I never could have imagined voting for a Democratic president only to find him cutting Medicare

[Stinky The Clown]

This can't be spun. Many will try, of course, but the fact is, we now have a Democratic president who is actually proposing "cuts" to Medicare and Medicaid. I'm sure some will see it as adjusting the program and reducing waste and overlap; that sort of thing.

But it is being sold by a Democratic president as "cuts to Medicare" and "cuts to Medicaid."

Let's assume the cuts are benign. And small. (The fact is, we have to make such assumptions as this president, as is his way, will not be specific on the specifics, leaving that up to his supercommittee and leaving *US* in the dark - as usual.) No matter what gets "cut" the simple fact is that it was a Democrat who made such activity viable - cutting Medicare and Medicaid. I can only imagine some future repubican president, giving a State of the Union address to his repubican House and repubican Senate, and saying "In the same spirit as Obama, I am proposing cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

And to think . . . . there was a time, not all that long ago, we had hope for single payer. And then, maybe some vague, never-defined, "public option" plan.

What fools we were.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2011/09/obama_unveils_deficit_plan_cut.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html

Now, if there is need to make adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid, make them. Talk about them. Be specific. Deal with them straight ahead and in the open. But do NOT put these programs in the Big Chopper hopper, to be mixed up with, dealt with, cut with, all the other smoke and mirrors mischief that goes on in government budgeting deals.

Congratulations, Mr. Obama, you've finally been transformative. You've rendered a here-to-fore untouchable third rail eminently touchable.

Thanks for nothing.

[NMMNG]

1. Your mistake is you thought you were voting for a Democratic President

:shrug:

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Well, there is that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. +1. nt

[blindpig]

12. Your mistake is thinking the Democratic Party is something it ain't.

Progressives tend to project their image of the party, dated by 70 years, upon today's party. To be sure, campaigning politicians are largely to blame for maintaining this delusion.

Know them not by what they say but rather what they do. It ain't your father's(or grandfather's) party .

If not President Obama then President H. Clinton, the priorities of the office are the same and those are the priorities of the ruling class.

[Horse with no Name]

Fuck us for pretending the Democratic Party hasn't been infiltrated by republicans

because historically, THEY are the ones who haven't supported REAL Democratic ideals.

This DLC, Third Way, Blue Dog shit is just another word for disaffected republicans who *may* or may not be a little bit more socially progressive than their brethren...but still in their hearts remain no better than the swine on the other side of the aisle. *They* just try to remain morally superior but are just as odious through and through and I despise a republican of ANY kind--even the ones that pretend they aren't. That is a stink you just can't scrape off.

[blindpig]

41. Ferget the Ds & Rs, it's the Cs.....

Both parties suppory capitalism, this is where the capitalists want to go and the parties go along or are dismissed by the ruling class which calls the shots for both.

[FiveGoodMen]

55. Then, we need a new party

A THIRD party!

A W-W-I-I-I-L-L-D party!

</AliceCooper>

[woo me with science]

31. The Third Way Democratic agenda IS the Republican agenda

with a few very minor differences, just as Obama's jobs plan IS the Chamber of Commerce jobs plan, with a few very minor alterations.

[Dragonfli]

58. For those that are willfully blind to the COC agenda, link below for their "jobs" plan

http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/110905_jobs_letter.pdf

[woo me with science]

66. Thank you. nt

[DontTreadOnMe]

2. I am waiting for the hard core Obama Chess players to defend this

it's called the third rail for a reason. It WILL BE his legacy, not healthcare reform.

[INdemo]

5. It does not make any difference where the cuts are whether it

is how claims are processed or whatever.It might not directly affect the copay or prescriptions but the fact is all Seniors will hear is "cuts" and that is political suicide..Perry is smiling this morning.

[JNelson6563]

6. Wait, what?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1963645&mesg_id=1963645

[Stinky The Clown]

9. My first link is one of 814 similar articles that were on Google News this morning.

I guess they could all be lying . . . . . but probably not. More likely, as has been the case all too often, our president is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or, even more common, he says things in a well crafted vague way to which people then apply their own interpretations. Clarity from this white house is often in short supply.

[Fumesucker]

7. Only Nixon could go to China..

Why is it surprising after the last thirty years that a Democratic president would cut Medicare?

Have you forgotten that welfare pretty much went bye-bye thanks in large measure to Clinton?

[vi5]

8. "This can't be spun."

Oh now, you know that is not the case. Anything Obama does can be spun by the usual suspects as being brilliant and not damaging and not Republican and everything else.

[banned from Kos]

10. Garbage! Its cuts to providers - not recipients!

The runaway cost problem is that provider/docs abuse the system.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Now ya see, there ya go . . . .

. . . . spinning. No details of the cuts have been released, but you make that statement. I ask, snark-free: got a link?

And so what if that's all it is? It is being called "cuts to Medicare" and "Cuts to Medicaid" which sets those terms out there for wider use. This is a genie now free of the confines of the bottle.

If we want to cuts waste and abuse of the system, SAY THAT. We don't need to hear the president calling for Cuts To Medicare and someone banned from some website telling us its okay.

It is NOT okay.

As I said in my OP, if he wants to cut the abuse of the program by certain providers, SAY THAT.

Lastly, as I chastise you for stating as fact something you do not know to be fact, I also heard that certain benefits were also on the block. In addition, I heard that means testing is in the wind, too.

[banned from Kos]

15. link that you want ---

"Of the mandatory program cuts, Obama will propose $248 billion in cuts and reforms to Medicare -- 90 percent of which would come from reducing overpayments -- and $72 billion in Medicaid and other healthcare programs, all over 10 years."

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/182235-obama-will-propose-3t-in-cuts-threaten-veto-over-tax-cuts-for-wealthy

Medicare is notorious for its overpayments - providers see overpayments as a profit center.

[Stinky The Clown]

23. No argument. The issue is that he is selling this as "cuts to Medicare and Medicaid"

I thought I made that clear in the OP. Dealing with waste and fraud in the programs is perfectly fine. Putting it on the table with the rest of this BOGUS FUCKING DEBT CRISIS is the issue.

I will add, although there is no indication what will be cut, your link notwithstanding, if he makes the program less beneficial to US citizens, then we have another problem.

[jtown1123]

25. Great. Now less doctors will see Medicare recipients. Overpayments is a straw man. There is some

waste that should be rooted out, but it's not significant.

[pecwae]

87. You're right.

Those who think that cuts to providers won't affect recipients are not grounded in reality.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[indepat]

65. The grand bargain almost assures social security and Medicare will be on the chopping

block during each succeeding budget season now and forevermore. The horse has been let out of barn and Repugs must be champing at the bit, savoring the day when they sit in the WH and control both houses of Congress: the slaughter of these programs ain't gonna be a pretty sight to see. :patriot:

[adhd_what_huh]

22. word...

[woo me with science]

30. Denial is not a substitute for an argument.

He has already put a raise in eligibility age on the table once.

He has given speeches supporting benefit cuts and telling Americans to be prepared to pay more.

He has said nothing to indicate that he is taking any potential cuts off the table.

The denial around here is thick, and frankly ludicrous.

[Horse with no Name]

35. That is the lie that the entire scheme will rely on

and you are the messenger of that lie.

ONE cut to ANY provider is 100 cuts to its recipients or do you really believe the fairy tale that the market will correct itself to the compensation?:rofl:

No. What will happen is that fewer and fewer DOCTORS will accept the reimbursement and then what happens to the patients?

I KNOW what happens to them...but the real question is do YOU? And is that acceptable to YOU?

[Stinky The Clown]

43. I guarantee you will not get an answer to your question.

[inna]

71. uh... kudos to Kos.

[newfie11]

11. This doesn't sound so bad.

"No beneficiary changes would come until 2017. While the senior administration officials--who briefed on the condition their names would not be used--said Obama would not propose raising the age for Medicare benefits they did not rule out "means testing" for Medicare, where wealthier seniors would pay more for services."

and

"Mr. Obama will call for $1.5 trillion in tax increases, primarily on the wealthy, through a combination of closing loopholes and limiting the amount that high earners can deduct. The proposal also includes $580 billion in adjustments to health and entitlement programs, including $248 billion to Medicare and $72 billion to Medicaid. Administration officials said that the Medicare cuts would not come from an increase in the Medicare eligibility age."

Edit:

After having more coffee and rereading I am dubious,in fact it leave a lot unsaid. If he screws medicare/medicaid/SS he has lost my vote. This is bullshit!

[Stinky The Clown]

14. The details don't matter bnearly so much as him putting the programs in the same "cutter upper" . .

. . . as general fund programs. He has de-electrified the third rail of politics.

[Fumesucker]

16. Obama may end up de-electrifying the third rail by shorting through his own legacy..

The resulting explosion isn't going to leave enough to perform an autopsy.

[undergroundpanther]

17. I long suspected

He was a fifth column republican,after the DLC was infiltrated...slowly we got bill clinton and his'welfare reform'.
http://open.salon.com/blog/mick_arran/2010/01/04/clintons_welfare_reform_chickens_come_home_to_roost

NOBODY truly blue would take the shit Leo Stauss writes as public policy.and..Obama is a moderate republican.People don't remember what a democrat is anymore.You cannot negotiate with psychopaths without losing your own integrity and principles.


The main points of neo-liberalism include:

THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.


CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.


DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.


PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.


ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."


http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/econ101/neoliberalismdefined

[WI_DEM]

18. well just wait and see how this country will be when we have Perry or Mitt with a GOP Congress.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Vinca]

20. I can't figure out why he returned the Paul Ryan gift.

Now it's "we're only slightly better than them" Dems can run on.

[alc]

21. there wasn't much complaining about health insurance reform act

It cut medicare $250-$500 billion depending on who's spinning it. There was lots of spinning about the cuts (fraud, abuse, medicare advantage cuts which "won't hurt anyone", etc). Meanwhile, before reform many of my parents' neighbors had 3-4 hour drives each way to see a doctor (full day trip for a checkup), and more providers and doctors are balking at the details being written up to implement the cuts.

Most of the party leadership is ok cutting medicare, they just don't want to look like they are cutting medicare.

[seabeyond]

24. what term was it clinton did welfare reform and nafta? did anyone vote him second term? nt

[AtomicKitten]

56. Good point. Both signed his first term.

And then there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOrSURZKrcw

[seabeyond]

61. yup. i remember that. thanks for the confirmation

i thought it was probably his first term, but even in my efforts to google, i failed. so appreciate you letting me know.

[Motown_Johnny]

26. He is talking about waste and fraud, not benefits

[EFerrari]

27. You must be joking.

First, "Waste fraud and abuse" has long been code for CUTS. Second, you don't have to cut anything if there is waste fraud and abuse, do you? You have to police the system better.

[Sheepshank]

28. In fact, the Super Congress has language that prohibits cuts to beneficiaries too. n/t

[jtown1123]

37. Nope. Only in the case of the trigger. Cuts to providers are cuts to beneficiaries anways.

The Super Committee can come up with a plan that cuts benefits to beneficiaries.

[woo me with science]

29. Oh please.

He has already put a raise in eligibility age on the table.

The utter denial of reality around here is getting frankly ludicrous.

[Stinky The Clown]

40. You read the OP and then ran someplace else with the central point

The central point is he made it **okay** to talk about "Cuts To Medicare and Cuts to Medicaid." The details have NOT been announced, so while others say to me that this or that is what he meant, we are all speculating about the details. In the OP's central point, the details don't actually matter. What matters is he has allowed Medicare and Medicaid "cuts" to be subsumed into the whole, larger, mostly bullshit debt "crisis."

[ProSense]

32. Obama Deficit Plan Delivers Bold Clash Of Visions

Obama Deficit Plan Delivers Bold Clash Of Visions

<...>

For a while now, I’ve been saying that the simplest approach to the medium-term deficit would simply be for the president to say, “I will veto any bills that increase the deficit relative to the current law baseline.” There’s a virtue to simplicity. This proposal is considerably more complicated than my idea, but the complications overwhelmingly result from making the policy more leftwing than my proposal would have been. This would give us a much more progressive rate structure of the tax code, and trim federal health care programs in a thoughtful way. By the same token, there’s no real chance of implementing this idea. Yet as a statement of vision it sets up the contrast with the opposition quite clearly. House Republicans want to repeal Medicare in order to make tax cuts for the rich affordable, President Obama wants to tax the rich in order to make Medicare affordable. Some critics will focus on the relatively small changes to federal health care programs here, but the President is essentially doing what progressives have been urging him to do for months — abandoning the strategy of pre-compromising, and planting his flag in a way that draws strong contrasts.

<...>

Yup, they will!

[Stinky The Clown]

36. Congratulations you TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT

But thanks for the blue linkiethingies. They're so cute.


Hahahahahahaha

[ProSense]

38. No,

"Congratulations you TOTALLY MISSED THE POINT"

...I haven't. The point is more handwringing and distortion.

And, I'm actually laughing right now!

[Stinky The Clown]

42. I always laugh at you.

I never read your posts because they're so predictable. I do, however, read them when you find it necessary to come into my threads and comment. Your replies tend to be the funniest. Many of the people who agree with find them funny, too. Those who disagree with me, it seems, think you're a wise person.

There are people who like vanilla ice cream and there are people who like choolate.

And some like rocky road.

You all have a swell day! :hi:

[ProSense]

45. Hmmm?

"I never read your posts because they're so predictable."

Yet you respond to them.

"Your replies tend to be the funniest. Many of the people who agree with find them funny, too. Those who disagree with me, it seems, think you're a wise person."

So you base wisdom on how many people agree with you and rec OP?

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

47. No, you're twisting what was said. Nice try, though.

I was talking about finding your posts humorous. That has nothing to do with wisdom.

I also said I do not read your posts apart from those in my threads.

Are you all really on the floor, writhing in paroxysms of uncontrollable laughter? Somehow I disbelieve that.





"In a battle of wits, the unarmed person always loses." <---random quote with no specific purpose.

[ProSense]

50. Hmmm?

"I always laugh at you. I also said I do not read your posts apart from those in my threads."

I guess that means you're laughing at the screen name only, huh? Or did you mean you only, not "always," laugh at me only in response to your threads?

You said: "Many of the people who agree with find them funny, too. Those who disagree with me, it seems, think you're a wise person."

I believe that is measuring wisdom by agreement or disagreement!

"Are you all really on the floor, writhing in paroxysms of uncontrollable laughter? Somehow I disbelieve that."

Oh, there's that wisdom again: pondering whether or not an emoticon should be taken literally!

Does that hurt?

[Stinky The Clown]

52. "Does that hurt?"

Only when I laugh at y'all.

To clarify for the sake of y'all's willful obtusitude: I used to read y'all's OPs but I stopped a long time ago due to their predictability and tedium. Nowadays I just skip over them. I do read y'all's replies when y'all grace me with y'all's presence in one of my threads. That is when I chuckle at y'all.

But then, y'all knew that.

I am done playing Twister with y'all.

Y'all do come back though, y'all hear? :hi:

[Bluebear]

81. Hmmm?

Agree 100%

[bullwinkle428]

33. Did you just catch the "out" in his live speech a minute ago? He just

said that cuts to Medicare would be unacceptable IF they were not accompanied by some kind of tax increase!

Translation : Just give me some tiny little elimination of a tax loophole, and I'll carve up Medicare and Medicaid beyond your wildest, tiny little Grinch-hearted right-wing dreams!

[woo me with science]

34. He wants to cut it. He came into his Presidency planning to cut it. Just like Republicans,

Third Way Democrats view Social Security and Medicare as inconvenient drains for money that could be used for the military industrial complex and other policies favored by wealthy corporate interests.

[woo me with science]

39. It's not even subtle. He is saying outright that Medicare is on the chopping block.

It used to be that revenue was considered a part of ANY fair deal and not an extreme gain requiring extreme sacrifice to justify it.

It used to be that Medicare was a cherished safety net, a "third rail" of politics that no Democratic President would ever dream of threatening.

Now he has set the bar so low that even to consider obtaining some revenue from the obscenely wealthy, we must be prepared to see the safety net cut for the elderly and the poor.

Third Way Democrats are not the Democrats we knew. Their economic policies and goals are the same as those of the Republicans, regressive and cruel.

[inna]

83. wow, thank you very much for the recap.

(i suspect that i'm in the absolute majority who didn't tune in, for one reason or another.)

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zalinda]

46. It doesn't matter what the 'cuts' are because

he has already made the mistake of mentioning them. Low information voters already think he's going to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, and any amount of back tracking now, will not be believed.

This is one of the most important aspects of dealing with casual voters, whomever mentions a bill, will either get the credit or the blame. There is one caveat to that rule, if it is a low level rep, it will become invisible if some one higher up mentions it. Paul Ryan is almost totally off the radar, and Obama is squarely in the sights of those casual voters.

zalinda

[Stinky The Clown]

48. Very true

That's what I was saying my OP. Of course, some come in and want to talk about the details (none of which are even known right now) but miss the big picture. To wit: A DEMOCRAT has put Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block.

[ProSense]

51. Now

"Low information voters already think he's going to cut Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid"

....that's hilarious and ironic!

:rofl:

[William769]

49. K&R.

[Stinky The Clown]

53. Man, some people really don't want to hear this FACT

This thread has 61 recs and THIRTY ONE unrecs.

Sorry, people, but Obama has done what none of us imagined a DEMOCRATIC president would ever do: he put cuts to Medicare and Medicaid on the table.

That's a fact.

Inconvenient and uncomfortable for some, perhaps, but a fact nonetheless.

[leftstreet]

54. K&R

[Raine]

59. K&R nt

:kick: :thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

60. knr nt

[Stinky The Clown]

62. Just for the record . . . .

79 recs. Lotsa hard hits to this one.

[Number23]

63. I know. GD will rec ANYTHING

[Stinky The Clown]

68. haha

haha

haha

hahaha

[inna]

82. do an experiment and post anything

what an absurd post

[Number23]

85. You comb through GD just LOOKING for something to get up in arms about, don't you?

Even the OP didn't get offended by my little post. But like clockwork, here you are. Agitated once again over absolutely nothing.

Join the Peace Corps. Channel all of that into something worthwhile rather than spamming a message board with meaningless outrage.

[inna]

88. ?

huh?

:wtf:


whatever. :shrug:

[cliffordu]

64. Just in the nick of time to be refuted by what he said today.

OH, LOOOK!!! A SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!

fail, stinky, fail. yet again.

[Stinky The Clown]

67. What did he say today that changes the crux of the OP?

As I suspected. Nothing.

[cliffordu]

84. Except the part where you claim he cut medicare.

he has clearly not cut it at all.

another bullshit halfwit fucking post. shame on you.

[Major Hogwash]

69. I really liked how you framed your argument.

Leaving no doubt about it.

:rofl:

[sad sally]

70. I'm with you. These hokus-pokus big packages that mix and match

are to confuse and cover up the truth. If the President believes the Trustees 2011 Report, which says by law he's supposed to come up with a plan to address the "Medicare Funding Warning," which has been around and ignored (the warning) for six years, then deal with that. But don't make it part of something else. It's a big enough and important enough issue to be dealt with alone; keep the confusion of other stuff out.

[inna]

72. kr

[BzaDem]

73. Believe it or not, articulating facts that you are uncomfortake with is not "spinning."

Last I checked, we were supposed to be the party of facts and reality. We didn't typically mock the very idea of facts simply because they were inconvenient stumbling blocks for our arguments.

Medicare provider payments have to be cut and will be cut under every President, because without cuts to the rate of growth, they will rise to over 100% of GDP (which is mathematically impossible). We pay providers FAR more than they do in single payer countries, and that is going to change one way or the other. It is math -- nothing more. Doctors in the United States will eventually be getting a fair amount less from Medicare than they do today (though still more than in any other country). You may as well be blaming Obama for the law of gravity.

Furthermore, if we had single payer, the cuts providers would be facing (relative to the ones Obama is proposing) would be orders of magnitude higher.

[inna]

75. "if we had single payer, the cuts providers would be facing would be orders of magnitude higher."

not true. "orders of magnitude"?? provide even a glimpse of evidence to that thoroughly outlandish claim.


the insurance "providers" ( translation: parasites) are the only ones who'd be suffering under single payer, but apparently it was not them who you were referring to in your post. (?)

[BzaDem]

76. That is 100% false. Doctors get paid much less in single payer countries than they do in America.

This is particularly true for specialists. In fact, the effect of single payer on doctor payments (and other provider payments) is the main effect single payer programs have. It completely dwarfs any effect on insurance companies.

In fact, if you pass a law tomorrow requiring saying that ALL insurance company profits and overhead are now illegal (ending private insurance), that will reduce national healthcare spending in the US by... 4%. Just look at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' report from the office of the actuary.

This is not to say we shouldn't move to single payer tomorrow. It is just to say that by FAR the biggest effect on healthcare costs come from providers, and the reduction in money going to providers is by FAR the biggest effect single payer has on national healthcare expenditures.

This is not a bad thing. Doctors (particularly specialists) are overpaid in America relative to what we can afford and what other countries pay. There are many market failures that exist in medicine that don't exist in other markets (a lot of which have to do with competition or lack thereof), and that is why we are currently paying doctors so much more. Single payer would be a welcome improvement.

[inna]

77. "by FAR the biggest effect on healthcare costs come from providers" - absolutely false,

unless you're referring to insurers as providers, as i tried to explain in previous post

[BzaDem]

78. Insurance company profit and overhead makes up FOUR PERCENT of national healthcare expenditures.

In particular, 98 billion went to insurance companies, out of 2.3 trillion total. This is right on the CMS' site.

[latebloomer]

74. K&R

[Cerridwen]

79. Why not? n/t

[Maraya1969]

80. He hasn't done a damn thing to medicare and I would bet you $100 that benefits

for the people are not going to go down. There is a ton of medicare fraud that costs a lot of money. Money that can be re-couped. Did you ever think he is speaking of things like that? His words were not "cut". They were something along the line of reform.

But everyone jumps on the bandwagon when they think Obama may possibly do something wrong.

[Bluebear]

86. Lol