but beyond that we need to look for just and fiscally sound solutions for future beneficiaries. Playing ostrich about this does a disservice to our children and grandchildren.

[WinkyDink]

54. Precisely as stated, is what it means. The Pres IS a lawyer.

[Generic Other]

121. Guess it just depends on what the meaning of "is" is

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Zorra]

123. Dunno. Maybe it means:

That the America of the Future is going to be a fascist fiefdom of wealthy private interests, and that social programs are going to be phased out so that our oligarch overlords can pay lower taxes, and will have slave labor and indentured servants that either have to serve them or die.

The process of eliminating social programs will be implemented incrementally. Anyone currently on Medicare/Medicaid will not be affected to severely. The programs will undergo a gradual phase out. Granma and disabled folks will be shit out of luck if they're not rich.
:shrug:

[d_b]

1. and there it is

[valerief]

4. Yep, feed the war, kill the safety nets.

:grr:

[amborin]

73. and protect the elite

[valerief]

92. Making rich people richer is the most important thing in the world.

That drives everything.

[dionysus]

2. we're doomed

[MichiganVote]

7. Wait for the details.

[DesertFlower]

11. i agree. nt

[dionysus]

17. i was being sarcastic.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. I'm sure that was your intent, but this guy has shown over and over his willingness to

to cut holes in the social safety net.

That phrase ought to give everyone pause.

[Dragonfli]

27. It gives me pause, I have read the theories of the PPI and third way on the matter and it is R wing.

[ThomCat]

45. By the time details are announced, it's too late to protect the

vulnerable.

When they are announcing the details of a program, that means they're rolling it out and already implementing it. Budgets and people are assigned and everything is more or less set in stone. It's far past the planning stages when people could have had input and changed anything.

You want to be heard while any program is still in the tentative stages. That means that as soon as you hear that they're thinking about something, shout like hell. They're talking in back rooms, and excluding the public, but we need to shout and protest to be heard.

If people insist on being good, obedient little civilians who always wait until officials give public statements and announcements, and people only give their opinions when they are asked for, officials aren't going to give anyone any opportunities to speak when it would do any good, and they aren't going to listen to what people have to say.

How much did anyone in this administration listen when the public, by wide margins, wanted single payer health care? They excluded the public. The even excluded experts from medical associations representing doctors and nurses and health advocacy groups.

Remember, only representatives from groups that made profits got invited inside to talk. (In fact, bribed to come in to talk. By getting everything they wanted before negotiations even began, but that's a differing issue.) If you weren't a lobbyist for a profit-making corporation you weren't important enough for this administration to listen to you. We learned (again) that if you're not a lobbyist you have to shout early and often to be heard, because you won't be inside when the important decisions are being made.

[Bluebear]

103. Well said

[Babel_17]

108. Agreed! (nt)

[indepat]

129. The details are "America has forevermore been fucked" when a Democratic president is willing to

put social security and Medicare on the chopping block while protecting the interests of large corporations, the MIC, and the uber-wealthy. EOS, for there is no other story: this is the details. :patriot:

[Warren DeMontague]

30. ***

[Autumn]

5. There it is.

Never been impressed with his "reform"

[alp227]

6. then the camera panned to Charles Rangel puckering his lips

Rangel might've wanted to heckle Obama?

And Obama just called out Republicans again regarding taxes/rich. Hmm.

[Horse with no Name]

8. Republispeak doubletalk

flavored with a little bit of "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" bullshit.

[one_voice]

9. LOL....

Damn. Record time.

[Solomon]

57. actually, i was sitting here chuckling

a little while ago about how long it was taking for it to start. That's why I know it was a good speech. And now the flooding begins -- all at the same time. :rofl: :rofl:

[Number23]

59. Good chance this was typed up a few days ago in order to beat the rush

No "concern" is too early for some, you know...

[notadmblnd]

10. And all the pukes stood up after Lindsy Graham stood.

[eleny]

12. I started Medicare on September 1st

I guess I should feel relieved. :eyes:

[Blue_In_AK]

79. So did I, Eleny.

I don't feel relieved, though. I take nothing for granted.

[eleny]

94. You've got that right

And then there's my husband. He's younger than me and has paid in to Medicare much more than me. But I worry about the possibility of his getting screwed.

I hope they make a push to look for better drug prices. That would be a step in the right direction.

Somehow, I think that the president put Medicaid and Medicare on the table because he knows neither Party will go for changes with the election coming up. But he can smack the R's all over the place because of their obstinacy.

Hey - congrats, btw!

[joshcryer]

13. Followed up by raising taxes on the rich.

:rofl:

The concern is noted.

[SoCalDem]

14. Reform, fix, repair, enhance, strengthen..all wiggle-words

meaning that someone's ox is gonna get gored.. and it will NOT the the ox of the rich guy.

[glowing]

15. Only if it means putting everyone into the pot.. and we can all

buy into Medicare. ..Why can't the Govt compete with the private market? Why shouldn't people be able to buy into Medicare before they are 65? Govt should compete with the private market. They would win every time and never decline anyone for any reason. Its only fair. AND would bring revenue into Medicare, instead of just having our elderly pull from it.

[brentspeak]

16. While simultaneously leaving FUTURE beneficiaries hung out to dry

[Raine]

18. We are screwed!

x(

[Windy]

19. If you don't think that Medicare needs reform, you're nuts! The program is being ripped off

by providers EVERY day!

It does need reform and enforcement! People are living much longer now and the program is going to have to be around for a very very long time. Reform is necessary!

[Bluebear]

21. Yeah, we're all nuts. Blame people for living longer instead of the tax loopholes out there.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrunkenBoat]

31. People *aren't* living so much longer as all that, & adjustments have *already* been made

to take what extensions in lifespan there are into account.

Furthermore, it's beginning to look like the "underclass" is actually living shorter lives. Not confirmed yet, but the evidence is piling up.

So the people most dependent on these programs may actually be living *less*.

[Raine]

50. EXACTLY ... people who do heavy manual labor

will probably never live long enough to collect very much if anything.

[Selatius]

34. Get rid of Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D

Medicare would safe on costs if it didn't have to outsource certain services under Medicare Advantage, and it would save on costs if it was allowed to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies on the purchase of prescription drugs instead of Medicare Part D where one must enroll in a privately-run insurance entity to get coverage.

These are welfare payments to corporate entities, and they should be cut off entirely.

[leftstreet]

55. ++1++

[mitchtv]

88. and what?

do I get my RX plan restored to my HMO? or just pay retail? thoughtless solution

[SammyWinstonJack]

122. Not likely to happen. MUST NOT anger our CORPORATE OVERLORDS!

:evilgrin:

[Windy]

124. Exactly. Those are reforms that are needed. nt

[Fumesucker]

37. People may be living longer..

That doesn't mean people are capable of work longer..

[Raine]

52. That's right how the hell is some guy who does roofing or a job

like that supposed to continue working into their 70's!!!!

[white_wolf]

58. The ONLY reform Medicare needs and the only one we should accept is expanding it to everyone.

[Bluebear]

76. Thank you

[eridani]

100. An additional 5 years of life expectancy after age 65 is NOT "living much longer"

Lower income women's life expectancies are actually DECREASING. The ripoffs are all traceable to the existence of private insurance. Do government controlled global budgeting, and providers who rip off their fellow providers WILL be called out by them.

[Babel_17]

111. "People are living much longer now"

Actually, not so much.

So, it is really interesting that, just as we start hearing about various plans to reduce the US deficit, and indeed our massive national debt, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) ran a study on life expectancy and retirement ages, and came to an African-sounding conclusion here in the US:

Raising the retirement age for Social Security would disproportionately hurt low-income workers and minorities, and increase disability claims by older people unable to work, government auditors told Congress.

The projected spike in disability claims could harm Social Security’s finances because disability benefits typically are higher than early retirement payments, the General Accountability Office concluded. (via Businessweek)

Paul Krugman makes the point a bit more starkly:

Working until you’re 69, which may sound doable for people with desk jobs, is a lot harder for the many Americans who still do physical labor.

But beyond that, the proposal seemingly ignores a crucial point: while average life expectancy is indeed rising, it’s doing so mainly for high earners, precisely the people who need Social Security least. Life expectancy in the bottom half of the income distribution has barely inched up over the past three decades. So the Bowles-Simpson proposal is basically saying that janitors should be forced to work longer because these days corporate lawyers live to a ripe old age.

http://www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/tag/krugman/

[Dragonfli]

20. CURRENT beneficiaries means get the old people to throw their children under the bus in poli-speak

You see old voters, you will be just fine and well your kids, I am sure they will not need much medical help when they are old.

It is the lovely notion that future recipients are less deserving and they damn well should not expect the help available now.

[Bluebear]

24. But people are living longer!!!1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1902745&mesg_id=1902811

[Dragonfli]

25. Yes, mostly lawyers and others that use their bodies to sit in a chair

If you go by the income bracket of those that need it the most, you find they are in many cases dying younger, no shit.


Those numbers have more to do with less deaths among infants and excellent care and easy living for the rich, the trash (white black or otherwise) that destroy their bodies for subsistence wages their whole lives are not at all represented by that crap they are trying to sell.

I am sure the author of that post was innocently unaware of the facts (actually I am so cynical I think they know damn well what the real facts are)

[kenny blankenship]

39. And we've got to stop that.

[Bluebear]

40. That's the ticket!

[white_wolf]

22. "Let me warn you"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3RHnKYNvx8

[DURHAM D]

26. I see he is continuing the generational war he started during the primary.

great

[Little Star]

33. Bingo

[Marrah_G]

35. GRRRRRR

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. Put that into a language translator site from politician to english and it means "BIG CUTS!"

[jtuck004]

38. No. We need to protect ALL beneficiaries. People in the future are not worth less. /nt

[Bluebear]

41. Thank you. nt

[taught_me_patience]

42. Translation: "If you're under 35, sucks for you...

but you don't vote, so who cares"

[Bluebear]

51. Try 55!

[ThomWV]

44. 3 years ago I wanted Medicare for all, and now our President calls for less Medicare for fewer.

[DirkGently]

116. Wouldn't letting people opt IN to Medicare lower costs as much as kicking people OUT?

[madamesilverspurs]

46. Let's calm down a bit.

I'm a senior. Also disabled. I've experienced Medicare for many years, and I'm damned thankful for it. That said, there are plenty of redundancies and anachronistic inefficiencies that, if remedied, would save millions.


-

[emulatorloo]

49. More fun for some to have a meltdown.

[Marrah_G]

56. Those are never the "adjustments" that they make though

[OwnedByFerrets]

64. BINGO!!!!

[cbayer]

60. +1

[Bluebear]

61. Feh. We went from Medicare for all to adjusting it in 3 years

[leftstreet]

82. It's unbelievable, yes? Seems yesterday Single Payer advocates got arrested in DC

What the hell happened?

[Bluebear]

85. It's sickening. We are being sold down the river

[Odin2005]

47. "protecting current beneficiaries" = SCREW YOUNG PEOPLE.

[BiggJawn]

48. 55 or younger? Bend over and relax, HERE IT COMES, Y'ALL!

How is this any different from what the OTHER ReTHUGlicans are proposing?

I'll be working till the day I die. Thanks a buttload, America, your "dream" is becoming a fucking nightmare.

[Bluebear]

80. He understands your concerns.

[BiggJawn]

84. Just so long as he doesn't "Feel my pain". n/t

[Marrah_G]

53. I have no savings, no 401, no pension...

I'll just work until I can't work anymore and then wander off into the woods never to be seen again.

[Hoyt]

62. I think the "woods" will be quite crowded. Hope we can all get along.

[OwnedByFerrets]

65. It seems as though that is what the rich and powerful want of us

[leftstreet]

66. If you've got the strength to 'wander off into the woods,' no reason you can't be a WalMart greeter

:sarcasm:

[scarletwoman]

69. I used to figure I'd float away on an ice floe. But what with climate change,

it doesn't look like that's much of an option anymore.

So, woods it is...

[Marrah_G]

70. giggle

thank you, I needed that

[scarletwoman]

75. I'm like you - no 401k, no pension. I have a little $ put by in an emergency fund, but one major

car repair or medical problem would drain that to zero in short order.

So basically I'll live paycheck to paycheck until I drop. If I can manage to work until I'm 70 (another 8 years and 2 months) Social Security might be enough to make ends meet, provided I'm very frugal.

The problem is, when you've been pretty much low income for most of your life, SS just doesn't add up to very much when it comes time to start collecting it.

I'm going to keep an eye out for some psilocybin mushrooms in those woods. I'd like to go out high. :hippie:

[Marrah_G]

78. yup- there are so many of us in the same boat.

[scarletwoman]

81. Leaky boat with cracked oars held together with duct tape.

When I was a young flower child, I had no idea that the future would get this effed up.

Oh well...

Peace and love,
sw

[Bluebear]

101. All this and we have to eat our peas too

:(

[woo me with science]

72. That's their plan.

And our own party is helping them carry it out.

[mitchtv]

87. put a down payment on your own personal

Ice floe for when you are too expensive to maintain

[Bluebear]

104. With global warming thats no longer an option!

[neverforget]

68. Today's voters are ok but future voters? Sorry, we need to sacrifice you

for our lack backbone to do the right thing today.

[jwhitesj]

71. I'm sorry to say this

But the president is right about Medicare and Medicaid. There is no way to fund them without significantly raising taxes which is just not something that can be feasibly done. Social Security is not in the same type of position that medicare and medicaid are in.

[Bluebear]

83. Democrats defend medicare. Find your cuts elsewhere

[leftstreet]

86. If the Dems can't defend SS & Medicare, maybe the GOP can

Let's hear their plan before we start throwing seniors and disabled people under the bus

[area51]

89. Are you kidding?

What about stopping the multiple wars of choice? Of closing down some of the overseas military bases? There's plenty of money w/o raising taxes.

[jwhitesj]

93. That's a different issue

The way the law is written, funding from medicare and medicaid can only come from a specific place. I didn't say anything about abolishing it, or cutting it, I said it can't be sustained the way it is going. Currently, we pay 2.5% tax for it. Too fund it we will need to increase that amount to 6%. I'm fine with that, but it won't get done. I want to see universal healthcare. That does mean the reality of the situation is that the way medicare is currently funded there is no way to keep it going, and the way the law is written, they can't siphon funds from other sources. So a reform of some kind is needed.

[Inuca]

106. OMG, you are being rational!

Welcome to DU, by the way :-)!

[demwing]

91. "There is no way to fund them without significantly raising taxes"

No problem. Tax the rich, then tax them again...

[jwhitesj]

95. Sounds good to me

Now only if we can convince republicans to do that. I'm not operating in some fantasy world where democrats get to pass every tax increase they want though. Medicare is seriously broken. it is underfunded by more than 50%. Our healthcare system is sick. We need to find ways to reduce cost. There are a lot of things that can be done. All I'm saying is that it can't continue going on without changes.

[Bluebear]

98. +

[underpants]

74. they need some modest reforms mostly in billing

[Marr]

90. Notice how the line just changed from "he'd never cut it" to "it's the adult thing to do"?

[Bluebear]

96. As long as He says so

[Tx4obama]

99. Reform = get rid of fraud, waste, abuse - and negotiate for lower prescription drug costs. n/t

[Lasher]

105. Reform = raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67.

That's where this is headed.

[Inuca]

107. And you know this because....?

It's a possiblity, I agree. ANd I hope it does NOT happen, it would be a bad move for everybody. But you do not know what is going to be decided, and neither do I. Most of the Ds in the super committee are reliable, and unlikely to go for this. There are othre possible adjustments that can be made. And changes NEED to be made, whether we like it or not. The head in the sand approach does not help, nor does it solve problems. The sky is NOT automatically falling whenever the word Medicare is uttered.

[Bluebear]

109. "Most of the Ds in the super committee are reliable"

And Baucus is not. And that is all it will take.

[Inuca]

112. Actually I think he is

he is not a liberal, but he is very much a party man, he will not be the one to go against what the caucus decides. At least I do not think he will.

[Bluebear]

113. Lol

[Inuca]

114. We shall see n/t

[Lasher]

125. I know this because:

Medicare faces long-term problems due to the rising costs of health care, a uniquely American problem sparked by protections the U.S. government provides for health insurance companies and drug manufacturers. Obama's health care reform bill attempted to lower those costs, but his call now to "reform" Medicare is sure to be interpreted as a call to raise the eligibility age for Medicare, something Obama urged during the debt ceiling debate to no avail.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/obama-medicare-cuts-jobs-speech_n_954840.html

The congressional supercommittee is already charged with cutting $1.5 trillion from the deficit. Obama just said that he would ask them to find additional savings to pay for his new $450 billion plan. You say there are other adjustments that can be made and that is true. But the only spending cuts Obama was specific about were Medicare and Medicaid reductions.

If you know of a reason to believe that Obama is not going to try to increase the Medicare eligibility age, despite this compelling evidence to the contrary, I shall extract my head from the sand long enough to be enlightened by you.

[Autumn]

117. I thought that had already been done

the negotiating for lower prescription drug costs part.

[Lasher]

126. No, Obama dropped support for negotiated drug prices.

There is nothing in Obamacare that allows Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices. However, Medicare Advantage overpayments are addressed. Today the government pays an average of 14 percent more to cover a beneficiary in a private Medicare Advantage plan than it would cost to cover that same beneficiary in traditional Medicare.

http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_medicare_advantage/

[blkmusclmachine]

110. Cut, cut, cut...

until there's nothing left and the system implodes upon itself. The wealth in this Country is being stolen right in front of our very eyes. Looks like that was the plan all along.

[DirkGently]

115. Was there any mention of addressing the root causes of the cost of healthcare?

I don't recall.

We keep hearing that Medicare costs are "skyrocketing," supposedly because people are living longer (and therefore Medicare is doomed unless it is changed). Is that really the primary problem?

What role does, say, drug costs play?

It just seems that it's not that we're treating too many people. It's that it's becoming insanely expensive to give any kind of medical care.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[muffin1]

127. K&R nt

[BR_Parkway]

128. raising the income cap is a "modest adjustment" - pretty sure the votes

aren't there to do that one though