General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWTF is wrong with Democrats that want to cut Social Security and/or Medicare?
Thanks to Romney's Hail Mary pick for his ticket, again we're seeing the Third Way types out in force saying that cutting Social Security and/or Medicare is OK, presumably as long as we don't cut it as *much* as the Republicans would.
Fuck that. I am astonished that people who believe themselves to be Democrats would call for this.
There is no reason to cut either program.
Social Security will pay 100% of promised benefits unless the economy stays as bad as it is now and never improves. It the economy goes back to anything near where it's been for 80 years or so, it's all set. All set. Worst case, if we continue our current bizarre bipartisan policy of Hoover economics forever and the economy does not improve ever again, Social Security benefits will be reduced in 25 years - and fixing them will cost less, per year, than the Bush tax cuts for wealthy Americans cost today. It's OK to spend on the rich but not on everyone else? Really? Bullshit.
The problem with Medicare is not a problem with Medicare. It's a problem with our catastrophe of a medical system. We pay twice as much for health care as we should, because our elected officials are too cowardly to do what every other industrialized country has done and impose government controls on medical costs. 17 cents of every dollar we pay goes to health care here in the US. In other industrialized countries, it averages 8% and never goes above 12%. If we simply get our medical costs down to world-class levels, there is no Medicare problem. Oh, and we'll all pay less for care. And we'll ALL probably *have* care.
So I reject any "Democrat" who wants to cut these programs, or who offers excuses for those who do. We do not run our country by triangulation, by bragging that we're less awful than the Republicans. We're Democrats: we fight like hell for working Americans and for the future of our children.
Some will say I'm a broken record, that I've said this before. Guilty as charged. But as long as the Third Way keeps bringing it up, I will too. There must be a line beyond which we'll not retreat, and for me, this is it. Let's hold our ground here, let's not keep letting our politicians move us further and further right. It must stop.
“Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.”
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
kentuck
(115,393 posts)In my opinion.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)On Daily Kos a few years ago, there was a similar display of Third Wayism from a number of people there. Their arguments were the same, stfu and vote basically.
Then one day someone posted a Bill O'Reilly video which airc, was somehow appealing to the Left, can't remember why, and that was followed by an invitation by one of the FPers (someone I always suspected of being a former Repub) to O'Reilly's audience to visit DK where they 'would be welcome'. He provided the information that he had been a Republican himself, lol, not a surprise to many of us. Then a flood of comments came from others stating that they too had once been Republicans.
So why did they leave the Repub Party? Mostly it seemed to have to do with the rabid religious right taking over the party, and the Clinton policies re Wall Street which made them feel there was room for them in the Dem Party.
And that would've been just fine, had they not then decided to take over the Party and mold it into Republican lite to suit their Conservative beliefs which basically never changed. But it sure explained the clashes many life-long Dems had had with them.
hay rick
(9,587 posts)If only for the sublime pleasure of continuing a sub-thread after kentuck, jackpine, McCamy and Sabrina 1. Plus I get to kick a third-way thread.
I am glad to see the recent proliferation of threads defending Social Security and Medicare. The presidential election is a sideshow. Defending these programs will be the next important battle.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)They are simply Republicans who can't take the fundamentalist craziness of the current GOP.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Saying it like it is...
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)What... no one wants to point fingers at the big dawg for this? I'll be damned...
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)federal taxation on them when received by recipients who have pensions or other retirement incomes above a certain amount.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)other income pay taxes on their income like everyone else and there is a special tax on retirement income plus Social Security benefits.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)So, it's fair to point out who the partisans are who started and expanded it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)
whathehell
(30,458 posts)he and Hillary originated the "Third Way", which I'm NOT a fan of either.
Third Way Dems are corporate sell-outs. Period.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)just like he did Monica. And he'll claim he didn't screw us either. The whole blue nation's got stains on it from Bill.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)He was just particularly adept at doing some other things to offset his general fakery over us and Monica.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The one percent is playing for keeps.
CarmanK
(662 posts)they are all in to plant and secure the TREE of CORPORATISM, tyranny of the few and governance by proclamation. "TRICKLE DOWN: governance, fiscal policies and rewards for work.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)they're DINOs. Republicans without the backbone to stand up and claim republicanism.
lark
(26,068 posts)You should. He's the one who puts cuts to Medicare and Medicaid onthe table and really wanted to cut those via the cat food commission, but fortunately for us Repugs were too stupid to take the win. One of my biggest fears is that obama will push harder to do this once he doesnt have to campaign anymore.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Yep...
& Rec !!!
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)
SusanaMontana41
(3,233 posts)Worse, they aided and abetted the move. Corporate Democrats suck.
liberal N proud
(61,194 posts)
boppers
(16,588 posts)A yes or no will do.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)NOT from individual country GP or from patients. It's from billing from HMOs and insurance companies. It's for services that are overcharged or unnecessary or even double billed. The classic $50 dollar aspirin is now the $800 aspirin and it's billed even when it's not given.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)and almost no Medicare patients commit fraud anyway.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)To call what private Corps do 'Medicare Fraud' is a lie. THEY are responsible for what they do and should be prosecuted every time they are caught, for STEALING from the people. Private Corp fraud is not Medicare fraud. Why do you think it is falsely referred to that way?
boppers
(16,588 posts)It's 2 am here. I can guarantee you that I can turn on my TV, and find some company who will sell you a fraud in a few channels.
Chair lifts, scooters, catheters. whatever.
It's only a click away.
salib
(2,116 posts)Don't you mean reducing fraud? Thus regulating and prosecuting?
boppers
(16,588 posts)That's how the math is played out.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)This has never been about "fighting fraud", though...and you know it.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)it should be to get more services for the same AMOUNT of money.
If you reduce the funding, cutting fraud in and of itself really doesn't help much...assuming that fraud(other than among the providers)is really the issue.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)If we were to shut down and prosecute the businesses that buy patient information and bill Medicare for treatments or services that were never provided, we are not "cutting Medicare". Your logic is illogical.
newthinking
(3,982 posts)What does chained CPI and moving the age have to do with cutting fraud?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If it's fraud, it's not a Medicare expense. It's a crime. Part of the punishment for the fraud is to repay the money to the government, meaning no net payment for the fraud. Thus reducing fraud is not reducing payments.
I am having trouble believing you are so stupid that you think reducing fraud is cutting Medicare. So what's your real angle?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Medicare simply pays bills. Patients merely get medical care. So who is committing fraud?
Who is fraudulently billing Medicare? And why since we know, is that fraud given the false title 'Medicare Fraud'? Why is it not titled after the actual Fraudsters themselves?
seanpencil
(168 posts)boppers
(16,588 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)but that response made me 
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)btw, Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid fraud is trivial compared to the massive tax frauds of the 1%, so you're objectively giving and-and-comfort to the corporate/financial agenda by using the "f word" here.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Wait, I think I missed your point.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And no...I'm NOT fine with tax fraud or other fraud.
But fraud is mainly a corporate issue...those who are covered by medicare are not to blame for it. The prhhibitive majority of medicare patients do not commit fraud(and by prohibitive, I mean nearly all...and the two or three examples Reader's Digest pointed out over the years really don't matter).
Why are you flacking for the corporate/DLC line here?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fraud. You are wrongfully using the word 'Medicare' to apply to those who ARE committing fraud.
That would be like me saying we 'must reduce Boppers fraud' after YOU were wrongfully billed by a fraudster. Wouldn't it make more sense to call it by the name of the actual criminal?
boppers
(16,588 posts)You split it with the doctor.
It's real, and happens.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Thanks to Romney's Hail Mary pick for his ticket, again we're seeing the Third Way types out in force saying that cutting Social Security and/or Medicare is OK, presumably as long as we don't cut it as *much* as the Republicans would. "
...reading a lot of news today, and haven't seen any reports involving anyone besides Republicans supporting the Ryan Budget.
I could believe that about "Third Way types."
Got any links?
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)compromise to meet the republicans "half way" or whatever.
That's why it referred to the triangulation strategy.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)the inter-generational promise of Social Security—our nation’s most important social insurance program—is a false one.This idea brief summarizes the trouble with Social Security, and proposes a “Savings-Led” Social Security reform plan that actually increases the program’s progressivity. Our plan makes roughly two dollars in benefit reductions for every one dollar in revenue increases
Pete Peterson approved, Obama endorsed, this isn't even Republican lite, but rather pure Republican Ideology.
Read the entire thing and see the cuts that Pete Peterson and Obama feel are needed and are a good "bi-partisan solution".
You are in love, I get that, but many of us depend on this social contract for survival, your pol love would cheer us being fucked, simple and true....
"Yes, you know, the third way site its'self perhaps?"
...you're using a link to a Third Way position brief dated January 2011 to support an OP that claims:
"Thanks to Romney's Hail Mary pick for his ticket, again we're seeing the Third Way types out in force saying that cutting Social Security and/or Medicare is OK, presumably as long as we don't cut it as *much* as the Republicans would. "
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)That right wing "Democrats" have been pushing and still are.
Apparently you are as well.
Obama has only agreed with this position as you WELL KNOW.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)People pay into SS - why is that an "entitlement"? But I digress.
"Entitlements are squeezing out public investments."
"But Democrats must also put entitlements on the table."
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/564/Third_Way_Report_-_Collision_Course_Why_Democrats_Must_Back_Entitlement_Reform.pdf
I don't know anything much about them, but do they share office space with Ann Coulter? Sounds like their Democrat might be wearing a little thin...
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You are in love, I get that, but many of us depend on this social contract for survival, your pol love would cheer us being fucked, simple and true...."
...spare me the idiotic bullshit to justify a lame claim.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)it's fun to watch the anti-Obama people losing it.
Response to ProSense (Reply #45)
Post removed
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)it's like the Ryan announcement has made it sink in that Obama is going to be President for another 4 years. And they just can't stand that thought.
Sid
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Wow, that explains a lot.
So glad you're entertained.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)it's fun to watch the Obama propagandists losing it.
It's even more fun catching them in the rhetorical tricks they use to cover up their propagandizing.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Actually, it's fun to watch the Obama propagandists losing it. "
...whatever: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021114894
And yes, I am having fun.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)that must be totally imaginary, because otherwise they'd be quoted/cited, and then on the basis of the known merits or lack thereof, stomped in the DU dirt.
That must be why it's only talked about, but never actually accomplished. The idea that there's no foundation for fears/concerns that medicare and SS will remain wholly untouched in any negative way whatsoever is preposturous.
Fears or concerns over a "cutting" aren't alleviated by things like "not a slashing!" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=is%20obama%20going%20to%20cut%20ss&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F07%2F07%2Fsocial-security-cuts-debt_n_892070.html&ei=tjgoUJ_xCcTrygGG8oGgCA&usg=AFQjCNET_1DfeE-E9tDau3v7JefOzXkRPw when the position the fear/concern flows from is NO cutting at all. As a matter of fact, resorting to an exaggeration like "slashing" indicates knowledge that they are on the right runway, and merely being accused of overshooting it, since ANY cuts at all is the complaint, leaving a "slashing" unrequired. It's a pretty simple concept, yet you seem to be struggling with it. Why is that?
(Pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about whether “cutting” benefits was different from “slashing” them, Carney demurred.)http://www.alternet.org/story/151561/is_obama_on_the_brink_of_cutting_social_security_the_dangerous_game_over_the_debt_ceiling
And why for example would "the dems"
As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html
be presented with a challenge unless the "changes" aren't as innocuous as the Obamabots want to believe? And furthermore, if it was part of some alleged bargaining effort and a bluff ("Xth"diminsional chess I say!!!!"
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/19/obama-wants-to-cut-medicare-and-social-security-benefits/ as some have alleged, it sure is a good thing it wasn't called, no, then he'd have looked like an idiot.
The fears and concerns are well grounded on the basis of the fact that it contributes nothing to the deficit alone, but is being included in budget negotiations, much less all the other reasons, starting with as far as I know, the lack of a clear and concise statement as pres that we'd be seeing the same or better bennies going forward. http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/obama-and-social-security.html Can you provide the readers with such? I haven't seen it yet, so end the "debate" right here and now, no? Surely such a statement was warranted after the unneccesary doubts were raised in the dem leadership and many reasonable and rationale dems, and after the Tapper inquiry, no? Or do you think it best that the exceptionally stupid so-called dems, just charge all those people with "not being real" dems" and be done with it? Gotta love that "liberal" tolerance, no?
DOn't use this one
The news media have played a crucial role in Mr. Obama’s career, helping to make him a national star not long after he had been an anonymous state legislator. As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/Obama-consumes----and-criticizes----news-coverage-820194/1
and please, feel free to point out my "propagandizing" here, which must necessaily involve a showing of half truths, falsehoods, distortions, etc, and not some childish and impotent BS about how the conclusion that SS and medicare bennies are under threat are completely unfounded. Hollow declarations like that only come from equally hollow heads.
have at it, or give me an "actual" tacit concession you're all wet.
what's next for BHO, a Gingrinch? -- "those who quote me accurately are lying!!!" http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/obama-and-social-security.html
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
StrictlyRockers
(3,933 posts)WTF indeed.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Nothing like their own words to hang them.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)claim to be Democrats (well, Geithner really doesn't bother to claim to be a Democrat all that much) but do not support Social Security and Medicare like real Democrats do.
And there is a rumor that Obama is considering appointing Erskine Bowles as Secretary of the Treasury.
Lots of chatter about this.
http://isearch.avg.com/pages/abt/saa/saat1.aspx?cid={725D3AF0-7BD1-4F37-917D-B71C369841F0}&mid=3d391eb0612cc704f96c0ef2c096b8f2-41c8206584f19d7c018ecee13000e7ad1d2ae599&ds=AVG&lang=en&v=11.1.0.12&pr=fr&d=2012-05-06%2018:33:54&sap=dsp&q=erskine%20bowles%20secretary%20treasury&tc=test18
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Erskine Bowles and Timothy Geithner are two good examples of people who
claim to be Democrats (well, Geithner really doesn't bother to claim to be a Democrat all that much) but do not support Social Security and Medicare like real Democrats do. "
...show there comments in relation to the OP claim:
"And there is a rumor that Obama is considering appointing Erskine Bowles as Secretary of the Treasury."
Wow, conspiracies and rumors. Then it's confirmed!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)One of Washington’s favorite guessing games — behind Mitt Romney’s veepstakes, but way ahead of who will run the Commerce Department — is who will replace Timothy Franz Geithner as Treasury Secretary. And as of today, I’m ready to name a frontrunner, at least if Barack Obama is re-elected: Erskine Bowles.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/10/will-erskine-bowles-be-our-next-treasury-secretary/
The article is dated August 10, 2012.
The third way types are out in force on DU. I believe that the person who posted OP gave a link to a DU thread containing a lot of remarks from third-wayers who think the President would never do anything to harm Social Security.
Oh, yes, he might very well. It's our job to preventing him from falling for the Wall Street swan song.
These guys are worried about our GDP. The truth is that our trade policies have ruined our economy. Our GDP is way inflated. If they put the money that is now put into safekeeping in the Social Security trust fund -- meaning it is now borrowed and spent by the government for things including lots not related to Social Security, then they could hide the fact (although not really change trade policy and help our economy) that our GDP and the health of our economy are dwindling. In particular, they could hide the fact that the private portion of our GDP is taking a dunking.
So that is why they want Erskine Bowles. That is why President Obama is so earnestly engaged with Erskine Bowles.
No. No. No.
So this "rumor" is from Ezra Klein.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)some "Democrats" espouse it.
Reaganites all of them, I don't care what party they PRETEND to embrace.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)out his evil plan.
Got it.
Does this happen before or after Obama takes everyone's guns and send those who dissent into his secret FEMA camps?
btw ... your OP is basically a DUPE of this one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1110837
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Dear God...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)picked Ryan because it makes their jobs SO MUSH EASIER to carry out the secret plan.
My complaint Manny, is that even when Romney selects a TOTAL SHIT like Ryan, you SKIP that, do not attack the GOP ... and then IMMEDIATELY attack unnamed evil Democrats.
But that is who you are and it is what you do.
When a Republican does something bad, you ignore it, and then determine which Democrat to blame for it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Just that Romney's pick is bringing it up again, and they're defending cuts again.
Question: Why did Lincoln fire his losing generals? Wasn't it the Confederacy that was causing the war? Should Lincoln have gone after the Confederacy, instead?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Are the the same people Fox News refers to when they claim "Some say ... "?????
Who Manny!!?? WHO????? NAME THEM!!!!!!!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But this thread is a good place to start your research: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1110837
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Again every tactic from the Fox News Playbook
- strawmen democrats
- ignores actual Republican Policies
- yet projects Republican policies onto the Strawmen Democrats.
This must be your new role model, because the two of you sound so alike and employ similar rhetorical strategies:
Priebus: Obama Is ‘Stealing’ From Seniors And Has ‘Blood On His Hands’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021116751
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I guess that's the best you got.
DO you disagree that, for example, President Obama has tried to cut Social Security benefits?
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)When you take the "Manny Goldstein" mask off, I'll be happy to debate with you.
Until then I do not debate with people who misrepresent the truth as you do.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)- created strawman Democrats
- you've employed "willful misinterpretation" and word parsing
- you've projected the Ryan Plan onto your strawman Democrats
- thereby giving Republicans a free pass again.
Every ploy in the Karl Rove handbook. Including trying to change the subject when you are cornered.
ON EDIT, see this from the RNC chair today:
"If any person in this entire debate has blood on their hands in regard to Medicare, it’s Barack Obama. He’s the one who is destroying Medicare; we are the ones that are offering solutions.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1014&pid=191734
Pretty much sums up the thrust of your threads today.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I ask for examples, you refuse.
Interesting.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Attempts to distract from the actual real Ryan Plan.
You never post ANYTHING negative about real Republicans, only your strawmen version of Democrats.
In other words, every tactic in the Karl Rove playbook. And then you try to claim "I never said that".
You can pretend all you want. You better believe I am not the only one on to your game.
Jakes Progress
(11,213 posts)Would you care to state whether you favor cutting social security and medicare? That is the subject of the thread. It is about third way types who agree that moving right is good political strategy.
I don't think it is. I think it is a bad idea politically and a terrible idea morally.
So instead of name calling and trying to change the subject (you know - the third way democrats), why don't you contribute to the conversation by saying what you believe.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)But you care little for facts, only man crushes.
Figures, useful tool.....
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Manny won't, you won't.
Who from the 3rd way evil people spoke up today?
Or ... did Manny use the Ryan selection to howl at the moon again?
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #22)
Post removed
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Timothy Geithner was picked for the NY Fed by a committee headed by Pete Peterson who hates Social Security and sponsors all kinds of fancy get-togethers to reward sycophants who sing his anti-Social-Security song.
Erskine Bowles has been generously rewarded by Morgan Stanley for one for talking anti-Social-Security to top Third Way Democrats.
And Obama appointed Erskine Bowles to his Catfood Commission.
There is a big rumor that Erskine Bowles may replace Timothy Geithner as Sec. of the Treasury. See the links I posted above.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)They're corporate cocksuckers that couldn't give a shit for FDR style Democratic values and positions.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But this is now mainstream thinking among elected officials in our party.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)How the hell is that homophobic?
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)http://www.bilerico.com/2011/05/the_oral_sex_insult_i_cant_use_in_this_headline.php
Cocksucker is for all intents and purposes, then, reserved for men, because sucking another man's penis, the source of his hypothetical masculine power, implies, especially in the 1920s, weakness, deplorability, and deficiency. Cocksucker, in meaning and common use, becomes just as homophobic as other anti-gay phrases.
sweetloukillbot
(12,744 posts)I know I did until it was pointed out to me by a gay friend. Didn't think anything of it, didn't mean anything homophobic by it, just used it as an insult.
After a friend asked me not to, I've stopped.
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)It's being used as an insult. Why is it insulting? Because the person using it thinks it's disgusting for a man to suck another man's cock. Pretty basic stuff here.
In fact, I often wonder why we use it as an insult at all. Being that it's one of the nicest things you can do for someone.
But no I don't think it's homophobic because it's not only gay men that do it nor was I using it in a way to demean gay people.
It's a generic term.
Edited to add that I'm also a disciple of Swearengen, it's one of my favorite terms.
whathehell
(30,458 posts)by the way, I noticed few sexual insults are deemed "offensive" if they insult only women.
It seems you generally have to bring in men, gay or not, for anything to really MATTER. 
.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I don't mean anything homophobic by it and I'm not going to stop using it because someone may misconstrue it. Sometimes we just pick way too many nits around here. I'm not going to walk on eggshells because someone might be offended. Most people get it, that's good enough for me.
whathehell
(30,458 posts)get here.
BTW, you can stop "defending" yourself against charges of homophobia from me, because that's not my particular
beef, in case you hadn't noticed. .
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Whatever your beef happens to be, I wish you luck in resolving it.
whathehell
(30,458 posts)and for apparently not even bothering to READ the post.
Your complete lack of caring for anyone other than yourself,
tells us what an "asset" you are to the Progressive Agenda.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Im a detriment to progression because of a stupid word? Well, you sound like an extremist to me. If I'm selfish because I won't go out of my way to avoid offending every single person in the world then so be it. I doubt there would ever be anything I could do to meet your standard without trading in my personal essence. Hell, I don't know anyone in the real world that lives up to the standards put forth here and I'm glad of it. I'd hate to live in a world where everyone is a cardboard cutout of the Brady Bunch. People use language in different ways and they don't always mean what your super sensitive interpretation tells you they mean.
Trust me, when the shit hits the fan, you want me on your side, non PC language and all.
Way to take us so far off of the original topic for no reason.
whathehell
(30,458 posts)Considering that you wrote a far lengthier piece -- in defense of yourself, of course -- than I did
with my initial "complaint", I'd say that word seems more descriptive of YOU.
Trust me, If someone is too lazy, self-centered, and apathetic about others' feelings
to modify his language slightly, no one with a brain is going to depend on him for Shit.
You're belief that your "personal essence" would be irreparably harmed
by a display of sensitivity to the feelings of others would be funny were
I watching an old SNL skit with Bill Murray as "Nick Wings", but since
I'm not, I'll simply have to admit I'm not quite as "confident"
of it as you, and invite you to my Personal "I List" right after
wishing you Good Night and Good Luck.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Do enjoy. 
whathehell
(30,458 posts)Back at you!
boppers
(16,588 posts)"17 cents of every dollar we pay goes to health care here in the US. In other industrialized countries, it averages 8% and never goes above 12%."
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Not raise the Medicare eligibility age by two years in order to have funds to pay for the absurd costs.
boppers
(16,588 posts)That's how it's being played.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the same amount of dollars. Cutting funding is cutting funding, cutting costs is using that funding more effectively.
What world do you live in where the only way to cut costs is to reduce income? When you want to save money in your own life, do you ask for a pay cut to do along with your belt tightening?
suffragette
(12,232 posts)(as say Canada did in following the success of Tommy Douglas expansion of Medicare to all in Saskatchewan) and regulated it properly, then we would likely reap similar cost savings as the other countries do while increasing actual health care for all U.S. citizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)There are ways to cut costs without cutting the program or cutting benefits. Very simple actually.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)used by the countries in comparison to the U.S.
It's all clearly obvious, so much so a person would have to twist all of it (and themselves in the process) into a pretzel to make it seem any other way.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Party unity? Even on Social Security? Bah, that's fascism!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I mean, that's his point. With the selection of Ryan, Dems are calling for cuts.
So surely, Manny can name them.
Right?
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Read carefully, Joe.
spanone
(141,520 posts)Thanks to Romney's Hail Mary pick for his ticket, again we're seeing the Third Way types out in force saying that cutting Social Security and/or Medicare is OK
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Guess not.
Third Wayers are not out in force today directly because of the pick. Discussion about cutting "entitlements" has come up again today because of the pick, and the Third Way are all over those discussions.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There it is. You don't see it??? Did not write it??
You claim that "3rd way types" came out TODAY, after the Ryan pick.
Really? WHO?????
I'm starting to feel the way I feel when I debate a right wing nut job who claims that Obama is both a Muslim and an Atheist, and who is also both a Communist and a Fascist, from both Kenya and Indonesia, but definitely not from America.
spanone
(141,520 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)spanone
(141,520 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)whether they would oppose cuts to these programs so voters could be informed.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)participation to be more important than objective facts.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Im just saying in a better world with responsible journalists and media that is what would be happening. Instead well get round the clock coverage of celebrity hijinks.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)That sentence alone bears repeating. Thanks - great way of putting it.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I wonder if the marching orders already went out to quell any pushback on "entitlement cuts."
And by "entitlement cuts," I mean cuts to basic programs for ordinary people being proposed by entitled feeling elitists.
I'm offended by RW tactics: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021114894
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The Third Way does not like exposure of the Third Way's views.
midnight
(26,624 posts)this economy start listening to Bernie Sanders... If the Dems. that are saying cutting medicare and S.S. is ok... I say let's start with gutting their retirement account first and then if that doesn't fix the problem, let's gut their off shored bank accounts next, and then if that doesn't work they need to cut their own salaries.....
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)every election, it's the same thing here. I've been there 11 years, and it's always the same.. When Democrats should be coming together, there are others that want to tear them apart. Yes, there IS a difference between the two parties, and while some "democrats" are more moderate, or more corporate, or whatever, but they are not Romney and Ryan, or Norquist, or the Koch Brothers.
I would never ever let my own personal ideology get in the way of electing a Democrat. there are things that are important to me, but as far as I'm concerned we either circle the wagons now, or we go the fuck home.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)and rather than attacking the Republicans for picking a fiscal fundamentalist, the haters have to attack Dems.
I find the timing of these series of posts by the OP and his buddy to be curious.
Sid
Whisp
(24,096 posts)why all the jittery fleas now suddenly bringing up same old false shit all over again. It was sort of quiet for a while now, as far as I could tell.
You are right, the timing is a bit weird and suspect. I wonder what that's all about.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)do you interpret the participation of Americans this way?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why the open desire to see benefits for American elderly and disabled cut? Are your passions for such cuts tied to financial instruments?
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)one has to admire your persistence, as misdirected as it is.
Sid
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)OH.
Sid
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You are also denigrating people who are citizens for wanting to discuss our politics. It is a perfectly fair question to ask you why you do this, what your stake in this is. It is rude and out of line to laugh when asked to explain the nature of your motives as a non Democrat and non American when you take up not just a position on an issue, but an attitude and aggression toward actual voters, American participants in our elections and in our Social Security and Medicare systems. Americans should ask you what your stake in this is, and why you get so involved in issues that on the surface are not your issues at all.
These are questions that you should answer when asked, Sid. Sincere participants in discussions like this not only should answer such questions, they freely answer them. Because you spout your opinions not just on an issue, but on other DUers and you freely script their motives and ascribe names to call them like 'hater'. Then when asked your own motives, you post an emoticon like a middle school cheerleader. Rude, tacky and indicative of insincerity.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)+1000!.
Because I could'nt say it any better.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and many of us are freewheeling when we do so. I have never in my life met anyone who carries on international political discussions in his fashion. Respect always comes first and questions always get answers. Yet ask him 'why are you interested in this' and he gets all emoticonish and acts as if no one would ever ask such a question. Feigns offense that anyone would dare ask him why he spends a great deal of time not speaking his mind about American policy as a Canadian but spouting insults at Americans regarding policy discussions.
I've spoken and raised funds more than once in Ontario Canada. Flew hours to get there to do so. Same goes for BC and Alberta and Quebec. Just saying. I love Canada enough to travel there to help Canadians, I certainly love them enough to answer simple and direct questions if asked about my interest in Canadian issues and culture.....
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Good to know some of our northern neighbors don't think of our plight as entertainment.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
2banon
(7,321 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The sheer determination to silence Americans on issues that are matters of life and death to them, is more than a little strange. His amusement at the concerns for the elderly and poor, for children and the disabled is frankly, disturbing. It sure is not Democratic.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)it is only fair that DUers should be able to see what our Canadian commenter gets for Health Care
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/system/default.aspx
I say read up, and take all questions to those who get to enjoy that system....
Autumn
(48,950 posts)laughing. Of course they only laugh at us who are disgusted because the people we vote for deny us what other civilized countries have.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)the only President who has made changes toward better health care for Americans is continually being tripped and back stabbed by a few people that think he is making things worse instead of better.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)bit of a difference between them. I never said he was making things worse, but we sure as fuck didn't get what YOU have or what WE needed.
tripped and back stabbed
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I can't figure out why this point just doesn't stick with some of you.
It's a process, a long hard fought for process. Obama is off to a good start (an amazing feat consider the ugly opposition he has to work with), but he himself admits it's only a start. He needs backup he needs people to get involved and fight with him. He doesn't need impossible demands of making it happen over night.
http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic01e.shtml
MAKING MEDICARE: THE HISTORY OF HEALTH CARE IN CANADA, 1914-2007
Medicare in Canada is a government-funded universal health insurance program established by legislation passed in 1957, 1966 and 1984. But the concept of a publicly funded and administered, comprehensive, accessible hospital and medical services insurance plan has a much longer and more complex history than simply the politics of creating a federal–provincial–territorial shared-cost agreement. As the Canadian health care system evolved, rising costs for hospital and medical services led citizens, progressive health professionals and some politicians to argue that health care was a social good not merely another purchasable commodity. This viewpoint was challenged by those who stated that individuals must take responsibility for their own and their family’s health care needs through private, prepaid insurance plans, and that the government should underwrite the costs for those who could not afford such benefits. In contrast to the United States, where Medicare is restricted to the elderly, the Canadian program provides universal coverage for all citizens and permanent residents, enabling them to access services throughout the country when they travel or move from province to province.
For many Canadians today, medicare has become a defining icon of their society. Understanding the origin and evolution of the concept, the views and values of its champions and critics, and the historical events that influenced its implementation will demonstrate that medicare is ever-changing — a delicate balance between public expectations, medical knowledge, technological change, economic and human resources, and political will. This site is designed to present a narrative history of the people, politics and programs that have contributed to making medicare a distinctive thread in the web of social progress in Canada.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)Nobody is demanding that he make it happen over night. No one. As for the ugly opposition he had to work with , had he not bent over backwards to have input from the fucking republicans and insurance companies we might have gotten something better than what we got.
You don't understand paying for an insurance policy that has high co pays, high deductibles , scraping to make the premium payment on an insurance that leaves you with no extra money to pay the deductible or the co pays. So you just treat yourself because you can't afford the 6 visits to the Dr. or the x rays, or whatever else he wants to try.
Insurance finance reform has nothing to do with Health Care. Nothing.
maybe then you would have gotten piss all.
I know you like to portray the President as a weak caving wall street mole working for the repuglicans incognito, but that is just silly. Thankfully your kind of thinking is in the very small minority compared to millions who are finally realizing the benefits that Obama and his people have worked hard against the tide of misinformation and media complicity for protecting the people that make profits from misery and suffering and dieing.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)Nobody that I know in real life is even remotely impressed with the insurance finance reform. Those that have insurance or those that don't. You still pay an outrageous premium and getting a tax break at the end of the year doesn't help you pay for the out of pocket expenses during the year.
Now I'm sure that the preexisting clause and keeping your kids on your insurance is very nice, if you have insurance or kids. A lot of people don't.
The insurance companies will still profit from misery and suffering and dying. They will still decide what treatments to pay for. Nothing has changed there but we are mandated to pay for their product.
As for the "I know you like to portray the President as a weak caving wall street mole working for the repuglicans incognito," what utter Bullshit.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)like we have in Canada. Can you take away the needed time frame of many, many years to accomplish something like this? How would that work?
Practically speaking, what powers did Obama not use, that he had, to give what you say is this watered down ineffective plan instead of the real deal? How would he have convinced the fake Dems and the 100% Repuglicans to go proper universal? And no, he did not have the needed support and votes to just do whatever he liked, no matter how often that is said, it's just not true.
and I'm sorry I said 'you' in that 'caving, blah blah' line, I don't know if you ever said or agreed with that kind of talk (most likely yes but I'm not going hunting) that's been here. I rather it meant the collective 'you' of people here that consistently say these things about the President.
But another question. Why do you think the US is so far behind on this basic human right? I don't really understand other than that tough guy sort of personae that has been cultivated - every man for himself. rugged individuals. Freedom. That kind of shit that has been hammered into minds so the people behind the curtain can run to the bank with the money and heh heh heh like that old cartoon character Dishonest John? I think maybe Canada got thinking more seriously about it sooner because we are all damn cold here most of the time and we have to huddle together to survive. But that doesn't explain why so many other countries have evolved to the same conclusion that having a healthier population is actually good for everyone. It's really strange. And stranger yet is someone like Obama comes along and tries to get the show on the road, and he gets hammered for it anyway. o well. people.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)both republican and fake dems. They no longer represent the people. The corporations own them. The people want health care. Polls show that time and time again.
Now here's what I think. What you consider to be hammering on Obama is not hammering on Obama. Our politicians campaign for President. They embrace a platform, be it republican or the Democratic Platform. That is a contract with the voters that vote for them. We had 8 fucking long dark years of a fucking conservative idiot shredding our constitution and economy and our Countries status. Even republicans were sick of it. Someone like Obama comes along, sounds like a fucking awesome liberal who knows the problems of the last 8 years and says all the right things. Gets elected and moves to the middle and lets the fucking republicans frame everything and seeks the holy grail of bipartisanship, with the same fucking assholes that slap him in the face every chance they get.
He reaches across the aisle to the same fucking assholes who put us into this mess. They defined the stimulus, the budget woes (which the pukes created) they defined healthcare, you do know Obamas plan was Romneys plan? We have a bloated military budget which seems to be a sacred cow to both parties in government. We have tax breaks for the wealthy courtesy of Bush and Obama in his crappy deal to give unemployment to some people, no help at all to the ones who were out and gave no extension to those about to run out. And both parties including Obama go on talking about budget cuts that harm the least among us.
Someone like Obama comes along and we Democrats and some republicans pinned our hope on him. This was THE MAN who could pull us out of the republican mess This was the man to give us health care reform. This was the man to do away with the nightmare policies of Bush. I got to talk to him. I shook his hand and he looked me in the eye and said we were going to get health care reform .
Yeah , there is disappointment. I don't think I hammer him. But he owes me, I voted for him. I'm an old Democrat. I'm a Liberal and our Democratic leaders seem to be ashamed of that word. Not me. I'm proud of it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)like you say
then why did any health reform happen at all? It's no secret the Repugs actually lividly HATE Obamacare to the point where there veins stick out in their necks when they talk about it.
You didn't really answer my question of what exactly he should have done to get the full health care you want, and need. You can believe that he held back for some devious reasons, and could have just gotter-done in one swoop, but hmmm, nope, he decided just not to do that to be mean and piss you off. lol. Or, maybe he did what he could and the rest has to come in time - like it did in every other country that has full health care - that's probably the true non fiction version.
on edit: I forgot to comment on your reasoning as to why the US is unique in health coverage.
There has got to be something more than just 'politicians are assholes' because they are assholes all around the world and not only in the US. But yet so many countries somehow overcame that part and fought on. Why do you think your politicians are so backwards in this? Most likely they may be more corrupt than other countries and get paid well for that? I'm not sure but I can accept that for at least it's a reason. And what about the people of the US - what makes them different than other countries that do have health care that they would go along with this expensive and hurtful way of paying insurance companies? I think I'm answering my own question here and it seems to come back to being fed that somehow americans are 'special' and hardier and smarter and all that, than other people. And they bought into it for so long and now it's just too deep a hole to crawl out of. What do you think?
Autumn
(48,950 posts)"The bill I sign must include a public option." Insurance finance reform to me means a reform in the way insurance is financed. Insurance reform is not health care reform.
I don't believe he that he held back for some devious reason, I believe he reached out to republicans and republicans who like to wear a D behind their names and they are owned by insurance companies. So we got what we got.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)in many, many good ways. Lots to go, but the start will make so much positive difference to so many.
I choose to see the possibilties of it becoming even better rather than try to tell these many people that they are being scammed in some way, or lied to. or something.
I got to get going for a bit, off to MIL for dinner and have to do a few things beforehand.
I'm glad this wasn't a tear out the jugulars and let them spin around our monitors spraying blood kind of talkie. At least it wasn't for me.
Autumn
(48,950 posts)We have a very lazy and corrupt media I'm sure you know that, the result is a segment of the population is just uninformed or believe in the propaganda put out. I have a Fundy Sister who had a double mastectomy, chemo and reconstruction last year after her Husband died from cancer. I wrote out 2 checks to his Doctors after his death and her surgery because she had a hard time writing, One for 5 thousand dollars and another to the hospital for 6 thousand, and that was with insurance. I saw her bills for her treatment. They were outrageous. Yet as a fox news watcher she is against socialized medicine. Now figure that one out.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)hopefully this is most current.
When I get back I have to peruse that myself as I am far behind on a lot of stuff here as I have been obsessing about your (your meaning as not you being repug! but your as in the American system. sheesh. I was upstairs doing stuff and it hit me that this did not sound like I meant it to be) repuglican party since the Chimperor days.
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/laws.html
Election Financing
One of the most important aspects of managing elections lies in regulating the amount of money that candidates and parties may spend. Unlike the United States, which limits the amounts which individuals and groups can contribute to election campaigns, the historical Canadian approach was to limit the amounts that candidates and parties can spend. However, Canadian federal election financing rules have changed considerably since 2004. New rules were brought in at the start of 2004 to limit any individual from contributing more than $5,000 in any calendar year to a party and its candidates. Corporations and trade unions were capped at $1,000 per calendar year. The limits on individual donations were subject to an inflation adjustment which stood at $5,200 for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2006; corporate and union donations remained fixed at $1,000.However, Parliament passed new limits on political donations that came into effect on 2007. Since then only individuals can make donations to political parties and their candidates; corporations and trade unions now can no longer dondate money directly to political parties or candidates. Individuals are currently limited to donating no more than $1,100 in total per year to any of the political parties, ridings associations, and individual candidates.
You can look up the spending limits registered political parties are allowed to spend in each of the 308 ridings during the 2011 election; note that this was in addition to the amount that the individual candidates can spend. The specific amounts vary from riding to riding because they were based on the number of registerd voters in a constituency. For an historical perspective, you can compare the 2008, 2006 and 2004 election limits with the limits for each riding in 2000. (pdf)
The total amount a registered party can spend is based on the number of ridings they contest and the number of electors in those ridings. You can compare the limits for party spending in each riding in the 2008, 2006 and 2004 elections. The total election expenses limits for the parties are available for the 2006 and 2004 general elections
Autumn
(48,950 posts)Our politicians here get a LOT of money from corporations. They campaign and raise money from the time they are elected for their next election. When they leave office they get nice cushy jobs with corporations because they pass and influence legislation that corporations want. We the people, we really don't stand a chance. Oh sure they throw us a bone once in a while but you can bet all the meat has been removed from that bone. I would guess that is why you have health care and we don't. And until that changes I don't think we will ever have it.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)He is the one that essentially fought for and gave us universal health care. The path was brutal, but it was done.
When I see Barack Obama, I sometimes see Mr. Douglas. There aren't many of those around.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)useless Health Care Industry which was losing money due to the economy as more and more people lost their jobs. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON the even allowed this to go forward, to save the Insurance Industry.
But, they had to throw some crumbs to the Democrats who voted for them, and the Right Wing morons wanted NO crumbs, such as removing the unbelievable 'pre-condition' policy, how it ever was allowed in the first place is a mystery to me. HC that you are free to buy, until you get sick.
And keeping young adults on their parents policies until 26. A few crumbs were too much for Republicans. So they howl and pretend they don't like it, but they got most of what they wanted.
What could Obama have done differently? He could have started out the bargaining phase asking for everything we wanted, then BARGAINED DOWN from that. Instead he dropped the PO right from the beginning, kept Progressives out of the debate, made secret deals with the Pharma Corps, turned his back on Democrats, like Dorgan and Kucinich who had amendments to add, but didn't even get a hearing. There were no Republicans who didn't get a hearing though.
People are not angry here for no reason. And having been let down once, people are very wary now and nowhere near as enthusiastic as they were in 2008. He will get the support of Democrats and most likely win, but no one expects much this time. Once bitten twice shy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for which they pay yet cannot afford the co-pays. That will NOT change for many people with the shitty coverage they will get even now. The poor will now be forced to pay for coverage they cannot afford, and still will not be able to use because of the high co-pays. That may seem amusing to Sid, but I can fucking assure you that for those of us who have had friends and relatives who are no longer here, it is fucking not amusing.
So excuse us if we find him offensive. I lost someone who I loved dearly for that reason, and right now I have another friend, just diagnosed with Cancer, who lost her coverage when she lost her job. Funny? Where's that little roly poly guy. It's hilarious!
Not!
Whisp
(24,096 posts)compared to other countries and what they have.
I have never got even a sniff of that impression from anyone here ever. I think you just misunderstand. You're angry, you're pissed and you hit wherever it will land and you want to land it somewhere and you pick the foly poly guy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the carnage in this country from lack of healthcare. And your defense of him, is disappointing to say the least. Do you think I should not be angry at those numbers? Do you think I should not be angry after spending time with a dying friend in the hospital desperately trying to get coverage so he could get treatment only to be told 'he earns too much'? Then when asking in disbelief, 'but what happens to people who can't get treatment' to hear 'They Die'. Just like that. Have you ever been in a situation where someone was dying and help was available but you were turned away??
Yes, eventually, after making himself indigent, he finally qualified, but it was too late.
So yes, I am very, very angry. And so are a majority of Americans. I did not believe they would actually let people die until I witnessed it myself. And that is why we fought so hard to get Democrats elected, to stop this dying.
Sid is highly amused by all of this, please do not try to defend him. DU is littered with proof of this behavior. I can't make it clearer, his posts here are highly offensive to Americans on this board and that is putting it mildly. The rules prevent me and a whole lot of other people, from expressing myself more clearly.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I can understand your anger and frustration but taking it out on a smiley is just ridiculous. Spend your energy on something that counts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Have a good evening.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 11:42 AM - Edit history (3)
followed by "ridiculous." Absolutely textbook; could have come from Third Way politicians in Washington.
What an arrogant, nasty response.
This is the compassion of the Third Way on display. Always the bit of thrown in mouthing about caring and compassion, but wrapped in utter contempt toward the pain and suffering in the situation being described.
Notice this, folks. This is exactly the attitude we can expect toward millions of Americans in these situations after November, when the new "Grand Bargain" comes back, if we don't deal with the Third Way vultures in our party now.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)and to personal attacks.
Sid
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you for telling this story, particularly since you had to be aware of the nastiness that would probably greet it. Thank you for trying to break through the denial and dismissiveness toward the millions who are in these situations. At least the response did illustrate for Democrats watching the depth of the callousness we are dealing with, in our own party, and the importance of dealing with this additional threat now.
I am sorry about your friend.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)reading who may be from other countries, who see the laughter and hilarity here when the topic arises, I want to be sure they understand that this is very real and very tragic, and that the likelihood of Americans knowing someone who has died from lack of HC is very high.
I appreciate your compassion, something very lacking in the Third Way crowd as many have noticed.
My other friend is right now out of her job with a diagnosis of terminal melanoma. But what looked a disaster two months ago when she lost her job, may actually work in her favor now. While working she could not afford the co-pays which is why this cancer spread, she knew she needed treatment, but, well you know the story. However, now because she has no job, she is most likely eligible for medicaid, or will be in one month but can probably get treatment. I am hoping it is not too late.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I am enraged, and so sorry, that she had to wait, and that it had to come to this.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Third Way = corporate infiltration
www.thirdway.org
NeeDeep
(120 posts)and will say whatever it takes. This bottom feeding process is like throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if it is done; which ever direction the wind blows, works. Yes you are right, but the manipulators are dominate and setting the agenda, even if it is unempathetic, immoral and based on deception. The rats are abandoning the ship in favor of tax payer dollars for their health care + retirement! It's not that hard to know what matters, but these people don't care enough, to put themselves in front of the firing line!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)or could it also be about sweet-talking their way into post-retirement jobs on Wall Street?
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)"Some will say I'm a broken record, that I've said this before. Guilty as charged. But as long as the Third Way keeps bringing it up, I will too. There must be a line beyond which we'll not retreat, and for me, this is it. Let's hold our ground here, let's not keep letting our politicians move us further and further right. It must stop."
And while we're at it, it would be great if the not-really liberal media quits spewing false equivalences between both sides, and no longer fears the "liberal media" label. It drives me insane to hear somebody claim that BOTH Republicans and Democrats have moved away from the "center", when it's mainly the Republicans. If Democrats have really moved far to the left, why haven't they tried to do things like end the Drug War, advocate single-payer health care, or advocate returning to Eisenhower taxes for millionaires? And I might be wrong, but I find it sickening that they give even a sense of legitimacy to the failed policies from the right-wing. They know that trickle-down doesn't work. They know that the government intruding in people's sex-lives is perverse and immoral. They know that the U.S. remains the only industrialized nation without single-payer, and countless people here remain uninsured while Republicans whine about some mandate that they once supported. It's time for the media to call BS as it is.
hay rick
(9,587 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)enough to get it thus there is no reason to pay into it or fight for it. IMO they are merely making sure that the self fulfilling prophecy is carried out.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)And you're right, it's been pounded into people so relentlessly that many have succumbed to believing that and feel it's inevitable and they have no chance to fight back against it.
Very good point, jwirr.
It's a long term propaganda campaign cloaked as inevitable fact.
And it's as important as ever to push back against that as hard as possible whenever and wherever it arises.
patrice
(47,992 posts)How are we supposed to get costs down, so that we can expand into Single Payer/Medicare for All, when those costs are what they are because all systems were on the steroids of profits? These questions are headed full speed ahead at us and there lots of people who use them for political advantage, rather than consider what is best for everyone.
e.g.s: Shall we continue to provide motorized wheel chairs to anyone and everyone, even people who could pay more or all of the cost? Do you call it a cut to Medicare if we try to get at least some of those people, through other forms of therapy, to keep on walking on their own for as long as possible, before buying that chair for them? Is it a cut in Medicare to say that the bed-ridden 80+ year old might do better without that hip-replacement? Shall we call it a cut in Medicare to require that SOME diabetics exercise and adapt their diets for specified periods of time before covering increased dosages of whatever glucophage.
Just a few examples; there are likely thousands of others. Shall we just ignore all of this stuff, so that we don't have to run the risks of being accused of cutting Medicare by those from several very different, perhaps even normally opposed, political quarters who benefit politically by ganging up temporarily and doing so.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)The Govt streamlines care...and there are procedures it will not pay for, based retrospective studies.
So: I've had a specific type of cancer, and if it returns after age 66 the govt plan will not pay for a bone marrow transplant for that specific cancer.. ( I don't know about other cancers)
The plan will cover many alternate chemo therapies etc..again, evidence based.
I think this is what Pres Obama means to do...begin restricting the unnecessary procedures that may be undertaken..to boost profits.
Is that your understanding?
patrice
(47,992 posts)objectives ahead of what is good for most of the people. That kind of commentary comes from what calls itself "the Left" and also, of course, from the Right, because it serves both of their purposes: to destroy Obama from "the Left" and to destroy first the Affordable Care Act and then Medicare from the Right. Those two cohorts have synergy on this particular aspect of Medicare so they're both going to scream bloody murder about attempts to separate for-profit treatment modalities from more authentic person based treatments. The difference between those two sets of priorities will make the difference between expanded care or even the survival of Medicare at all. Some of the screamers are those who are rooting to kill Medicare by preventing it from addressing the for-profit motive in the treatment modalities that it currently supports and which, in turn, support some pretty fat salaries riding on top of facilities kept alive by Medicare.
Here's a source on for-profit treatment modalities. Dr. Freeman is the Chair of Family Practice at KU Medical School and an ACTIVE member of Physicians for a National Health Program:
http://medicinesocialjustice.blogspot.com/
Thanks for your support. There's some crazy crap going on on this board; it will add up to hurting a lot of people and there are a bunch more people who don't care about that.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)One law, the legislative language would probably require two pages, but 8 words fixes the issue and doesn't require the needy to go begging.
harun
(11,381 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The best defense is a good offense.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
SunSeeker
(58,243 posts)Instead of creating a strawman to attack.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)Triangulation only works when the other side is willing to compromise. The Republicans are not willing to compromise, and they are presently in a position of weakness. It's time to hit them and hit them hard.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)You know, the Blue Dogs are just Rockefeller Republicans who've colonized our Party. So taxing the rich won't work for them.
If they won't vote like real Democrats, just stop appointing them to Committees. That problem is also easily solvable. But, much of the the Party leadership are just . . .
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What truth does to some people is small compared to real property, especially cash.
Enablers
The Central Role of Faux Republicans in the Anatomy of Decline
by FRANKLIN C. SPINNEY
Gaeta, Italia.
CounterPunch
Readers beware; what follows is a biased book review. The author Mike Lofgren (bio) is a very close friend of mine, and, as some of you may may already know, I have been flogging his important new book, The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Mike is a conservative of the now forgotten old school, more at home with the likes of Robert Taft, Eisenhower, and Lincoln than right wing ideologues like Newt Gingrich or plutocratic highway robbers like Mitt Romney.
Casual readers of Lofgren’s aptly titled book may well conclude that he is harder on Republicans than Democrats. In a technical sense this is true. Having served on the Republican staffs of the House and Senate Budget Committees, he was in a much better position to observe and understand their hijinks than those of the Democrats. So, it is not at all surprising that his book has more detail describing how the ideological Republican crazies created the current political-economic mess that is poisoning our culture and wrecking our economy. But it would be a great mistake to conclude that Mike is arguing that the Republicans are THE culprits. This book is about how the Republicans and Democrats worked together to sell out the middle class.
The author is a modest, unassuming individual, who at first glance would appear unlikely to write such a book. He never sought the kleig lights. He never hung out with the gucci shoe crowd to pave his way into high paying lobbying job on K Street. Lunch for Lofgren was not at the Prime Rib or Capital Hill Club, but a simple sandwich in a brown bag. This modesty of life style and demeanor hides a principled intellectual, who has the character to go where his reasoning and observation take him. And a pen in Lofgrens deft hands, combined with his deep understanding of political history and acid sense of humor, becomes a sharp, deeply penetrating harpoon aimed at the heart of his subject. In addition to harpooning the bloated degenerate Republican whale, Mike harpoons the Democrats by demonstrating subtly, yet persuasively, how their growing “uselessness” arose out of an enervating sense of entitlement to power.
That sense of entitlement mutated Democrats into what we in the Pentagon would call THE ENABLERS of Republicans. The Democratic enablers unwittingly played a crucial role in the demolition of the American dream, not unlike that played by infiltration troops in blitzkrieg. Infiltration troops soften up the front by wiggling through defenses to create holes and weak areas for the tanks to roar thru and reap chaos and destruction in the enemy’s rear area. Only in this case, the rear area being ruined is the American middle class and the role of tanks is taken up by the flow money supplied by the oligarchs who feather their nests by buying Democrats as well as Republicans in one seamless auction.
Put bluntly, to protect their sense hereditary entitlement to the power bequeathed by the coattails of FDR and the New Deal, the Democrats abandoned their progressive heritage and moved to Wall Street, Big Pharma, Defense, etc., insensibly becoming faux Republicans. If you doubt this, look at the enervating, quasi-neoliberal ramblings of the self-inflating Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) or the cynical triangulations and warmongerings of Messrs. Clinton and Obama. Their abdication of progressive principles gave Republican crazies more room to get even crazier, and together the faux Republicans and the real crazy Republicans reinforced each other to create a rightward shift in the American political dynamic that unleashed the evolution of a new gilded age, together with the re-emergence of a plutocracy that Russian oligarchs would envy. And this happened in a remarkably short time of 30 to 40 years.
CONTINUED...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/10/the-central-role-of-faux-republicans-in-the-anatomy-of-decline/
FDR HST JFK...
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Anyone who doesn't understand that Obama saved the banks from the pitchforks, and changed precious little, is either too dumb or too crazy to lead, anyway.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)They're on the same team, and it definitely ain't our team.
http://www.thirdway.org/
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Social Security benefits subject to taxation when received by retirees who receive income above a certain amount.
Prior to the 1993 legislation (and after 1983), only 50% of Social Security benefits were subject to such taxation.
When the federal government takes back Social Security benefits through federal taxation, the Social Security benefits are cut by the amount of the federal taxation.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Prior to 1983 none of the benefit was taxed. Reagan started the taxation of benefits. Clinton signed a bill 10 years later which increased the amount of income taxable from Regan's 50% to 83%.
Reagan started the taxation and put in place 50 of the percentage points, Clinton expanded it by 33 percentage points.
Prior to Reagan there was no such tax, after Reagan there was. This is Reagan's puppy primarily.
And I was there to oppose what both of them did, the Republican and the DLCer.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)He, in fact, raised taxes several times.
The claim that he reduced taxes is as informed and truthful as those who claim that Bill I-signed-NAFTA-for-your-own-good Clinton is a liberal or progressive.
whathehell
(30,458 posts)and I believe he and Hillary are the ORIGINATORS of "the Third Way".
Rachel's show caught him on camera "confiding" in Paul Ryan
that he was "glad the Democrats won this one" (odd year election of NY Democrat)
but he was afraid that "Democrats weren't going to do anything about Medicare"
He then asked Ryan to "call him". This was about a year ago, and even Rachel
briefly mentioned the possibility of "collusion".
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)whathehell
(30,458 posts)
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)...and its time to attack Democrats on trumped up innuendo. Nice.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Gives Republicans a free pass.
Similar Manny Propaganda strategies seen here:
"Priebus: Obama Is ‘Stealing’ From Seniors And Has ‘Blood On His Hands’"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021114838
seanpencil
(168 posts)there's your answer.
good post and looks like good replies/discussion. need to read it all. thank you.
Part of the game here is to make people forget that SS and pensions have ALREADY BEEN PAID INTO by the people who are being demonized for expecting the OTHER END OF THE DEAL to be held up. Boomers in the 80's under Reaganomics were dinged DOUBLE THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
So this is part of the privitization scam.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)You're not supposed to remember that the payroll tax holiday tying SS to the deficit was supposed to be temporary, either.
seanpencil
(168 posts)was talking to a friend today about the Memory Hole, how we're not supposed to remember 4 minutes ago let alone 4 days ago.
THAT'S WHY FAUX NEWS MAKES BY BRAIN HURT.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)seanpencil
(168 posts)looks almost like a Ponzi scheme
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Classifying it as an entitlement is a rethug talking point and any Democrat who really does not see that should find another job
Social security is solvent for at least 30 years. The reason there are issues with it is because congress stole money from it to pay for wars. Remember Gore said he would not allow that to happen
If bush and Ryan had there way social security would have even more issues because they wanted to privitize it, but after the financial melt down that idea quickly went away.
There are certain people in congress who believe Americans have short memories and they can reintroduce it later. This election will determine just how short American's memories are
In my view any democrat who supports either cutting SS, raising the age for it more can go to hell and will not get my support
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)let the gop pervert the meaning of the word without fighting back.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)that hasn't already been said so I'm just going to K & R
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)-PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS, JANUARY 25, 2011
eomer
(3,845 posts)was clearly a pledge that the cuts would not rise to the level of "slashing". The President also said that we need a fix that "strengthens" social security but "preserves the promise". If you read through the President's press conferences and town hall meetings in July 2011 it is clear that he was proposing "strengthening" social security by both raising the cap and reducing the inflation adjustment that applies post-retirement. The latter is clearly a cut in benefits.
In a way those who deny that the President made these proposals are criticizing him even more than we who (factually) say that he did. You're effectively claiming that it's unthinkable that the President would have proposed this. And yet he did.
I, on the other hand, admit because it is plainly true that he made these proposals and go on to say that we should fight against them, while still supporting his reelection.
I do agree that it ought to be unthinkable, so in a way we're both working in the same direction. But the problem is that denying what plainly happened could mean that we don't fight against such proposals until after they've been passed into law.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)Yeah, we have a choice between R/R who admittedly want to cut Social Security and Medicare and a President who not only says he opposes this but has done nothing that would harm these programs.
So why do the same people continuously push these conspiracy theories?
eomer
(3,845 posts)If you read through the various statements the President made in July 2011 you will see that he obviously was proposing some level of cuts to social security benefits.
Here is one example:
THE PRESIDENT: We’ve said that we are willing to look at all those approaches. I’ve laid out some criteria in terms of what would be acceptable. So, for example, I’ve said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries as much as possible are not affected. But we should look at what can we do in the out-years, so that over time some of these programs are more sustainable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president
So the President proposed in the above remark in July 2011 that even current beneficiaries may have to have some cuts ("as much as possible are not affected"
. And clearly he states by that that future beneficiaries will definitely need to be affected.
There are many other similar statements by the President during this period and you can find them in the July 2011 link in the Archives section of this Speeches and Remarks page:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)In the summer of 2011, after President Obama stated in his January SOTU address that he wouldn't "slash" SS/Medicare, and the newly elected Teabilly Fucksticks were refusing to increase the debt level, Obama thought it would be a good time to bargain with them and cut SS, Medicare & Medicaid in return for a pittance of a tax increase. He lovingly called it "The Grand Bargain," although it is truly a source of puzzlement to Democrats as to why a Democratic president considers it "Grand" to weaken the safety net our party has created, guarded and improved over the past decades.
Here is the essence of President Obama's Grand Bargain:
Would they support him?
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-evolution-behind-the-failed-grand-bargain-on-the-debt/2012/03/15/gIQAHyyfJS_story.html
This isn't a conspiracy theory as you have mentioned several times. It happened, it's real, and we witnessed a Democratic president who was willing to cut SS/Medicare/Medicaid for a fucking pittance in return. He said one thing and then turned around and did the complete opposite of what he promised.
The entire point of bringing this issue up, particularly now with Paul Ryan and the Ryan Plan in the spotlight, is to hold Obama's feet to the fire and elicit a promise from him and ALL DEMOCRATS to find OTHER ways to cut the budget. I haven't heard that promise yet, and until I do, I will continue to participate in the discussion to force the issue. Those who want to pretend this isn't a huge problem facing the Democratic party, pretend the Grand Bargain didn't happen, they are undercutting the very tenets of the party. This Democrat will not shut up about our leadership's willingness to "grandly bargain" away the cemented pillars of the Democratic Party.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Grand Bipartisan War on the 99%?
Grand Betrayal of Fundamental Democratic Principles?
Thanks for your excellent summary.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)Ryan's Plan will be on the table now, BEFORE the election, and it is the perfect time to demand some assurances from our leadership that SS/Medicare/Medicaid are OFF the table. Period. There is so much waste elsewhere that they can focus on.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Woo's post drew 'em out: We are pulled to the right. We are manipulated like fools.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)So far it's just some of you interpreting what Obama Really Meant - not what he actually said.
Is he guilty of some thought crime? Guilty of something that hasn't happened?
Where are the screaming people whose SS have been cut by Obama?
Sometime in the future? What date does your crystal ball show you?
eomer
(3,845 posts)Here are some of the statements the President made during the period of July and August of 2011:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/11/press-conference-president
THE PRESIDENT: We’ve said that we are willing to look at all those approaches. I’ve laid out some criteria in terms of what would be acceptable. So, for example, I’ve said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries as much as possible are not affected. But we should look at what can we do in the out-years, so that over time some of these programs are more sustainable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/15/press-conference-president
Essentially what we had offered Speaker Boehner was over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending, both domestic and defense. We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. We believed that it was possible to shape those in a way that preserved the integrity of the system, made them available for the next generation, and did not affect current beneficiaries in an adverse way.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
If I’m saying to future recipients of Social Security or Medicare that you’re going to have to make some adjustments, it’s important that we’re also willing to make some adjustments when it comes to corporate jet owners, or oil and gas producers, or people who are making millions or billions of dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/22/remarks-president
And the way to do it is similar to the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill fixed Social Security back in 1983. They said, okay, we’ll make some modest adjustments that are phased in over a very long period of time; most folks don’t notice them. But if we do that, and all the money goes back into Social Security -- it doesn’t go anywhere else -- then there’s no reason why Social Security won’t be there for future generations. But, again, this is an example of where everybody gets so dug in on their positions.
And I have to say, in fairness -- because I’ve commented on the other side not always being flexible -- there have been times where our side -- when Democrats aren’t always as flexible as we need to be. I mean, sometimes I do get frustrated when I hear folks say, you can’t make any changes to any government programs. Well, that can’t be right. I mean, most companies every year, they’re kind of thinking, what can we do better? Are there some changes we could make in order to have the operation go a little smoother? The government should have to do the same thing. But that doesn’t mean we have to make radical changes that dismantle what is the most important social insurance program that we have. But, again, the problem is not the program, the problem is our politics.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/15/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-cannon-falls-minnesota
Now, hopefully, people have other savings that help supplement their incomes in their golden years. But we’ve got to make sure Social Security is there not just for this generation but for the next generation. (Applause.) Now, Social Security is not posing a huge problem with respect to our debt and our deficit. There is a problem that if we don’t make any modifications at all, then in a few years what will start happening is, is that the amount of money going out is more than the amount coming -- amount of money going in. And people debate how soon, but in a couple of decades you’d start having a situation where you’d only get 75 cents on the dollar that you expected on Social Security.
If we make some modest changes now, the kind of changes that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill agreed to back in 1983, we can preserve Social Security, make sure it’s there for the future 75 years out. So Social Security is something that we can solve relatively easily. It doesn’t mean that we don’t make any changes at all, because there may be some tweaks that we can make to the program, but we can assure that Social Security is there for future generations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/17/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-alpha-illinois
The "changes that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill agreed to back in 1983", that President Obama referred to as a model, included raising the retirement age and decreasing benefits (the latter by reducing cost-of-living adjustments):
1. Coverage of newly hired Federal employees.
2. Coverage of employees of nonprofit employers.
3. Ban on termination of coverage of State and local government employees.
4. Six-month delay in cost-of-living adjustments.
5. Modification of cost-of-living increases during periods of low trust fund balances (stabilizer provision).
6. Normalized tax transfers.
7. Extension of interfund borrowing authority.
8. Elimination of windfall benefits (for workers receiving pensions from noncovered employment).
9. Increase in normal retirement age after the year 2000.
10. Increase in delayed retirement benefits.
11. Reduced withholding rate under the retirement test.
12. Taxation of Social Security benefits.
13. Changes in tax rate schedule.
14. Acceleration of State and local tax collections.
15. Increase in benefits for certain surviving, divorced and disabled spouses.
16. Change in financing basis of noncontributory military service wage credits.
17. Reimbursement of Social Security funds for uncashed checks.
18. Change in public pension offset (for spouses with pensions from noncovered employment).
19. Taxation of contributions under salary reduction plans.
20. Suspension of benefits to certain nonresident aliens.
21. Expanded use of death certificates.
22. Other changes without significant cost impact, including provision for two more OASDI trustees from outside the government.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/1983.pdf
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Third-Way repellent.
Thanks.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)as sunlight is to vampires. They scurry off.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)what is the evidence?
eomer
(3,845 posts)Luckily the Republicans didn't take him up on his offer of a Grand Bargain and so the changes he proposed have not (yet) been enacted.
I want the Democratic platform to include a promise not to cut Social Security benefits so we don't have to worry about this being tried again. Would you want such a promise in the platform?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)which seems to have ended the argument.
Response to eomer (Reply #247)
DirkGently This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Excellent post btw.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Some folks heard the starting gun go off and immediately spammed these boards to try to muddy the waters. And DU lets them do it, although there used to be a rule in place that prohibited this crap during elections. Maybe they think it's edgy or cool, but it succinctly illustrates the the ignorance of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)You see, "slashing" is not the same as "cutting". "Slashing" is out, but "cutting"... well:
But then there was this little issue of the Washington Post story posted Wednesday night that reported Obama was offering “for the first time ... to tackle the rising cost of Social Security.” This had set off alarm bells among Obama’s progressive base, and led Carney to put out a statement denying there was anything new in the White House’s position on Social Security.
The denials continued on Thursday. And that’s where the verbal dancing got particularly entertaining. Back in January, in his State of the Union address, the president “talked about his openness to doing things to strengthen Social Security, things that would not slash benefits,” Carney said.
Carney’s statement appeared, however, to leave open the possibility that the White House could accept some kind of benefit cut.
So, a reporter asked, what does “slash” mean?
“Haven’t you got, like, a dictionary app on your iPhone?” Carney replied.
Q: Well, it’s a word that you use instead of “cut.”
Carney: “Slash” is, I think, quite clear. It’s slash. It’s like that. (Carney makes a slashing motion with his hand.) It’s a significant whack.
Q: So it means a significant …
Carney: I’m not going to put a numerical figure on it.
Q: So it means a significant cut.
Carney: I think slashing is a pretty sharp, direct …
Q: It’s not the same thing as cutting – the point is, it’s not the same thing as “cut.”
Carney: It’s slash. (Laughter.) And I don’t mean the guitarist. (Laughter.)
Q: A pledge to not slash benefits is not the same thing as a pledge to not cut benefits.
Carney: I’m not – again, we’re talking about a policy enunciated by the president back in January, and that is …
Q: This is a diction you guys have chosen.
Carney: No, no, I get that, and we did choose it, and the president used it. But I’m not here to negotiate the semantics …
Q: Just so everybody understands – just so everybody understands, when you say “slash,” you don’t mean “cut.”
They've stopped this nonsense since being called out on it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)one of those Democrats, except it's not about "word games," he has an actual proposal. Another thing, he's running away from, not toward Ryan: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021116639
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)his cute cut-vs-slash stuff? Then we're in agreement.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Throwing trash from the sidelines doesn't count.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Please be specific, thanks.
I've picked a side: traditional Democratic values.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)You have NO EVIDENCE of your conspiracy theory. You have ONE comment from John Conyers that was ripped apart here http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/07/john-conyers-owes-president-apology.html . You have a PUMA-run website (FDL) that bellowed "cat food commission!!!" and all those open to anti-Obama CTs - like yourself - jumped on it like stink on a monkey. Maybe Pres O will announce those cuts at the NEXT State of the Union. Right, Manny?
The gun went off and you and a few of your comrades were out of the gate slamming the president, lying about his intentions, parsing his words ... what the hell do you expect us to think? Pick a side, Manny, because the consequences of your efforts to suppress Democratic voter turn-out are real.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)First off, it claims that cutting Social Security through indexing adjustments to a lower-than-real inflation rate is better than other kinds of cuts. I don't agree. A cut is a cut.
They also fail to mention that Obama's commision voted to recommend a plan that eventually cuts more than 20% from the average beneficiary's lifetime benefit. That's extremely bad, I think.
I highly encourage everyone to vote for Obama over Romney - but get ready to be Grand Bargained shortly thereafter. That is what we must work to stop.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)I think it's pretty clear by now that the commission was political theater.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Open defense on a Democratic website of the DESPICABLE chained CPI, and links to a right-wing, Third Way rag that has a front page full of attacks on progressives.
Corporate tentacles run deep, and they are very upset that people on Democratic discussion boards are trying to head off the Grand Bargain.
You have more patience than I, Manny.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)that defends the chained CPI, attacks Dennis Kucinich, and labels progressive Democrats as "professional leftists."
Another lovely headline:
"Do Progressives Evah Learn?"
Please spare us the right wing garbage and attacks on liberals.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Here's another title of a piece from there: "Obama's Betrayal of Progressives"
Surely even you would deem that sufficiently anti-Obama.
Boo! LOL.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Dogs are cats.
Freedom is Slavery.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
"We ALWAYS support Democrats!"....(except, of course, when we're trashing the ones who actually defend liberal policies).
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It reduces projected benefits, and it does so more viciously over time.
Real Democrats do not attack Social Security. Period.
I'm glad to see, though, that the inevitable Third Way shift from denying that the attacks on SS will happen, to attempting to rationalize and defend them, is happening early.
Democrats need to see the wolves in sheep's clothing who have infested our party. All of us need to know clearly what we will be up against after November if we don't speak out loudly now and demand this promise not to cut safety nets from our President.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)It's clear the commission was political theater.
Maybe it's time you pulled up your socks and stopped trying to undermine the Democratic Party during this election season.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Unbelievable!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)What's truly unbelievable is a handful of knuckleheads running around DU with their hair on fire over nothing more substantive than their breathless predictions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts) woo me with science
(32,139 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)those are your choices.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)and tens of millions more with access to medical care in name only.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I mean, with all the Democrats out in force reaffirming support for Ryan's plan to cut Social Security, from the OP:
...it'll make it easier for us to target them. Can't wait to find out who they are.
I know Wyden has ties, but he doesn't appear to want to be associated with Ryan anymore.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021116639
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Can't miss it. I suspect they may pull the articles quickly after they see this thread.
(Of course, Third Way party members are not really Democrats, so I suppose that you are correct in this respect, but the Third Way is out in full force promoting cuts in social security and other social safety net programs that protect tens of millions of Americans)
From the front page, http://www.thirdway.org/
http://www.thirdway.org/THE LATEST
POLITICO OPED - Why Democrats Must Cut Entitlement]
Hmm? Entitlements aren’t crowding out investments??
We fear the answer is no. And while we share the view that a future budget deal must include a significant increase in revenue, we cannot ignore that entitlements are crowding out our ability to invest. Our hope with this paper is not to denigrate entitlements but to enlist the Party that created them, nurtured them, and expanded them to take the lead in humanely reforming them. As Baby Boomers start to retire, it is getting harder to budget for both growth and security.
Jim Kessler
Senior Vice President for Policy, Third Way
NYT: Bill Keller on "The Entitled Generation
And at politico
Tough love: Why Democrats must cut entitlements
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79521.html
tavalon
(27,985 posts)They are infiltrators, trying to turn the party into a slightly kinder Republican party. They are interlopers and they are destroying the party from within.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)what Republicans do.
Check Check and Check - all the elements of a "Manny Goldstein" post.
Yes you are a broken record - you spin everything negatively for Democrats and attempt to distract from actual Republican Policies.
Eventually Skinner is going to get tired of your song.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Quite the straw man.
Here's more, if you genuinely care: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1116871
ProSense
(116,464 posts)emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)that you've had your ass handed to you on that subject.
You know what the Republicans say, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)no signs that it wandered off at some point and has been re-affixed.
Perhaps you can refresh our memories around my ass holding incident? I seem to have forgotten it.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)More refusal to supply specifics.
Bad manners.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)there's probably someone at headquarters who can find it for you.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Or something else?
Or are you a person who won't say what they mean?
Let's get down to it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Sheesh.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)Wacky conspiracy theories, The "secret" collusion between Evil Obama and the RNC and their 1% masters
==============
6. Ryan won't win. Romney won't win. posted by YOU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1108694
"The one percent knows that.
The purpose of Ryan is to fill the election season with horror stories of what his budget would do to all of us, so that when Obama is re-elected, the country welcomes and embraces the planned bipartisan "Grand Bargain" to impose more austerity, cut Social Security, and raise the Medicare eligiblity age as the humane, even generous alternative."
==============
patrice
(47,992 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 12, 2012, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)
when it's no skin off of one's own nose.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)It's notable that underlying this entire discussion is a simple request: That a Democratic President running for reelection as a champion of the 99 percent simply promise not to attack the safety nets that millions of Americans depend upon to avoid poverty and despair in their old age.
Not even that he promise to improve them...but that he promise not to ATTACK them.
The hysterical response that this simple request has elicited from the usual small group of Third Way policy defenders tells us all we need to know.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)and to create a Strawman Obama and put words in his mouth.
Very similar to what Republican Operatives like the head of the RNC are doing.
And to spin deranged conspiracy theories that "prove" that Democrats are secretly working for the Koch Brothers.
patrice
(47,992 posts)coming under scrutiny. SuperPACs are out in force protecting "health" "care" profits built on top of Medicare.
Unholy marriages between what wants us to believe that it is "the Left" and various sundry other margin-splitters: Libertarians, "Anarchists", Greens, Naderites, Tea Partyers, Republicans-of-all-stripes, Racists, and Obama-derangement-syndrome sufferers are trying to take control of the Medicare issue, because we actually stand half-of-a-chance to move forward to Medicare for All if we can identify the for-profit motive parasites presently living off of Medicare and that fact WILL drive down prices across the full spectrum of the milieu.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)school, and have a large family with many younger generations in it, so I've seen what is happening to us without appropriate kinds of health care, including mental health parity. If we want even half of a chance of getting there, we must be honest about what is going on. Unfortunately, what calls itself "the Left" can be as fascist as anyone else when it comes to the base building opportunities out there right now and there are vast swathes of not only apathetic, but out right destructive, cohorts out there in the body politic to support negative synergies perceived as their own "power" when they very possibly are just as much a product of the very manipulations that most of us are trying to resist.
Progressive dog
(7,598 posts)I don't want to hear more Rethuglican talking points, especially on a Democratic web site.
How much has the President cut Manny's Social Security or Medicare? Did he add an unpaid for drug benefit in an attempt to bankrupt Medicare? Did he add subsidies for Medicare Advantage plans in order to privatize it? Did his deal to cut benefits even make it out of discussion?
Yeah, the President cut $700 billion from Medicare and closed the drug doughnut hole, but he didn't cut benefits.
When he comes out with his stealth plan to actually cut Medicare and/or Social Security, I'll listen.
Until then, I wish you would drop this conspiracy stuff.,
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)how can you say that the "republicans did this"?
Citizen Worker
(1,785 posts)democratic office seekers to publicly answer whether or not they will fight to improve these vital programs and not cut them. Put them on the spot during public appearances and make them answer. If they dodge the question or you hear the words shared sacrifice you'll have your answer and you should reconsider your vote. The democratic party is controlled by the DLC, Third Way, No Labels, etc., and the only time they talk to you and me is at election time. This is the only opportunity we'll have to make all of these candidates to state their position.
TBF
(36,568 posts)which would allow some young folks to actually get jobs these days, and we should eliminate the age requirement for Medicare.
Taxes on rich folks and corporations should and will pay for this.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)please, who it is that you have decided is not part of this issue. Not necessary to this discussion so we should shut it down now by promoting irrational reactions to something that isn't identified any more accurately, any more validly, than by some bullshit label, the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil 3rd Way. Especially given the fact that all stake-holders aren't even at the Medicare reform table yet, I'd very much like to hear who it is that we don't NEED to hear from. Who it is that you would prevent a voice by taking this administration down on false grounds. There are more positions here than slavery to the obsolete "us" against "them" modalities that brought us to our current disasters.
Freedom includes the ability to BOTH resist or support as is appropriate to the empirical facts at hand, not blind knee jerk reactions to ideologies and abstract predictions.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)How is the 3rd Way, etc, being silenced? They seem to be doing a helluva job of silencing they're critics by relying on "party loyalty", "not as bad", or any of the other knee-jerk reactions to criticism.
It isn't the "us against them" modalities that brought us to the current disasters, but the surrender of the Democratic Party to the "practical" politics of surrendering, inch by inch, yard by yard, mile by mile, to the right and becoming little more than a "me too" to the Republicans.
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine
patrice
(47,992 posts)that there might be some questions that need to be answered or some conditions recognized in order to achieve some level of support on your issues other than abject blind obedience to YOUR assumed authority?
Often the problem isn't WHAT is said but rather fascist, proprietary, and exclusive assumptions about what truth is that could very likely cause significant critical information faults and, at minimum, lead to more pain and suffering for people who, though somewhat irresponsibly ignorant and apathetic cop-outs, DID NOT intentionally cause, DID NOT CHOOSE to cause, our troubles like some others very obviously did, or those information faults, at worst, could lead to complete and utter failure on scales that far exceed those that you putatively are trying presently to avoid by your resistance to whatever it is that you think you are resisting.
If you don't think the path I am referring to COULD lead to that level of pain and suffering, then perhaps you need to acquaint yourself more closely with what is happening at grassroots levels, especially amongst certain factions of America's young, who are impatient to find their power and strike back whether that actually helps them or not and costs to others' lives and well-being LITERALLY be damned, because these young cohorts ARE feeding on some very heady fascist stuff that says all of that death and dying is the right thing that needs to happen.
MY basic criteria is freedom, because there is NO possibility of any degree of TRUTH, i.e. functionality, without the courage to be honestly free. I don't see that in your cohort. I see one thing and one thing ONLY dominating ALL other input, perspectives, possibilities, whatever . . . ONE thing to which every "fact" is subjected and warped: the defeat of Barack Obama.
Even when I like your principles and values, I can't throw in with slaves who won't allow themselves OR ANYONE ELSE to think anything other than the prescribed orthodoxy, whatever that happens to be at whatever point, but which currently is exactly like the RNC's and Mitch MCConnell's, so pardon me for not signing on, and that is to prevent a 2nd term for this presidency, which most of you don't even seem to recognize that for many of his supporters is not a goal in and of itself but a means to other goals that have much more to do with the people and their lives than they have to do with YOUR politics.
patrice
(47,992 posts)thing, depending upon who is empowered to participate in 3rd-Way/dialectic processing.
And the problems with the very nice Thomas Paine quote are two-fold:
- Believe it or not, lots of people don't NEED anyone to do their thinking for them, though it is nice to discover support from someone like Thomas Paine.
- Those kinds of quote are put ahead of authentic interaction with authentic persons, so those who are too dependent upon the quote ASSUME they know whether a given person is "moderate" in temper or "moderate" in principle and, surprise, surprise, I'd bet money that the incidence of attribution error is by far higher than not, so we have this huge monster of self-fulfilling prophecy going on that causes and is caused by everyone assuming that everyone else is in the vice valence, i.e. moderate in principle and, thus, an enemy to goodness. Tell me that this is not true the next time you see the myriad characterizations of President Obama as somekind of monster who wants to enslave all Americans for all time to corporations and actually desires death-panels institutionalized through Medicare and wants everyone kept as ignorant as possible by retail-education.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)As an Anarchist, I subscribe to no orthodoxy. As for "knowing" if a person is a moderate, liberal, radical, conservative, etc,: How do you judge but by their actions and words?
I haven't seen Obama characterized the way you aver here. Nor do I consider him a "monster". I see him as just another politician playing the "not as bad" mantra to the orthodox Democrats who look the other way, or make excuses, for his actions and words.
Obama is nothing new in political terms. Ambitious to be elected and doing whatever he and his advisers think to be the best way to achieve that end. We've seen it all before, the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, selling out their principles (or, alleged principles) to gain office.
patrice
(47,992 posts)states. Democrats having moved right is perfect bullshit to me. Fuck all of the stupid ideologies; a so-called Leftie Democrat might as well be from Pluto for any relevance they would have to my/our situation here.
People like me don't count to you all. It's ALL about your situation, proving yourselves to whoever, when what I/we need here is someone who can get a toe-hold and then move in the right direction. Revolution be fucking damned, it ain't here! and our needs are NOW. Sick and goddamned tired of some people acting like the PPACA and other REAL ground is meaningless compared to YOUR POLITICS. You are more in love with your ideas like the bullshit called anarchy than you are with actual flesh and blood people.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)that enabling politicians that are willing to slash social benefit programs is hurting people and maybe you should stop thinking only of your own situation.
And everyone in the whole world knows the US is trending far right. It's not bullshit - perhaps you need to take off the red state filter.
savannah43
(575 posts)
airplaneman
(1,385 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 12:57 AM - Edit history (1)
SS + Medicare should be easy to fix.
-Make taxes broad based and fair and progressive for the rich - people at the poverty level pay zero (not the rich).
-Tax any form of wealth creation at the same rate as wages again progressive for the rich.
The bullshit that wages are always taxed but other forms of wealth creation are either taxed at a much lower rate or not at all needs to be stopped.
-Tax all stock and derivative trades at 1%.
-Get transparency in medical costs and be like the rest of the world.
I have a good example. It costs about $300 to get an MRI in France or Canada. My mother in law just got one and the bill was $12,000 with her Medicare share being $1,100.
-Reduce military spending and be more like the rest of the world.
In 2000 we spent $350 billion on the military, homeland security, and TSA. The figure today is $800 billion and Romney wants to increase that number. We spend more than the rest of the world combined.
Its just a matter of getting real and dealing with the problem - we should be like the rest of the world and not a gross and disgusting exception.
-Airplane
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)and I won't bother to wade through all the responses here to see if any of the usual suspects have provided an explanation or evidence that the fear/expectation of such isn't perfectly rationale and reasonable.
I'm guessing it'll take this kinda form http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/grand-bargain-theyre-coming-our-socia and here's a goody http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/pete-petersen-hosts-bill-clinton-paul.html
The reality is, the third way suporters have nothing but their hopes and delusions that the deck isn't being stacked http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security.html as far as I can tell. As far as I am concerned, this was one of the primary reasons the PEE Partiers came into existence -- to pull the already well off center ideological dividing line in DC farther to the right, in an effort to provide cover/reasons for the dems to do what only they could -- exactly what you're talking about. http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security.html and more
That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. Would they support him?
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [WH chief of staff William] Daley recalled. ... Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Repukes who want to cut SS & Medicare and make birth control illegal. Our mistake was believing we voted for a fighter and progressive in 2008.
andym
(6,064 posts)Alzheimer's which are predicted to afflict greater numbers of people as longevity increases.
For example, http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_causes_risk_factors.asp
"The greatest known risk factor for Alzheimer’s is advancing age. Most individuals with the disease are age 65 or older. The likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s doubles about every five years after age 65. After age 85, the risk reaches nearly 50 percent."
The good news is that preventative measures for Alzheimer's and other chronic diseases are very likely to be developed in the next ten years as the underlying mechanisms of these diseases are better understood and then slowed or blocked.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)We are going to be told that the greatest threat to our national security is the debt and deficit, raising taxes on those making 250k and above per year at a percentage rate will not even come close to closing the 1.5 trillion deficit let alone address the exisiting 16 trillion of national debt.... The right is gearing up to educate the public that taxing is not the answer and that complete reform of Medicare and Social Security as well as the elimination of Obamacare are the only ways to save America... The fear card will be played and they will blame Democrats who will not reform programs as wanting to force austerity which will result in ending the programs completely....
Will it work? Who knows it depends on how strong an argument against cutting benefits is from the President...but this is going to be bloody and whoever wins the debate will claim a mandate by the American people on how to proceed.....
dsteve01
(312 posts)We just gotta take em' out behind the shed and give them a talking-to.
Jamastiene
(38,206 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Neither party truly represents the best interests of the middle class and poor. Those days are long gone.
pnwmom
(110,254 posts)All cuts are not the same. We DO need to cut costs, and we can -- there's no reason we can't have high quality care, as they do in Europe, without having to pay twice as much as they do.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)That being said...
WARNING: DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE RIGHTS!
It took a long time to establish these programs.. and you will NEVER get them again.
Your Government doesn't give a crap if you die cold and hungry.. and you will.
The problem is not Social Security or Food stamps.. the problem is the $40 BILLION PER MONTH that is going to crony corporations in Afghanistan.
$40 BILLION (just one month of Washington's wars) would fund Social Security for 50 years.. AND.. provide a college education for EVERY high school senior in America. It would even have money left over to provide a fully-paid Hawaiin cruise for all the parents of college students.
Folks.. you are being hosed big time.....
2banon
(7,321 posts)
dflprincess
(29,335 posts)Red Crow
(8 posts)We have already cut Medicare.We cut 600 plus billions out of Medicare Advantage.Medicare Advantage is a program used by middle and lower middle income seniors.It is not used by the rich................My daughter and her family has lived in the UK for four years.I visit there often.She also lived in Italy where I stayed for long periods of time.Although the English like their alcohol, the country has very strict rules about it's food.A loaf of bread only lasts 3 days in the UK.No preservatives allowed.Rice Krispies or Ovaltine cannot be exported to many northern Eueopean countries because they contain additivesetc etc etc.In the UK (she had a baby there) you HAVE to go to the hospital and doctors in your postal code.The doctors and hospitals in the upscale London postal codes just happen to be the best.Very few lawsuits in the UK compared to US................it is just a different world......................people in the medical profession make a lot less than here ..............one of our biggest challenges is to get the mindset changed about people in that profession making so much money..............perhaps we could completely pay for the education doctors receive.................raise the price of tobacco products to what Canada charges....In Florence Italy you almost never see a really heavy Florentine...............peolpe walk on their safe streets............
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021120987
Oh, and this:
"We have already cut Medicare.We cut 600 plus billions out of Medicare Advantage.Medicare Advantage is a program used by middle and lower middle income seniors."
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There was a brief flurry of outrage when Congress passed the 2003 Medicare bill. The news media reported on the scandalous vote in the House of Representatives: Republican leaders violated parliamentary procedure, twisted arms and perhaps engaged in bribery to persuade skeptical lawmakers to change their votes in a session literally held in the dead of night.
Later, the media reported on another scandal: it turned out that the administration had deceived Congress about the bill's likely cost.
But the real scandal is what's in the legislation. It's an object lesson in how special interests hold America's health care system hostage.
The new Medicare law subsidizes private health plans, which have repeatedly failed to deliver promised cost savings. It creates an unnecessary layer of middlemen by requiring that the drug benefit be administered by private insurers. The biggest giveaway is to Big Pharma: the law specifically prohibits Medicare from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices.
Outside the United States, almost every government bargains over drug prices. And it works: the Congressional Budget Office says that foreign drug prices are 35 to 55 percent below U.S. levels. Even within the United States, Veterans Affairs is able to negotiate discounts of 50 percent or more, far larger than those the Medicare actuary expects the elderly to receive under the new plan.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06krugman.html
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that more than a quarter of Part D participants stop following their prescribed regimen of drugs when they hit the doughnut hole.[2]
Every Part D plan sponsor must offer at least one basic Part D plan. They may also offer enhanced plans that provide additional benefits. For 2008, the percentage of stand-alone Part D (PDP) plans offering some form of coverage within the doughnut hole rose to 29 percent, up from 15% in 2006. The percentage of Medicare Advantage/Part D plans (MA-PD) plans offering some form of coverage in the coverage gap is 51%, up from 28% in 2006. The most common forms of gap coverage cover generic drugs only.[3]
Among Medicare Part D enrollees in 2007 who were not eligible for the low-income subsidies, 26% had spending high enough to reach the coverage gap. Fifteen percent of those reaching the coverage gap (4% overall) had spending high enough to reach the catastrophic coverage level. Enrollees reaching the coverage gap stayed in the gap for just over four months on average.[4]
According to a study done in 2007, premiums for plans offering gap coverage are roughly double those of defined standard plans. The average monthly premium for stand-alone Part D plans (PDPs) with basic benefits that do not offer gap coverage are $30.14. The average monthly premium for plans that do offer some gap coverage are average $63.29. In 2007, eight percent of beneficiaries enrolled in a PDP chose one with some gap coverage. Among beneficiaries in MA-PD plans, enrollment in plans offering gap coverage was 33% (up from 27% in 2006).[3]
The 2010 Health Reform bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) began to address the coverage gap by creating discounts on brand name and generic drugs purchased within the gap range. Between now and 2020, the gap will gradually be closed to a point where it is completely eliminated.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D_coverage_gap#Impact_of_the_doughnut_hole_on_Medicare_beneficiaries
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Well they are democrats in name only and we are slowly getting rid of them!!
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)are we just supposed to guess?