Why do Obama and Pelosi keep perpetuating the mandate to reform Social Security and Medicare?

[TheProgressive]

Today, President Obama in his press conference kept on mentioning Social Security and Medicare reform.
Congresswomen Pelosi did the same thing - that we need Medicare and Social Security reform.

Like this is the biggest problem right now?

First, Social Security has a $2.7 Trillion trust fund. There is no problems with Social Security. If you really think
there is a problem, we need to do to things: 1) put more Americans to work and in higher paying jobs, and 2) lift
the damn cap. Problem solved and solved forever.

Medicare - sure there are shortfalls and fraud. Wasn't Obamacare supposed to implement the Patient Protection
and Affordable act? The medical profession and insurance middlemen industry is allowed to fleece Americans
because, what are humans to do? Just die?

We are being scammed again. All America needs to do to address our economic and fiscal problems is to

"PUT MORE PEOPLE TO WORK IN HIGHER PAYING JOBS'.

If we don't stop Obama and Pelosi and Democrats and of course ALL republicans - they will cut our programs...

And the only reason they want to do this is because they could care less about 300 million normal Americans and want every
last penny we have. It is nothing but greed - a very sick greed.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Because they are ignorant or ill. nt

[TheProgressive]

9. Greed is a mental illness....that and ignorance is destroying America.

[woo me with science]

20. They are acting like front men for the banks and corporations,

because that is exactly what they are paid to be.

We have a systemic problem. Either we get the corporate money and influence out of Washington, or we live and die as serfs in a corporate, authoritarian state.

[octoberlib]

30. Yep. Politicians are spending all their time fundraising.

Working a schedule like that as a freshman teaches a member of Congress about the institution's priorities. "It really does affect how members of Congress behave if the most important thing they think about is fundraising," Miller said. "You end up being nice to people that probably somebody needs to be questioning skeptically. It's a fairly disturbing suggested schedule. You won't ask tough questions in hearings that might displease potential contributors, won't support amendments that might anger them, will tend to vote the way contributors want you to vote."

Perriello said that the drive for fundraising winds up containing "an enormous anti-populist element, particularly for Dems, who are most likely to be hearing from people who can write at least a $500 check. They may be liberal, quite liberal in fact, but are also more likely to consider the deficit a bigger crisis than the lack of jobs."

The time spent fundraising, he added, also "helps to explain why many from very safe Dem districts who might otherwise be pushing the conversation to the left, or at least willing to be the first to take tough votes, do not – because they get their leadership positions by raising from the same donors noted above."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html

[kelliekat44]

45. Actually, because some "reform" to both systems is needed. That does not mean

cuts to current benefits. Medicare was reformed and when that was about to happen people screamed bloddy murder but what it did was insure the system that we enjoy now. We cannot expect that "entitlement" programs or whatever name you want to assign to Medicare,Medicaid, and SS will not be changed in some ways to protect these systems. On the other hand, drastic cuts in Federal employment and Federal spending in a wide range of programs will, indeed, do immeasurable harm to our economy in the near future but not immediately. The GOP was always screaming for tax reform and since the President agreed with them they have now turned against any tax reform. That is the point that the Dems and the President should be driving home and stop scaring the bejesus out of folks. When people are scared they can't or don't think clearly and some really important facts get ignored unless someone can direct their thinking.

[pennylane100]

79. I very much agree with you.

The Wikipedia definition of reform is

"Reform means the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc."

There are so many billions of dollars that could be saved by just cutting out the wasteful spending that just makes big pharma and other providers rich while adding no value to the service that is provided. My mother-in-law, who is quite financially comfortable receives a brand new pair of quite expensive looking shoes every year because she has diabetes.

She said that she did not recall requesting them, but they come every years. I am willing to concede that possibly she did request them and then forgot, but I would love to see the exact contract that this company has signed with medicare and how much they make from it. And I certainly do not begrudge anyone who these shoes if they are needed but they look like top of the line shoes and of what she is saying is true, they are being sent to millions of people each year who may or may not use them. What is wrong with reforming that system.

I also remember reading that the federal government does not negotiate with the drug companies that set the price of medicine. I believe that the medicare pays more for drugs than the price in many other countries. That kind of reform would not be bad.

I read of the billions of dollars that is being stolen from the system by providers who commit large scale fraud to recover costs that they did not incur. While we know it is impossible to catch all incidents of fraud, we should increase the fines and prison terms of those we do catch. We should make it so expensive and the jail terms so long that it would deter others from doing the same thing.

We should also make hospitals present bills in a way that can be verified. A man was recently hospitalized for a few days and received a bill of almost half a million dollars. That works out to roughly $500 per hour. That is insane. While that may have reflected the actual costs incurred, he had know way of knowing because he could not understand the hundreds of pages of documentation. Reforming that would certainly help all of us, on and off of medicare.l

I recently had surgery to remove some breast tissue that had the ability to turn cancerous in the future. It was a one day procedure done in a surgical unit run by the hospital but the patient is not checked it. It was a simple procedure and everyone was very professional and very nice. I was covered by private insurance as although I am retired, my husband still works. When I visited the site run my by insurance company, I noticed a bill for the services of someone I had never med and had no idea why he/she was involved. The fact that my insurance paid it made me believe that it was valid as insurance companies rarely pay bills they do not owe. However, I think that all costs and procedures should be spelled out before the surgery, as they certainly have enough time and energy to explain to the patient in every way possible how they cannot be help responsible for the several hundred things that could go wrong while you are in their care, so take a little more time and tell you how they are spending your/your insurance company/tax payer money. That would help catch any errors before they happen.

I know I have rambled on but I think that we sometimes jump to the wrong conclusions when reform and medicare are used in the same sentence and that is not always the case.

[stillcool]

121. way too complicated...

it takes too many words. Besides, where's the dramatic hyperbole?

[MannyGoldstein]

137. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "reform" on the table is switching to the chained CPI

for COLA adjustments, and everyone agrees it's a cut in Social Security.

And a tax increase that particularly hits the middle class.

[FogerRox]

140. No. SS is good thru 2090 according to the SS Trustees

[Jackpine Radical]

60. Oh, Manny, maybe by reform they mean to increase the monthly payments.

Have to go now. The voices are getting rather insistent.

[duffyduff]

118. Because they are in bed with Pete Peterson

Peterson has to be one of the most evil people alive today.

He's bought off both political parties, it seems, in pursuit of destroying the New Deal.

[patrice]

2. Perhaps they are trying to drive the unions together . . . ? nt

[TheProgressive]

4. I don't think threatening to harm SS and Medicare is the right tack...nt

[patrice]

13. Don't unions need one another? Yeah, it's not the right tack for some of them, but others

don't care as much, because their jobs are the most secure there are and, yet, as contracts come up even the well to do unions DO care about rising medical costs, amongst other things.

If teachers get thrown under the bus by other unions, what happens with these relationships?

Now, we might ad nurses too, as the AFLCIO supports, or might support - it's not quite clear yet - the Keystone Pipeline, which nurses oppose and if there's anyone connected to the professional futures of this country it's the medical field, who are informed enough to know the damage that austerity will cause the economy.

I don't know enough to sort all of this out, but the general parameters of the demographic responses that PO NEEDS in order to stand off the Republicans assault on Soc Sec & Medicare could be amongst some of these relationships.

[Marr]

66. Yeah! Maybe that's what Limbaugh's doing, too!

He just wants to bring the unions together! That's why he says all that stuff!

[marybourg]

14. tack

[TheProgressive]

17. tanks...!

<smily face thingy>!!!! (yes this title was on purpose)

[patrice]

21. BTW, the phrase is "... couldn't care less ..." if they "could care less" that means that they care.

[Marr]

64. lmfao

Hope© springs eternal.

[patrice]

70. You may have noticed that I mentioned a couple of things that are driving unions apart.

There are of course more factors in the whole milieu which ad to divide and conquer. I didn't intend to go into a comprehensive inventory of that history.

[bowens43]

3. because they are corporate lapdogs who do as they' like nearly everyone else in national politics....

[TheProgressive]

6. Yes, but this is an assault on us 300 million...

And if cuts are made, well, one can speculate what the people will do...

[earthside]

5. If 'reform' meant higher benefits ...

... I'd be all for 'reform' of Social Security.

But, of course, 'reform' is just a code word for cuts to benefits.

I think Obama and Pelosi and other politician Democrats keep bringing it up because "everything has to be on the table" and 'compromise' for them means giving the Repuglicans something they say they want.

But, mark my words, if Pres. Obama and the Democrats give into the Repuglicans and pass 'reform' that cuts benefits, the Repuglicans will be the first to accuse Democrats for making grandma go hungry.

Pres. Obama and any Democrat is foolish to mess with Social Security or Medicare in any way that decreases benefits -- it is just that simple.

[TheProgressive]

8. Well said and is exactly my points as well.

[mountain grammy]

33. Well said! Open Medicare to all, raise the cap on the payroll tax.

This will work! The problem is, Republicans know it will work and want no part of it. Not the "free market" solution.
I see a million of us Social Security recipients marching on Washington! May's a good month, not too hot. We're not as young as we used to be, and we'll need lots of porta potties.

[Liberalynn]

56. +1

[djean111]

7. I am starting to think they do have a mandate.....

just not a mandate from the people.
Not sure why disliking Obama's policies get such scorn - after all, he doesn't need our votes any more. And hero worship no matter what is done just ain't my thang.
Doubties he cares whether the voters are happy, he doesn't need them.
Neither party gives a shit about polls or whatever, either. Not after the votes are in.
I do think he is changing the face of the Democratic Party, and not for the better - for me. Shrug and all that.

If he had STARTED negotiations asking for a raise in the FICA cap and lowering Medicare age to 55 or whatever, then I would feel differently.
But he has become a walking Overton window.

[kenny blankenship]

10. Nancy Pelosi doesn't care because she's rich. Obama is a millionaire

but he'd like to join the Pelosi - Clinton class of rich: &gt $50,000,000. To make his mark he has to do something like "end welfare", or "modernize doughderegulatecough our banks" like Clinton did. Cutting the New Deal so that every political cycle the question isn't WILL we cut our safety net? but instead, by HOW MUCH will we cut the safety net? will be the achievement signalling Obama has arrived in the platinum class of political cronies.

[leftstreet]

11. Because the GOP can't get away with it n/t

[Nite Owl]

12. You're right

We are being scammed and not just by the WH and Congress. The public seems to be deliberately uninformed as to what these cuts may involve. No in depth discussions, no groups that you would expect behind their presevation. It will delight billionaires and Wall St and that is what matters.

[Blecht]

15. It is infuriating

And there is not a damn thing we can do about it, other than post about it on Internet message boards.

And then on top of that we are told that the President and Senator don't really mean what they're clearly saying. "The cuts haven't happened yet, so STFU!"

[ProSense]

16. Yes,

"Medicare - sure there are shortfalls and fraud. Wasn't Obamacare supposed to implement the Patient Protection
and Affordable act?"

...that's correct: Obamacare was "supposed to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable act"

Medicare’s Projected Spending Has Dropped $500 Billion Without Lawmakers Cutting A Dime

By Jeff Spross

Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.

The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:



According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/

This helps:

Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924

The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.

Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services

a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.

b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.

c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.

d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf

MEDICARE’S FINANCIAL CONDITION

Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).

The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).

http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf

The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.

New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451

Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922

Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967

Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929




"If we don't stop Obama and Pelosi and Democrats and of course ALL republicans - they will cut our programs..."

They're all the same, huh?

[TheProgressive]

18. Thanks for this...And...

I don't want to see 'reforms' like raising the Medicare age or reduce benefits.

Obamacare is a good start - we just have to make sure there are no poison pills
going forward.

[sabrina 1]

23. What does any of this have to do with the Deficit? Aren't we supposed to be

fixing the Deficit here? These programs, regardless of anything, fraud, waste whatever, have ZERO to do with the latest games they are playing.

The Deficit, just FYI, was caused by corruption and theft and lies that got us into wars and by Wall ST. criminals who crashed the economy.

So once again, why are these programs being dragged into this discussion?

[ProSense]

25. Here:

"What does any of this have to do with the Deficit? Aren't we supposed to be fixing the Deficit here? These programs, regardless of anything, fraud, waste whatever, have ZERO to do with the latest games they are playing."

...Krugman: It’s Health Care Costs, Stupid
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021922243

I was responding to a specific point in the OP about Obamacare, and please see the first chart and piece in my comment.

Yes, the President's policies are "fixing the Deficit"

<...>

For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret

[sabrina 1]

28. I asked about SS and Medicare. Not HC, what do those programs have to do with

the deficit and why are they always the topic when they have zero to do with the deficit? THAT is my question. Obama cannot fix the deficit by cutting programs, by agreeing to the Chained CPI eg, which had nothing to do with it, can he? So why would he agree to cut programs that had nothing to do with the deficit?

[ProSense]

31. You asked

"I asked about SS and Medicare. Not HC, what do those programs have to do with"

...me about my comment, which was about Obamacare: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022445915#post16

You also seem to be unaware of the relationship between Medicare and health care costs.

[TheProgressive]

32. I agree with your premise Sabrina...

If I may, we need to look at *all* government spending. SS has
nothing to do with the budget at all. Medicare does require about 48%
coming from the General Fund so it is an expense.

[sabrina 1]

36. True, but none of it had anything to do with the specific cause of the deficit.

The Deficit Commission was supposed to address the Deficit. We all know what caused it, and we all know now that the real goal of that Commission was to try, once again, to privatize SS or to at least keep the money the people own from the people by cutting their benefits, so it can once again be dipped into for their wars and other corruptions, such as allowing the wealthy, once again, to not pay taxes as they should. It was the Bush tax cuts and the wars that caused the deficit. The Bush Tax Cuts cost this country more than two trillion dollars.

Sure there is fraud in government programs, but that in no way caused the huge economic collapse that these talks are meant to be addressing.

I hear nothing about the real causes of the Deficit. But I hear plenty, such as from Alan Simpson, Chair of that Commission, about the 'greedy old geezers on SS' and the veterans 'who are being selfish by taking their benefits'.

If they want to deal with fraud in Govt Programs, that would be great, but let's start with the massive fraud that actually collapsed our economy and affected the lives of millions of Americans.

These are two separate issues.

[TheProgressive]

40. Absolutely correct...

It was the wars, Medicare Part D was unpaid for, and the Bush tax cuts drained income to the Treasury.

But then with the Great Recession... there is a reason it is called the Great Recession...
People were laid off - this causes less tax revenue and an increase in unemployment insurance.
Low wages and the recession also resulted in more 'food stamps'.

Our Congress and the President are not addressing the real problem and the real solution. And it
is simple - JOBS and high paying jobs.

[bvar22]

120. Our current NeoLiberal "Free Trade" obsession has to be figurend in too.

"Free Trade" has done more harm to the Working Class by driving down wages, destroying Unions, and raising unemployment than any other single policy or initiative.

But, incredibly, MORE "Free Trade" is waiting in the wings. (Pacific Rim)

"Americans can WILL be forced to compete for their jobs with any EVERY country in the World, but especially 3rd World Slave Labor countries."

Thanks, Bill.

[TheProgressive]

125. Yes, Bill signed this into law...

Started with Pappy Bush and has gone hog wild with all presidents forward.

We need to repeal NAFTA, et.al, and get out of WTO.

And go back to tariffs (on a larger scale).

[patrice]

37. Their "fixing" the deficit makes it worse:

http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-economic-quacks-promoting-austerity-will-increase-deficit

[stevenleser]

96. This should all be its own OP. This info is too important for people to miss in a reply. nt

[just1voice]

102. Weeeee, a 25% drop in "donut hole" costs by 2020, how will that cut the deficit?

Oh I see, you're not talking about the OP, you decided to go off on a sophism.

[patrice]

19. "All America needs to do ..." "...they could care less ..." = absurdities. Talking as though what's

happening has nothing to do with 2014 is ridiculously naive.

If I'm wrong, please correct me by detailing concrete specific steps to accomplish "All America needs to do ..."

[TheProgressive]

29. I am not sure what you are saying here...

Can you rephrase for me?

[patrice]

35. That's your phrasing, you should explain it, because it is absurdly over-simplified. nt

[TheProgressive]

41. It is simple.

When more people are employed and receiving decent wages, the economic machine
runs prosperously. People have money to spend, to pay taxes, businesses have customers.

More tax revenue from these jobs and corporate taxes (if ever Congress passes fair taxation)
results in money to pay for programs that We the People want and reduces expenditures in
welfare and unemployment insurance.

I hope this makes sense to you...

[patrice]

50. I already know that. You didn't say specifically how to make that happen. nt

[TheProgressive]

53. How?

The government needs to follow FDR's lead on this...

1. Raise the min wage
2. Implement laws that brings our jobs back to America.
3. Stimulas bill - $1 to $2 trillion in infrastructure and renewable energy jobs.
4. Raise taxes on the wealthy
5. Stock transaction tax

This is how to fix the economy and our fiscal crisis.

[patrice]

57. And of course, you are saying CONGRESS should do these things, because presidents aren't kings. nt

[patrice]

58. ... presidents aren't kings AND they don't write legislation, but then, I bet you know that. nt

[TheProgressive]

61. You asked for the how and I provided the means.

And yes, progressives/liberals/democrats tend to know how gov works...

[patrice]

67. So specify the legislative process, resources (including persons) & timeline, since it's so simple.

[TheProgressive]

72. Ok...

Thanks for your comments.

[sabrina 1]

22. Good question. We might not like the answers when we finally get them.

These programs should not even be part of these 'deficit' discussions. Do they think we are stupid?

All they have to do is to tell Republicans if they want to talk about Medicare and SS, this is not the venue for those discussions since they had zero to do with the Deficit. But I have yet to hear that simple truth coming from the leadership of the Dem Party and it makes you wonder why??

[L0oniX]

26. "Do they think we are stupid?" That's a stupid question ..and yes they do think we are that stupid.

n/t

[Plucketeer]

68. I had a cousin who recently passed on

He died from an infection - that had he had good medical insurance, he would likely have recovered from. About a year ago I asked him what his political leanings were - this question instigated by some passing remark he'd made regarding politicians in general. He told me that he really didn't follow politics because he couldn't make heads nor tails out of who stood for what. I thought this was pretty crazy, seein' as how this fella could quote you chapter and verse about ANY football or baseball teams and their histories without blinking an eye. The irony of this was that he was "squeaking by" on a Social Security disability check each month. Yet I couldn't provoke him to consider that those checks are in real danger of diminishing or drying up altogether.
Let's face it - there's a huge body of our citizenry that practices determined ignorance about our governing bodies.

[HereSince1628]

24. Could it be that it -is- The Grand Bargain?

The compromise that compromises all the compromises made to get the programs of 'The Great Society' and the 'New Deal'?

[Doctor_J]

27. If there were no cuts being implemented, they would be saying that

All of these posts along the lines of, "They're reforming them in a good way" are amazing naive. If benefit cuts were off the table, then Obama and Pelosi would be saying, "benefit cuts are off the table". But Obama has floated all manner of benefit cut - raising the eligibility age, chained CPI - and IMO is determined to cave in on yet another issue.

[MotherPetrie]

34. Well, duh, they are expertly and brilliantly faking out the Repugs!

And once the Repugs fall into their cleverly laid TRAP...

Oh, wait.

[99Forever]

38. Apply Occum's Razor.

That is, if you don't mind becoming angry as hell.

[hfojvt]

39. because there is no other way to get $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

[Cleita]

43. The deficit has nothing to do with these trust programs, NOTHING.

Why they are being conflated is beyond me.

[NorthCarolina]

44. Because these programs

are the sole target of this whole manufactured process. Obviously there is nothing we can do to stop it either, unless the CPC can intervene somehow, but I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

[Recursion]

80. You're just wrong about that.

If SS benefits and Medicare benefits are reduced, the deficit is reduced. Period. There's no way around that. The money to redeem the bonds in the trust fund comes from the general fund, and if that is reduced, there will be less borrowing. There is absolutely no way around that.

[Cleita]

84. Do you have a link for that piece of misinformation? Because everything I read about

it including on the Social Security website would say otherwise. The trust fund is just that. It invests in Treasury bonds just like your IRA and 401K does. The Treasury is contractually bound to redeem that money plus interest at the designated time. So do you think our Treasury should stiff the IRAs, 401ks and the country of China, if you will, to reduce the deficit? Because by your reasoning that would have to happen to make it fair across the board. Targeting seniors and disabled, who are vulnerable, so that taxpayers can default on their obligations is really criminal.

[Recursion]

87. Do you get how bonds work?

The Trust Fund holds US bonds. When, in a few years, interest income to the trust fund (which is a whole nother issue, but also contributes to the deficit) plus payroll levies are no longer sufficient to meet benefits, the Trust Fund will have to redeem some of those bonds. The money for that redemption comes out of general revenues, and will come from some form of:

1. Borrowing (deficit increase)
2. Monetization (inflation)
3. Decreased spending on other programs
4. Increased taxation

2 through 4 will no doubt also happen, but it is a simple fact that redeeming the bonds in the trust fund will result in higher borrowing than otherwise.

Now, this borrowing will for the most part be dollar-for-dollar, so it will not have much impact on net debt (this was largely the point), but it will certainly increase annual deficits.

[Cleita]

88. Get this through your head. The deficit is not the problem of the Social Security trust fund.

You can't steal from that fund to pay off your debts anymore than you can raid your neighbor's bank account to pay off your credit card bills. Whatever, Milton Friedman shit you are reading, don't bring it here, because it's all neo-con lies.

[Recursion]

89. Certainly we *can*, it's just a bad idea

You can't steal from that fund to pay off your debts

Sure we can. It's the Government's money now, and if Congress decides to decrease benefits in the future to slow down the degradation of the trust fund, that's entirely legal and within their power. It's a bad idea, but I think a lot of people misunderstand this.

[Cleita]

91. A thief *can* burglarize your home, but it's still theft just as this is.

People, like you, who try to justify the means to the end, are no less criminal than that thief.

[Recursion]

93. There's nothing criminal about changing benefit formulas

Comparing it to theft is ridiculous.

[Cleita]

94. You know the duck theory don't you?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Read my post under this one.

[Samantha]

139. It is a default on a debt, and the American citizens are the biggest holder of Federal debt

Not China, not Japan, the people of this Country.

And should the Government not repay it, which if it does not that failure will be recognized as a default, how will it convince other countries to invest in the United States in the future?

The reason we hear Social Security is going broke, U.S. Government pensions are too high, etc., etc., is because Uncle Sam borrowed from these programs and does not want to pay the money back because it is broke. In order to pay Social Security the money back borrowed from the Trust Fund, whenever there is a withdrawal to do so, the Government must find an investor to purchase a like amount. And in this economy, that is very difficult to do. Start defaulting and it will not only be difficult to do, it might be impossible to do so today, tomorrow or within the next decade.

When you borrow money from people and promise to pay it back but do not, you would be held accountable by your debtors. But what you are saying is that it is okay for one's government to do the same and not be held accountable. You will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time selling that, especially here.

Sam

[Cleita]

92. Also, this is just a ploy to turn the SS fund over to Wall Street and privatize it.

Oh, that worked so well in Chile and Great Britain. Google it and read about. Now that the banksters have raided our Treasury and there is nothing left, they are looking to that fat 2.6 trillion in the Social Security fund to line their pockets with.

[Dragonfli]

132. Forget it Cleita, I have been down this road with him, he believes in Enron style accounting

Basically his rather stubborn and ridiculousness argument claims we do not have to pay back what we owe, even worse, following his logic, if we don't pay a debt to a creditor, it can then be RECOUNTED as revenue in the general fund.

He uses an accounting trick to turn debt into income, laundering it from the trust fund into positive cash flow belonging to the general fund (rather than the debt that it is).

He believes that money spent after borrowing it can be spent again by reneging on the debt.
I asked about our other creditors like China, he believes not paying them will also put more money in the general fund, again by making debt income by not paying it back. We need only call what we owe positive cash flow rather than negative.

He claims we can only do it to the Trust fund because China wouldn't stand for it, but stealing grama's pension is OK because there isn't a damn thing she can do about it, being weak.

Now I know where PERHAPS one of those Enron accountants can be found today I had wondered what happened to them.

[Cleita]

134. Arthur Anderson was the accounting firm for Enron.

The fact that it failed should be proof enough that their voodoo number crunching doesn't work. I don't think I will spend more time with this person. To do so only enables him to keep spreading his misinformation.

[TheProgressive]

101. US Treasuries are an obligation of the United States of America

The SS Trust fund is invested in these treasuries just like countries and individuals
have invested in US Treasuries.

So, so what that the interest is paid from the general fund? An obligation is an obligation.

[Recursion]

103. Right! It's an obligation from the general fund

That's why decreasing benefit payments in the future would decrease the deficit.

[TheProgressive]

105. So what?

Like I said, just increase tax revenues (by more employed people and tax the rich)
and cut the military budget.

You, you cannot predict what the deficit or surplus will be in 20 years.

[John2]

112. I think the whole idea

of reducing SS benefits and Medicare benefits is ludicrous. Right now, my Social Security Statement indicates that I was taxed out of my wages for both Social Security and Medicare since 1973. Those are earned credits and there was no way that I could opt out. I'm a second generation Baby Boomer. I'm nearing retirement age. So your suggestion is to reduce my benefits because I'm nearing retirement? And I'm suppose to just let you get away with it?

Congress has an obligation to abide by the laws they enacted, especially when citizens of the United States payed earned wages into the system. The American people, especially those who paid into the system for years should not let Congress get away with it. Especially this Congress. The only reason this Congress wants to change the system now is because it is time for a lot of people to benefit from that system (Both Baby Boom generations).

Your claim is there is no way around that. That claim is false. The generous tax credits and loop holes for the Wealthy needs to end. The claim that this group needs lower taxes for them to create jobs for the economy has very little evidence. They have created wealth for themselves more than jobs. Not only that, they advocated lower wages on the lower end of society to create jobs. That doesn't bear out either. What they have done is created a class system of different tiers. What they accuse President Obama of, they need to look in the mirror at themselves. We do not have a lack of resources in this country and we do not lack demand for services or skills. What we have is a small group of people in this country preying on people at the bottom. It has become harder for them to move up on the economic ladder because the top pick and choose which group rises that ladder. That is where the race baiting comes in especially the Southern Strategy and assault on Civil Rights. With the exception of the Clinton Administration, we have had long periods of this trickle down theory. Americans should have caught on by now.

That mindset of greed advocated in during generation-X in the Reagan Era needs to be broken. We have gotten away from our values of the Great Society, when Americans cared about the poor and needy. Wall Street has been against the Great Society ever since President Roosevelt engineered it. The more people elevated from poverty, the less people need Government services. Inflation needs to be bought under control also. We are paying too much for services we got years ago. The Oil companies and Healthcare prices need to be reigned in. The Government should work for the people and not corporations. Vulture Capitalists in this country are no better than loan sharks. I think they have gobbled up resources, and limited competition. Vultures like the Kochs are a cancer on our society.

[on point]

114. So you are suggesting we pay 50 cents on the dollar for T-Bills?

They are debt too and saying we will only pay back part of that is no different than saying we will only pay back part of the SS debt.

Except of course this would hurt the 1%

[KamaAina]

81. O rly?

Looks to me like the big green slice marked "National defense" is just as big as the one marked "Social Security". Not to mention that the one marked "Interest" is largely the result of our deficit spending on the war (it's all the same war; it just moves around the globe every few years ). And that's from 2005. If anything, it's ev en worse now.

[Cleita]

42. I don't know either.

There are things that could be improved. But there is no fix needed. As an unmarried, senior woman who relies on these programs to survive, I come close to a heart attack every time I hear these memes.

[TheProgressive]

51. I am several years out for SS and Medicare

And I want to make sure they don't steal it from us.

Not only should they not cut earned benefits - the COLA should be raised to
provide more money for retirees. They spend that money and it would be
good the the economy.

[woo me with science]

46. But, importantly, a systemic greed.

This is not just a case of bad luck and getting a bunch of "bad apples" in Washington.

The system has been deliberately purchased and restructured to grow the power of the one percent and lock out anyone who would try to interrupt it.

That is why getting the corporate money out of our political system needs to be our sole priority now.

IT WILL KEEP GETTING WORSE in the absence of doing that.

[TheProgressive]

54. Absolutely... just one more thing to fix in our government.

[woo me with science]

65. It has to be fixed "first.*

All other "fixes" will be illusory and corporate-designed and propagandized by the current corrupt power structure in the absence of the real fix we need: like "fixing" health care (with a Heritage Foundation mandate for Big Insurance) or "fixing" the schools (with corporate testing and charter schools) or "fixing" the deficit (by slashing the social safety net).

We need to be laser focused and enraged and united and deadly serious about getting corporate money out of our elections and the halls of Congress FIRST, because otherwise we will, inevitably, have two more corporate candidates in 2016. And, again, we will vote for the corporate Democrat, because the other candidate will be worse. And we will descend further into this nightmare.

We are already looking at four more years of virtually unchecked corporate "fixing." Just imagine what they will be able to accomplish if we don't start getting serious about fixing the system by 2016.

[TheProgressive]

69. I am totally with you Woo...

Nothing will get done in the next 2 years and unless we get super majorities in the House and Senate or at least take the House, nothing again will get done in 2015-16.

So, yes it is up to the 300 million of us to demand changes.

[on point]

47. Implement Single Payer for Health Care; and CUT THE DAMN DOD by 50% at LEAST!!!

[TheProgressive]

55. Yes, universal single payer Health Security Administration ...

[OldDem2012]

48. Why? To make themselves appear to be reasonable and accommodating to those GOPers....

....who are beginning to waver in their support of the GOP leadership. The more GOP moderates who waver or completely break away from the GOP, the less likely the GOP will be successful in 2014. The Dems know the extreme right-wing of the GOP will never accept a deal that requires an increase in taxes, so they feel safe in making noises about concessions.

The overall objectives of the Dems are:

1. to cause the GOP to go to war against itself....the moderates against the extremists;
2. to cause the GOP to turn on the extremists and agree on the need for more tax revenues;
3. begin cutting those programs that will not include earned benefits like Social Security, etc.

Public opinion is killing the GOP and they're definitely feeling it. It's just a matter of time before the GOPers really turn on each other.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

49. Political maneuvers are too complicated for people that look at the world...

Through an ideological prism.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. You don't get it. The Beltway Media are the ones that are pushing it....

Most are Conservatives. They make a point of pushing the issue and then using responses to drive a wedge within the Liberal Base.

[TheProgressive]

59. No, I distinctly heard Obama and Pelosi say...

Social Security and Medicare 'reform'.

Saying reform Medicare can be taken in a good way - but
only if Medicare is strengthen.

Saying reform SS is troublesome as it is solvent for 20+years and is not a
critical program to reform right now. So, that means they want to cut it.

[magellan]

74. Here's what he said that angered me

"The problem that we have is a long-term problem in terms of our health care costs and programs like Medicare. And what I've said very specifically, very detailed is that I'm prepared to take on the problem where it exists -- on entitlements -- and do some things that my own party really doesn't like -- if it's part of a broader package of sensible deficit reduction. So the deal that I've put forward over the last two years, the deal that I put forward as recently as December is still on the table. I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things.

"But what I can't do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we know we've got a bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and the well-connected, aren't contributing to growth, aren't contributing to our economy."

Emphasis mine.

Taken on whole with what he's said previously, it's pretty clear that along with Medicare reform, SS reform - likely by way of chained CPI since that's what he's offered before - is all but certain. It only depends on the Rethugs finally accepting it.

Just as angering is the repeat of this mealy-mouthed "we all have to give something" crap, signalling that the most vulnerable among us will once again suffer real pains while the corporations and wealthy are merely put out. This is nothing less than back door austerity, and I'm sick of so-called Democrats, including Obama, championing it as "bipartisanship".

[patrice]

63. Correct. Odd how people appear to think corporate personhood is actively ONLY elsewhere, not ever

in their immediate proximity.

[starzdust22]

62. Yep, Just wait, you all think you're screwed now, just wait until you become disabled, like me...

I can not work anymore and rely on social security disability and a small federal pension, that's it. What do I get for 35 years as a teacher?, Nothing but getting screwed by the party I supported for 40 years really hurts.

[TheProgressive]

73. The cuts have not happened as of yet...

That is why I post these kind of threads - to make sure you, me,
and fellow Americans loudly voice our opposition to and cuts to
SS or Medicare.

And it was the Dems who brought us both SS and Medicare.

[stillcool]

122. how are you getting screwed...

by the party you supported for 40 years? Have your benefits been affected in any way? I too am retired and rely on SS, but have no issues. Is it your state you're having difficulties with?

[Skittles]

71. BECAUSE IT IS A DONE DEAL

now comes the part where they try to convince us it will be for our own good

[jtuck004]

75. Because, by themselves, the Republicans never could.

The Great Betrayal -- and the Cynicism of Calling It a Grand Bargain

William K. Black
Assoc. Professor, Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City; Sr. regulator during S&L debacle

...
Kuttner wrote to warn that Obama intends to seek a "grand bargain" causing the U.S. to adopt the type of austerity program that threw the Eurozone back into a gratuitous recession.

Worse, Obama intends to begin to unravel the safety net (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) to convince the Republicans to enter into this Faustian bargain. Just as only a conservative Republican could visit "Red" China, only a Democrat can begin the destruction of the safety net. The difference, of course, is that normalizing relations with China was a good thing while unraveling the safety net is a terrible thing.

Wall Street's greatest desire is privatizing Social Security. Wall Street stands to make scores of billions of dollars annually in additional fees should it ever buy enough politicians to privatize Social Security. The Republican Party's greatest goal is unraveling the safety net. They always wish to attack the most successful and popular programs introduced by the Democratic Party. Their problem is that they know it is toxic for Republican candidates to try to destroy the safety net. Only Democrats, through a "Great Betrayal" can give Republicans the political cover they need to unravel the safety net.
...
Do not concede the phrase "grand bargain" to the proponents of the betrayal. We should heed Camus' warning that it is essential to call a plague by its real name if one is to resist it -- and it is essential to resist the pestilence. "[W]hen you see the suffering and pain that it brings, you have to be mad, blind or a coward to resign yourself to the plague." We must refuse to resign ourselves to being betrayed by Democratic leaders. Our actions must make it clear that we are not mad, blind, or cowards. We refuse to fall for their faux moral panics. It is our leaders who are all too often mad, blind, and cowards.

Here. Link to Kuttner here.

[red dog 1]

76. Here's an idea to save billions on Medicare,

Last edited Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

The federal government could make Big Pharma compete with each other to lower drug prices, and even buy drugs from Canada if necessary.

Instead of cutting billions in Medicare and Medicaid services, cut billions from the current system of big drug companies having no competition at all, so they charge whatever the hell they want.

The V.A. is saving millions now by purchasing drugs from competing drug companies, and I think the V.A. is also buying cheaper drugs from Canada as well.

If the V.A. can save millions this way,
why can't the United States Government save billions this way?

[Dustlawyer]

77. You ask why? I will tell you why! Obama and the Democrats answer to the same boss as Boner and

McChinless, corporate America! Why do we at DU still wonder why these things happen? Why do Democrats lack backbone? Do they have a congenital defect? Yes they do, they were born w/o morals but had extra greed and a humongous dose of ambition thrown in for good measure. They sell us out for campaign money to BS us into electing them again! There is so much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ at stake it corrupts EVERYTHING! WE NEED TO MARCH, PROTEST, AND FIGHT FOR COMPLETE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tempest]

78. For fuck's sake, they do need reforming.

But you'll notice they said NOTHING about benefit cuts.

DU is becoming a haven for doom and gloomers.

[TheProgressive]

82. Raising the age is a cut. C-CPI is a cut.

And, no actually, they do not need fucking reforming right now.

We need jobs... higher paying jobs.

[Tempest]

90. The only ones I hear calling for an increase in age are Republicans and CEOs

"We need jobs... higher paying jobs."

Then go complain to the Republicans holding them up instead of wasting time here.

[TheProgressive]

95. "Wasting time here"...?

Interesting comment....

[just1voice]

100. So what increases have you heard about, go ahead..........

tic toc, tic toc....

[stillcool]

123. indeed..

If you can't freak out...what's the point?

[airplaneman]

83. and another thing that is done is

they count the $2.7 trillion trust fund as part of the $16 trillion deficit. So when does the average person add their trust assets to their credit card debt to make the debt look bigger?
And health care costs in the USA are four times what they are in the rest of the world.
We have a health cost crisis not a medicare cost crisis?
I am getting tired of the lies and non-truths being toted like they are facts.
-Airplane

[truedelphi]

86. + Every single person who understand that Soc Security has a SURPLUS!

[Recursion]

98. First off, $16 trillion is the *debt*, not the *deficit*

Redeeming the trust fund to pay for benefits will have little to no effect on the debt, but will significantly increase annual deficits.

So when does the average person add their trust assets to their credit card debt to make the debt look bigger?

Household comparisons aren't really helpful here. This is $2.7 trillion that the US Government owes itself. Imagine if an intern at the SSA accidentally dropped all the bonds in the shredder. Horror of horrors! The trust fund is gone. On the other hand, the national debt just went down by almost 20%, so borrowing will be cheaper.

We will almost certainly borrow to redeem the lion's share of the Trust Fund, and that borrowing means higher deficits, though little impact on net debt.

[TheProgressive]

104. Redeeming the trust fund to pay benefits will not significantly increase annual deficits...

That implies that we do not have enough tax revenues coming into the treasury.

And if that is the case, we'll just have to cut the defense budget.

[airplaneman]

148. my bad - hey I am over 60

I do know the difference between debt and deficit but thanks for pointing out my error. Now back to the debt. $4 trillion of the $16 trillion is actually owed by the government to itself and yes debt = assets in this case does equal zero so my argument it that it should not be counted right?. In any event we do need to raise revenue to pay this off or it will indeed become part of the debt.
-Airplane

[truedelphi]

85. Mayeb because people will vote for them whether they are on the side of people

Or not? They do have that great big "D" after their name, after all.

[Nye Bevan]

97. The "trust fund" is like me writing an IOU to myself for $2 million, placing it in a safe-deposit

box, and then relaxing because my retirement is fully provided for.

There is no money in the "trust fund"; it has all been spent. It is an accounting artifice. The issue with Social Security is that currently, Social Security contributions more than cover what the system is paying out, but this is going to be reversed fairly soon (outlays will exceed revenues) and that money has to come from somewhere.



http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43648

[TheProgressive]

107. Well the SS Trust Fund has $2.7 trillion invested in the safest investment in the world...

Yes, that's special US Treasuries.

The better analogy is that I have $2.7 Trillion and I buy $2.7 trillion in US treasuries.

[Nye Bevan]

109. So how about the government simply issues $100 trillion of Treasuries to the trust fund,

without demanding any payment?

No money needs to be printed or borrowed, no taxes need to be raised, no spending needs to be cut, and the "Trust Fund" balance goes up by $100 trillion! Problem solved, surely?

[TheProgressive]

111. So how about it?

Are you saying this is a valid proposition?

Do you know how basic gov accounting and monetary policies work?

[Nye Bevan]

113. Why yes I do. But I am not the one claiming that "There is no problems with Social Security". (nt)

[TheProgressive]

116. There are no problems with SS that cannot be addressed by:

1) more higher paying jobs.

2) remove the cap.

I have no idea what you mean by the $100 trillion thing.

[Nye Bevan]

117. Well I am confused that first you claim that "There is no problems with Social Security", period,

but then you start to list solutions for the supposedly non-existent problems.

[TheProgressive]

119. There are people who think there are problems with SS.

So, to cover all bases I state solutions.

Sounds like a reasonably thing to post.

[just1voice]

99. It's the global "austerity" propaganda brought to us by the 1%

They like to remind us "peons" that were supposed to respect their "authoritah". If anyone in the U.S. government gave a crap about the people they'd put a few war criminals on trial.

[WinkyDink]

106. Maybe because they mean it? Because their sponsors demand it?

[JoePhilly]

108. Welcome to the weekly ... "Obama is about to kill Social Security" thread.

[TheProgressive]

110. Some of us what to insure SS/Medicare is strengthened and not cut...

If nobody says anything when Congress/President talks about
'reform', well then they can do just about anything including cutting these
programs.

And by strengthen I mean *increasing* benefits for SS and Medicare - not cutting them.

[JoePhilly]

115. Read the posts ...

You'd think Obama already killed social security.

Same folks, week after week. Obama is a corporate shill and about to kill social security any second, here it comes!!!

Been going on for almost 4 years now.

And it will continue for almost 4 more right up until he leaves office.

[just1voice]

142. That hair on fire insult is so repug-like

The OP mentioned the cuts because Obama himself mentioned the cuts and it's so insulting and rude to make fun of people who's lives would be severely impacted by such cuts.

It's exactly what repugs do.

[stillcool]

124. seems daily...maybe hourly...

or I must be coming around here too much.

[TheProgressive]

126. Did you hear Obama speak today? Or Pelosi speak today?

[stillcool]

127. yes.

[TheProgressive]

129. So, you heard them talk about SS and Medicare 'reform'?

Our entire health care system is screw and if reform means Medicare for All
then this is a good thing. Raising the Medicare age is unacceptable.

There is no short term problem with SS and is 100% funded for 20 years. When
they mention SS reform - it means cuts.

We have to speak up to let them that cuts are unacceptable. Get it?

[stillcool]

130. no. I do not get...

That cuts can not be made to any program. Cuts in a program do not equate to cuts in benefits.

[TheProgressive]

131. When government and pundits float...

...raising eligibility ages and changing how COLAs are computed....these are cuts and denies Americans what they deserve.

And they have no valid reason for any type of cuts like this.

[TheKentuckian]

128. If you really cared then you'd address the President's seemingly weekly swipes and threats

and tell him to put the peas where the sun don't shine.

Otherwise, our futures over the decades deserve every bit of focus.

Not cutting benefits? Then fucking say so instead of effort after effort to "reform" with nary a word about enhancing our value and plenty about ways to reduce value to recipients.

[freshwest]

133. Damn, you just scared the hell outta me with that! LOL!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

135. "The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."

Marie Beyle (Stendahl)

[TheProgressive]

136. Things get noticeably worse when you change shepherd to wolf...nt

[freshwest]

138. Latest news: Most entitlement programs are exempt

Most entitlement programs are exempt

During the negotiations that produced the sequester, Democrats successfully pushed to exempt most forms of politically sensitive entitlement spending from the automatic cuts.

As a result, Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, unemployment insurance, and food stamps will not see any reduction in funding. Medicare beneficiaries were also spared the axe, while Medicare providers will see only a 2 percent reduction in payments. Mr. Obama's healthcare bill, some recall, also opted to slash payments to Medicare providers in lieu of targeting beneficiaries.

Cuts to entitlement benefits are among the most politically sensitive of deficit reduction proposals - Social Security, for example, is called the "third rail" of American politics because politicians who propose any significant alterations to the program risk being electrocuted by the political fallout.

But thanks to prior negotiations, that's a bridge lawmakers will not have to cross, at least not in this round of deficit reduction talks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57571918/4-possible-silver-linings-in-the-sequester/

[TheProgressive]

141. That's the sequester. What about the offers from Obama and Pelosi to advert the sequester...

Seem like they put Medicare and SS on the table ... again...

[freshwest]

143. That's a matter of interpretation from media reports that differ from reality.

Media reports that seem like one thing and what is done are two different things. There is an LBN thread with several links to the BBC and other sources, including pdfs. Protection for Social Security by not raising the age, using ACA savings in Medicare which did not lower coverage, and the increase of Medicaid - those were built into the Democratic part of the bill in 2011 but didn't get media coverage.

All we heard from conseratively owned media (all of them) was what they said. For those most vulnerable doing without guaranteed government insurance, that were helped by the patchwork programs that would be cut by by the Sequester are going to be within the 33 million IIRC, to get guaranteed insurance, Sequester or no because Obama demanded no cuts to the ACA for them. That will be done in those states where those states allowed it.

Tens of millions never had insurance, the working poor and others who didn't meet state standards for Medicaid until Obama guaranteed states the federal government would pay the difference. That happens now.

Those with insurance through Medicare and Medicaid, receiving unemployment, SS, VA benefits and other help, are the loudest voices in these online debates. But we are not the only ones affected, these others have never been protected. There are no signifigant changes to us.

Obama has never said that SS was part of the problem and only teased the GOP with the CPI. Some liberals don't agree that the CPI was going to be as hurtful to the most elderly and sickly as the media has said, because the major cost in their lives is medical care. The expansion of services through the ACA Medicaid part helps the most needy.

This has not been done carelessly or callously. It looks also, as if we have dodged the huge threat of default, which would make most of our complaints moot as there would be no way to make the payments. Anyway, I'm I don't claim to be an expert but I remember almost all I read here and download.

There may be an ACA group started at DU to discuss what is covered. IMHO, if the states don't farm out their Medicaid programs with privatization, we will eventually have a universal plan, better than single payer, as some will never be able to pay, from increased taxes on those who are able to pay. This is the Eurostyle socialism that the right hates so much. Yes we are dealing with half the country who wants that and half that hates it.

Someone can show if the tax increases from letting the Bush tax cuts expire, however they have been done, in the plan all along by Obama, will happen. He planned to finance infrastructure through stimulus, education and health care along with the current call to raise the minimum wage to raise revenue and buying power and standard of living.

That's all I know, anyone can take any of these stories and do what they want.

[cui bono]

144. This is why:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022444107

[Vincardog]

145. The "Fix" for raising medical costs is UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER. Anyone who suggests

any other "solution" is paid to do it. Follow the MONEY

[hay rick]

147. Lobbying bucks-

From this excellent Time article: http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

...According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the pharmaceutical and health-care-product industries, combined with organizations representing doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, health services and HMOs, have spent $5.36 billion since 1998 on lobbying in Washington. That dwarfs the $1.53 billion spent by the defense and aerospace industries and the $1.3 billion spent by oil and gas interests over the same period. That’s right: the health-care-industrial complex spends more than three times what the military-industrial complex spends in Washington.

[dtom67]

146. Because America is soon to be a 3rd (way) world country...

just check out " confessions of an economic hitman " or listen to Perkins' segment in the third " zeitgeist " movie.

Basically, the World bank or IMF take the indebted 3rd world country and dictate policy. These policies include devaluation the currency ( Fed money printing, a la QE3 ), Austerity measures ( which make the population more vulnerable and exploitable for corporations ), and , of course , democratic institutions must be weakened.

Any of this sound familiar?

Or just check out what is going on in the EU.(same shit)


This country isn't really a democracy and it probably never has been.

Sure , they throw us a bone, now and then.

But, the Wealthy own this place and they are tired of all you peasants speaking out as if anyone cares about you.


just shut up, bend over and kneel before your betters....