This message was self-deleted by its author

[octoberlib]

This message was self-deleted by its author (octoberlib) on Sun May 5, 2013, 03:00 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[rug]

1. It's a bleak day when health care is considered leftist.

[MisterP]

27. that's the fabulous Overton Window--it doesn't just have acceptable margins, but also a neat little

center divider that labels the two halves "left" and "right," regardless of their relationship with any actual ideology, philosophy, worldview, stance, policy, etc.

[Owl]

43. You have that right.

[Progressive dog]

77. Yes it is nt

[merrily]

112. ? child labor laws, child protective services, workplace safety, living wage, employee bargaining,

paid sick leave, etc. All those ideas have been considered left.

Why would health care be any different?

[rug]

211. Because everyone gets sick. It's a human issue.

The fac that progressiveshave consistently fought for it in the face of propertied agenda doesn't change it.

[merrily]

212. All the issues I mentioned are human issues. They still all have been considered left issues.

I am not saying that all sides of the political spectrum should not be in favor of health care. I am saying only that it is no surprise that health care is considered a left issue. And there is no reason to distinguish health care from protecting children from child abuse or making workplaces safe for people.

By the way, while the vast majority of people do get sick at some point in their lives, some never do. They live a healthy life and die suddenly. Both my mom and Dad did that, although she died suddenly all too young and he died all too old. (He is probably the reason she died so young, but that is another story--point for this post is, neither of them was sick before death.)

Health care becomes a big issue not because of illness, but because of illnesses that cost a lot of money. Not everyone suffers those, either.

[rug]

215. And that's the nub of it.

The opposition attempts to minimize it by calling it a political issue. The answer is that it's a right that everyone has. The political answer is that depriving people of health care is a conservative issue. He who defines the argument wins the argument.

[merrily]

218. As I posted downthread, if you minimize or dismiss the left, then you can easily minimize any

issue by calling it a left issue.

For me, though, calling something a left issue automatically pre-disposes me to be in favor of it because I respect the left. I will still question--is it really a left issue? Do I agree with it? But I will give it a presumption of validity, as opposed to being told something is a RW issue.

So, I see the root problem as being the huge effort made over the years to discredit the left.

I am proud that the left at least used to be on the correct side of all those issues that I mentioned and so many more.

I am not ashamed to call myself a liberal, either. Frankly, I do not think that is an accurate description of who I am. I think the Party has moved right. But I would rather be called a liberal than center right.

[tomp]

266. promoting the interests of poor and working class interests....

...has ALWAYS HISTORICALLY been a leftist position, because the the powers that be have always done the opposite. Every now and then the Democrats pretend to be interested in the poor and working class just to make the two party system appear viable. Then we get scraps and bones. Then the powers that be do all they can to take it away, or take something else away. And, for the most part, it works. What we need is a truly progressive, i.e., leftist party to reeducate the american people as to the difference between those who want to help and those who want to hurt. But obama is making it quite clear, as if it needed clarification, that the democrats are worse than useless.

[rug]

268. Do you know the original refrain of The Internationale?

This is the final struggle
Let us group together, and tomorrow
The Internationale
Will be the human race.

A left issue is a human issue.

[Recursion]

2. Healthier people would be worse off, sicker people would be better off

Meh.

[Lasher]

4. It's not a zero-sum game.

The motivation is for the government to pay less. That money comes from somebody.

[Progressive dog]

79. No it isn't

It's a plan to cut medicare costs so we can keep low low tax rates on the wealthy.

[HiPointDem]

105. so it *is* a zero sum game.

[Recursion]

192. It doesn't *need* to be, but as I'm reading this proposal it is

It's a cost shift among current beneficiaries.

[sabrina 1]

189. And if we had a government that cared about the people, rather than private Corporations, we

would have a National Health Care system and EVERYONE would pay less, and we would not be losing 44,000 people every year so we would also be taking care of national security, unless national security means taking care of Corporate Profits.

We would eliminate the most wasteful and expensive part of our HC system, the Middlemen known as Private Health Corps who contribute nothing to actual HC and serve one purpose, to dip their hands into the public funds, to extract large amounts of money from individuals, in order to grab close to 30% of the money that SHOULD be going to actual care, for profit.

Too bad we have greedy morons running this country. We actually could be a great country that takes care of all of its citizens, instead we are now run by for-profit first, giant Corporations.

[abelenkpe]

201. For profit education, healthcare, retirement and prisons

Corporate run united states of America.

[forestpath]

3. There is nothing Obama won't do to appease Republicans. I expect by 2016

both Medicare and Social Security will be completely dismantled with Obama leading the charge.

[RKP5637]

5. Sometimes I think he might as well wear red! n/t

[forestpath]

7. Well, that is the Republican party's color.

[RKP5637]

9. Good point! Some days I wonder ... I'm really getting fed up with it all ... a no win situation. n/t

[merrily]

116. Party names are rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Democrats went neoliberal on economic issues with Clinton. Then they went a little soft on traditional left cultural issues. Since the 2012 elections, Republicans decided to move left on cultural issues. If they continue in that vein, I am going to be very interested to see how the two parties distinguish themselves from each other in the future.

[sulphurdunn]

161. Same product,

different packaging. All the money is spent to convince you one brand is better than the other. It's just advertising.

[merrily]

164. Sadly, though, it works.

Just looking around this board makes that crystal clear.

It seems more and more folks are getting the message, though and that is the first political thing that has given me hope since Obama fooled me big time in 2008.

[sulphurdunn]

171. I know how you feel.

Obama destroyed the last vestige of hope I had for this corporate kleptocracy we call a government. I worked hard to get him elected. What a fool I was.

[merrily]

173. I did as well, and donated more than I could afford, too, but, as Obama said,

let's look only forward, not backward.


I will NEVER make that mistake again.

[randome]

191. Yes, what a fool.

Pushing for gay rights.
Pushing for gun control.
Covering pre-existing medical conditions.
Covering contraception.
Expanding Medicaid coverage.
Pushing for equitable taxation.
Pushing for immigration reform.
Violence Against Women Act.
Lily Ledbetter Act.

Plus, in more than 4 years, despite all the hand-wringing at DU, neither SS nor Medicare have been cut.

[merrily]

200. I could respond to each of those points, which are not as portray them.

But, making a list of lies and half truths is always easier than refuting them.

And you don't seem interested in facts anyway, so not only would it take too much time, it would waste too much time.

[randome]

206. 'Tis you who have no facts.

After more than 4 years, no cuts to SS or Medicare have been made. Obama has ensured some landmark legislation was passed, as in my list above.

And you're worried about a year old article that has no facts to back it up. Nothing but 'The Left boils...'

No identified sources. None.

You are running toward the end zone of despair but you dropped the ball along the way.

[merrily]

209. If you want to go in circles by repeating stuff that made no sense the first time, you are on your

own. As I posted upthread, I already addressed your points about time, a writing, a link--all of them.

Clearly, you either have a last word fetish or an agenda. Either way, I'm not interested.

[sulphurdunn]

264. What landmark legislation?

The Violence Against Women Act was renewed, not legislated. Obama Care in whatever form is a far cry from the public option he campaigned on and then abandoned. To say he's "pushed" for legislation doesn't count. He didn't even push his own party to defang the filibuster he campaigned against and then did nothing. He failed to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the uber wealthy, investigate the Bush administration for criminal acts, continues to kill kids with drones, claims the right to violate Habeas Corpus, kill American citizens on American soil, failed to close the illegal prison at Guantanamo, still permits renditions, talks green and acts brown, has not even attempted to regulate TBTF banks or take command of his own political party. We haven't dropped the ball. Obama did that when he faked left, went right and got stuffed.

[sulphurdunn]

257. That's like saying

not to worry about the bank foreclosing on your home because they won't really do it, even though they keep threatening to. The list of accomplishments you cite is paltry. The President has been in office for going on 5 years and for 2 of those his party controlled Congress.

[randome]

263. They didn't control it enough to stop filibusters.

The only thing I'm angry about is why Reid doesn't go ahead and change the MF rules as he keeps threatening to. I don't think it's as easy an explanation as saying he is preserving the status quo. I think other politics are playing a role.

[Marr]

269. It's cute that you think the government of the most powerful country on the planet runs like a

highschool social scene.

You really think there's no collusion on issues like fillibuster refrom across the party leadership, at least? I expect it's pretty much bipartisan collusion as well. This stuff isn't decided moment to moment.

[sulphurdunn]

270. Sure. I agree,

but a President who can't command his own party leadership can't govern.

[CrispyQ]

221. +1

I've remained a registered Democrat so I can vote in the primaries. With the influx of corporate cash, even that is not so much a benefit anymore. Many "democratic" organizations support the corporate candidate over the liberal candidate & we know who the corporations put their money behind. I'm changing my affiliation this week. This party doesn't represent me anymore & I fear the political process is so compromised & corrupted with money that we will not take back our government through the ballot box.
I also fear that too many Americans are so entranced with their iWhatever that they don't give a shit.

I believe government should provide these things to all citizens:

3 hots & a cot
health care
child/elder care
education through college
a decent public transportation system everywhere

[Scootaloo]

275. It comes of the system we have

A winner-takes-all system consolidates power into two parties - these parties are not defined by political positon, but rather governmental position; they are the Incumbent Party and the Opposition Party. Federalist, Democrat-Republican, Whig, Democrat, Republican, doesn't really make a difference.

There ARE clear party differences, at least in ideal. However, due to the way our system works, both parties are extremely broad and pretty much bound to appeal to the least common denominator shared between them; the ignorant twits known as "undecideds."

And ignorant twits, by nature, tend to favor the more rightward of policies.

[blkmusclmachine]

84. He did, in the '80s.

[merrily]

115. Are you referencing his comment that his policies would, in the 1980s, have been considered those of

a moderate Republican or are you saying that he literally was a Republican in the 1980s?

It doesn't matter in that, now, he is what is he is. I am curious, though.

[CreekDog]

62. He appeases them without getting anything in return

Negotiating with himself yet again. At our expense.

[tsuki]

71. It is not a negotiation if it is what you want. nt

[blkmusclmachine]

85. +1000

[cantbeserious]

109. + 1,000,000

eom

[jsr]

184. +1984

[GoneFishin]

220. +1000

If it walks like a duck ...
To me, he acts exactly as a person would act who is perfectly comfortable about weakening the social safety net, but is afraid to admit it.

[Divernan]

136. Oh, he'll get plenty ($$$)in return - in his post-Presidential years!

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Have you never heard of all the fabulous, multiple corporate board appointments - typically +$100,00 per year each in direct salary, stock options, etc., given to former high level politicians? It's that old quid pro quo. Top level politicians (Pres., VP. Senator, Governor) push business friendly policies, tax breaks, etc. for their corporate donors/supporters and once said politicians leave office, they are named to boards, retained as "consultants", given fat honorariums for speeches, etc. Actually, it's really quid pro quo pro quid. First, special interests make fat political donations, then politicians push legislation/enact policies favoring said special interests, then special interests follow up with board appointments, etc.

Some former presidents (both Bushes, Clinton) end up in the 1 percent; some (Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter) don't. Guess which group Obama plans to join.

In Latin, the expression is: Radix malorum est cupiditas, translated to: Greed is the root of all evil.

[jsr]

194. For the tremendous services rendered, his net worth will outrank Bill Clinton's

Easily.

[MrSlayer]

67. It's not the Republicans so much as the oligarchs that both parties work for.

They're nearly all owned by the same people.

[virgogal]

76. That's it in a nutshell---none of them really give a damn about us.

[Quantess]

107. Truth. (no text)

[Katashi_itto]

110. I am glad we have a no move Teabagger Congress. I will be glad when Obama is gone.

[merrily]

114. Obama is a symptom, not a cause.

He is implementing Democratic Leadership Council/Progressive Policy Institute/Third Way policies.

Those are the policies many, many Democrats in federal, state and local government are following. The last two heads of the DNC follow those policies. So do most of the Super Delegates. So do the the DCCC and the DSCC, which recruit people to run for the House and the Senate.

The Party has changed and Obama is only one person in all that. There are plenty of New Democrats--whether they call themselves that or not--who, if elected, will do exactly the same kinds of things Obama has been doing.

[Katashi_itto]

125. Agree, 3rd/DCCC way is killing us.

[merrily]

128. So is the DSCC. In fact, they are all killing us.

In 2006, Rahm headed the DCCC, which tells us all we need to know about the DCCC, Pelosi, the DNC, etc.

I am not sure how different it is at the state party level. They seem to be to be followers, but I don't know about all 50 states.

[Katashi_itto]

137. The groups infect us. I am not sure if it can be fixed really.

[merrily]

139. It can be fixed. Likelihood of that happening, however, is a different question.

[Katashi_itto]

141. Well, if it has a low likelihood of happening, its not a fixable thing.

One of the reasons I am looking at other countries to move to.

I'm tired of playing games with my future.

[merrily]

143. Likelihood is relative. Impossiblity is absolute.

A lot of people I know did move out of the country after Bush won the 2004 election (assuming he did win).

But, it may not happen fast enough for your needs and desires. I will not discourage you.

Just please get an absentee ballot and keep voting left in U.S. elections.

P.S. If you do move out of the country, I wish you all the best--and before you go, please pm me to tell me which country, in your opinion, is the best alternative.

I heard Iceland was good, but they went right recently, too.

[Katashi_itto]

163. Oh no, I will keep voting, and am not going anywhere till I finish my Masters

Thinking Japan or Sweden

[merrily]

166. Even after you leave the country, though, vote.

I have a cousin who worked here for a number of years and somehow got citizenship. I think she had some connections. She has not lived here in years, but gets an absentee ballot every four years to vote for the President. Unfortunately, she votes Republican.

[Katashi_itto]

177. Pity, about her vote. No I plan on always voting.

[merrily]

181. Yeayyyy!

[merrily]

113. He promised entitlement reform before his first inauguration.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform


He is implementing Democratic Leadership Council/Progressive Policy Institute/Third Way policies, not appeasing Republicans.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

No Republicans forced him to establish the Cat Food Commission, either.

[Warpy]

6. Ah yes, marginalizing concerns by dismissing them as from the "left."

The truth is that a lot of retirees are up in arms about this and calling them "the left" is just going to make them angrier.

There's a good reason Social Security/Medicare have been called the third rail of politics. Anyone who tries to grab them is going to get fried.

[Phlem]

12. are you talking about the professional left?

The kind O throws under the bus? Yea I'm one and I used to think I was common.

Now I'm a target!

Giddy up!



-p

[merrily]

123. No, the drug taking left.

The "professional left," Maddow, Brazile, Shrum, et al., are extraordinarily loyal to the White House and the DNC, even though the White House doesn't seem to grok that. And the professional left is comfortably within the 1%, especially if you think the 1% is a combination of money and power.

Or, maybe the White House did get that, but added the word "professional" so as not to tick off leftist voters before 2012.

It is the people who put Obama in the White House, in 2008 anyway, for whom there seems to be so much contempt.

[RKP5637]

13. Eventually, a lot of politicians are going to find themselves part of a huge stir fry. Even the

older republicans here are fed up with the whole mess, D or R. Some of them recently voted D, now, they wonder WTF. I'm not enthusiastic with Obama, I don't have enough $$$$$ for that ... but I'll stop here.

[HiPointDem]

106. +1.

[merrily]

119. In order to marginalize concerns by characterizing them as from the left, they first had to

marginalize the left. We can thank both major political parties for that.

[CrispyQ]

223. The biggest mistake the dems made was backing away from the word 'liberal'

when a two bit actor, playing president, started poking fun at it. They should have stood up & proudly claimed, "Fuckin' A we're liberals! And here's why," & then recite the Joe Conservative essay. But no, they backed away from the word liberal & eventually liberal policies, as well. In addition, they showed the republican party that they were to cowardly to stand for their convictions.

[merrily]

230. Funny you should say that.

With On Demand, I watched a History Channel show about JFK. (As you probably know the history channel was once owned by Murdoch. Maybe still is.)

The narrator of the program said that JFK did not like liberals because he thought they were weak. That just struck me as something that I should not take at face value, so I googled.

This is what I found. (Read it; you'll love it--and it may come in handy some day).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/

[CrispyQ]

237. I've read it before & it's a beautiful speech.

snip...

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

snip...

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

Thanks for posting the link!

[merrily]

244. Yep. I hope you don't mind another anecdote, since you

quoted something about Adlai Stevenson.

I used to post on a very small board of Dems.

For some reason, some Dems insist on praising Eisenhower. I do not happen to be one of those Dems.

So, when one of the Dems on this little board said something nice about Eisenhower, I posted what I saw as some of Eisenhower's biggest faults, one of which was racism. And, I posted a lot of links which were not easy to find because, as you know Google is not easy to deal with on stuff that is over 50 years old, especially when you don't have exact words. Plus, things that incriminate Presidents seem to disappear from Google sometimes. But, I did back up my claim of racism enough so that it could not be denied.

So, the reply took another tack entirely. The reply was condescending. (I was the only female on that board, so I took the condescension as sexist). And it was pulled straight out of the poster's ass. Something about times being different then and everybody being racist then, so I should not hold racism against Ike.

Hell, not everyone was racist in 1789, when there were abolitionists, let alone everyone being racist in the 1950s.

So, I googled Adlai Stevenson because I knew he had run against Ike. I found several decidedly non-racist quotes, including this one:

"True patriotism, it seems to me, is based on tolerance and a large measure of humility. There are men among us who use "patriotism" as a club for attacking other Americans. What can we say for the self-styled patriot who thinks that a Negro, a Jew, a Catholic, or a Japanese-American is less an American than he? That betrays the deepest article of our faith, the belief in individual liberty and equality which has always been the heart and soul of the American idea."

http://www.adlaitoday.org/samplecomparision.html

Message board posters being what they are, I never got any reply whatsoever, though one poster did pm me to congratulate me.

A couple more experiences similar to that one, including the condescension--never observed when the men replied to each other; and I got the message and lleft the board.

Okay, so now you have a beautiful speech from two liberals. I won't take up any more of your time because I have to go now.

[CrispyQ]

251. Thanks for the link. Bookmarking to look at later.

Love the quote you provided!

This is a great thread, but I have to go, too. Enjoy your day!

[merrily]

253. No need to look at the link unless you are curious.

I gave it simply to show my source for the quote you liked. Kind of like a footnote to a term paper.

You enjoy your day as well.

[MotherPetrie]

8. Gotta pay for the Pentagon's release from the sequestration somehow!

[Phlem]

10. Ugh...

again I say, "What Do You Expect from a Moderate Republican"?



-p

[A Simple Game]

20. I'm even starting to question the moderate part. n/t

[Phlem]

69. I hear that!

-p

[CrispyQ]

225. +1 --nt

[earthside]

11. A world of delusion out there.

The bulge of the baby boomers will be trying to retire in the next ten to fifteen years.

And the bottom line truth is that the vast majority of them don't have and will not have sufficient retirement savings that will support them beyond two or three years.

Retirement Savings by Age: How Do You Compare?

Pres. Obama and the Tea-publicans can talk all they want about cutting Medicare benefits and/or Social Security benefits (or increasing the price) -- but the truth is that unless they really are willing to see millions and millions of 65-plus year old Americans in abject poverty and in atrocious states of ill health -- there are going to have to be major increases in benefits to individuals in those programs.

And, there are enough baby boomers that they will be a political force that will have to be given due deference.

The idea that Medicare and Social Security benefits can be cut (except maybe for a couple of years for political show) is a delusion.

This kind of talk by Obama, some Democrats and a lot of Repuglicans is just more evidence of how seriously out of touch they are with what is really going on out here in everyday America.

[RKP5637]

14. Frankly, they are only in touch with $$$$$ in USA, Inc., where each day people count less. This

isn't a country anymore, it's a corporation.

[Honeycombe8]

16. You got THAT right! nt

[whathehell]

74. Thank God I grew up in what is now being called "America's Golden Era",

so called, as I heard it, because "everyone did well".

When I first heard this on NPR, about ten years ago, I was really taken back,

especially because the broadcaster, prefaced it by characterizing that era

as an "exception"....I thought: "Exception"?.."Golden era"?..What's with that?

I just thought it was America. The fact that he'd framed those

Post-War years we Boomers grew up in as an "exception" certainly gave

me pause....Silly me, up until then, I'd actually imagined that the Reagan and post Reagan

Conservatism I'd been living in for the last twenty years was the "exception".

[merrily]

124. In part, the post war years worked so well for Americans because

we prevented Germany and Japan from manufacturing for a good while and other nations, like China, had not yet begun.

That enabled factory workers to do very well for a time. Still, factory workers in 1955, while employed, were not necessarily doing well, except maybe in the auto industry.

IMO, we always had huge income disparities in the U.S. In the eighteenth century, Thomas Jefferson, owner of a huge plantation and six hundred slaves, versus some poor shlep of a carpenter's apprentice. In the nineteenth century, the Railroad barons and their pals. And in the 20th century and into the 21st, the financial sector.

BUT, never have the wealthiest among us been such a small percentage of us and never has the disparity between the richest and the poorest been so huge.

It is to the advantage of the 1% to ignore that last sentence, so they do.

[whathehell]

135. In part, yes, but also because

of New Deal policies, a very healthy manufacturing base and high levels of unionization.

I'd have to disagree with you regarding the overall situation of factory workers' in 1955

My father, in 1955, worked in a sugar refinery in Philadelphia. They were unionized

and he did quite well for a man who, because of the Great Depression, wasn't even

wasn't even able to finish high school, despite earning a scholarship to a private high school.

In the Nineteen Sixties, this country had the largest middle class in the world, as well as the

highest number of college graduates....Part of that was because Europe was still coming out

of its post war slump, yes, but there were other factors, such as the ones mentioned.

[merrily]

142. I think you may have misunderstood. I never said people did not do well in 1955.

To the contrary, I thought that I specified that the post-war manufacturing sector did do well, so we have no disagreement there. I said as well though that there have always been large income disparities. One thing does not cancel out the other. Both things were true.

You can do very well as far as putting food on the table and maybe some extras, without doing anywhere near as well well as the rich. I don't think we have any disagreement there.

As far as unions, they are not separate from what I said. If the American manufacturing sector had little to no competition worldwide immediately after WWII, that meant huge demand for American goods worldwide. Not unlimited, but huge. There was another factor, too, also connected with WWII--we were seen as heros, which made people want to be like us--wear jeans, drive American cars, etc.

Anyway, owners of most manufacturing facilities would have wanted to put as much product out there as they possibly could. To do that in an era in which robotization and mechanization had not reached the heights of today, owners needed human workers. So, workers could get away with quite a lot, including union demands.

When jobs are scarce, as they are today, unions do not have as much bargaining power. Without bargaining power, desire for unions decreases.

As far as college graduates post World War II, yes, the availability of jobs did have something to do with that. So did the G.I. bill. So did student loans that were made directly by the government, no bank middlemen. So did the belief that, if you sent your kid to college, he or she would automatically have a better life than that of yours in the factory. So did tuitions that were a fraction of what they are today.

[whathehell]

176. Well, actually, you said this:

"That enabled factory workers to do very well for a time. Still, factory workers in 1955, while employed, were not necessarily doing well, except maybe in the auto industry".

Beyond that, you seem to be feeling a little defensive about what I said, and that really was not my intention.

As for your last paragraph, I guess I'm just not getting your point. Certainly there were reasons for the post-war

boom, but that in no way "invalidates" the fact of it, nor does it mean that the situation of those years was entirely

dependent on external factors, such as the post war world, the lack of competition, etc. For instance,

you cite things like the G.I. Bill and college loans; those things still exist, but the G.I. Bill, for instance,

has been been gutted since World War II but there's no reason we couldn't restore its original benefits.

We could, and I believe we have, also eliminated that bank middleman for college loans.

Again, I guess I just don't understand what you're trying to say. In your last paragraph, for instance, you

list "belief that, if you sent your kid to college, he or she would automatically have a better life than that of yours in the factory".

That's true, but that "belief" was based largely on reality. At THAT time, one could go to college and have a much better life than

one's factory working parents. Millions of kids born to blue collar workers did exactly that during that time, my family

and that of my spouse being the closest and best examples I can give you. The kids in both my and

my spouse's family all went to college, some beyond, and we all do, in fact, have much better lives than our

factory working parents. After serving in the Peace Corp after college, my spouse went on to Graduate School and now earns well

into six figures. My sister graduated from a state college, went to law school, and is now a superior court judge.

It's probably worth noting that this didn't happen overnight, of course, as we are all boomers now in our sixties.

Like I said, you seem to be of a differing view on the situation, but I'm honestly just not sure why or for what reasons.

[merrily]

179. First, "not necessarily" were key words. Second, I said all three things

That postwar manufacturing was almost ideally positioned, that all manufacturing working did not necessarily do well and there were large income disparities.

I don't understand what you don't understand about my posts. So maybe we should leave it at that.

[whathehell]

226. Gee..Hostile much?

You seem to be arguing out of some ideological position that you'd prefer not to articulate.

I'm sorry if real life doesn't always equate with ideology, because as far as

"large income disparities", go, there was far LESS income disparity in our country

during that time than at any other in our history, before or since.

When you can point to another non-communist society that had LESS

of an income disparity than ours at the time, you might actually be saying something.

[merrily]

236. ? I wasn't hostile at all. We're not communicating and I don't know why.

What is hostile about that?

When you tell someone that you don't think there is disagreement between you and they insist on disagreeing anyway, I don't know where to go from there.

On the other hand, since were are not communicating and I don't know how to fix that, six more posts, even one more, did not seem worth it.

[whathehell]

248. Unlike the others who responded to my post, you did seem defensive & then hostile to me, but,

we do seem to have difficulty communicating, so ending it now is fine with me.

[RKP5637]

140. Well said! I grew up too with the same thoughts and

opportunities. I've heard similar ... that a dystopia is the norm, that we just grew up in exceptional times. I fear for the youth, what a mess has been handed to them, and sadly some will think this is the norm.

[whathehell]

150. Thanks...You know, I never thought I 'd be glad to be

over sixty, but it's looking like our our generation, for the most part, at least,

got "the best of it" if you will. I too fear for the younger people..I've had to correct

a few of them for misperceptions about America's even recent history, in regard to the homeless,

for instance. Quite a few think we've "always had homeless people", and one young woman I met,

planning to be a history major, no less, seemed to think that "The poor have always

fought the wars". I told her that wasn't true, and that it only started with Vietnam.

What many people don't know is that all five of FDR's sons fought in WWII, four of them in combat.

He also came out strongly against war profiteering, saying he wanted "No millionaires made out this war".

He wasn't perfect, but he was very good. In 2009 historians ranked him as the Second or Third

Greatest president America has ever had.

[CrispyQ]

229. I consider myself to be one of the most fortunate human beings to ever have lived on this planet.

I came to this realization when I started taking public transportation. It's humbling. Too bad so many of the wealthy don't seem to have any concept of humility. Or empathy.

[whathehell]

233. Yep.

I had to take public transportation my entire life until I learned to drive

at age 40, so I know what you mean. As for the bulk of the wealthy,

yes, I would agree. It probably explains why the less generous contemporaries

of FDR called him a "traitor to his class".

[CrispyQ]

228. I'm so disgusted with politics.

These are people's lives & clearly our elected officials don't give a rats ass.

In spite of all the Christian rhetoric in this country, Mammon is our true God.

[RKP5637]

232. I'm fed up with it too and I've lost respect for many of

our political leaders. Many are in it for $$$$$, power and fame, and some as control freaks. And many sound like blabbering, blundering fools. And many in the populace have their heads up their butt.

[Skittles]

28. why does that chart stop at age 54?

considering they're going to expect people to work into their 70's?

[paleotn]

262. You really don't want to see the data for...

...54 to 65. It ain't pretty.

[bvar22]

44. "see millions and millions of 65-plus year old Americans in abject poverty...

... and in atrocious states of ill health"

After the last 25 years, I'm beginning to believe that that is entirely acceptable to the 1% running both Political Parties.

To them, millions and millions of poor people are in the same category as acceptable Collateral Damage from a Drone Strike.

[sulphurdunn]

169. Consider this scenario.

You hold a national election and nobody votes. Who wins? Would it matter? Do elections really matter? Millions of Americans already live in abject poverty and ill health. Why would a kleptocracy care what happens to old people or anyone else?

[CrispyQ]

235. They don't care. Not one bit.

The 99% are just collateral - better that we die early. And if we don't die early, they'll make sure we have to work till the bitter end.

[Honeycombe8]

15. Why not REPEAL the provision that prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices?

If they're going to change Medicare...which I expected would happen, since the cost is enormous and it affects the deficit...why not, first thing, repeal that burdensome and COSTLY provision that PREVENTS the govt from negotiating with BIG PHARMA for drug prices?

If that's not on the table, I want to know WHY. That should be the FIRST thing that's done.

[pangaia]

19. Because they are all owned by big pharma.

[RKP5637]

22. Yep, none want to rock the boat of big $$$$$ flowing into big pharma. The whole

place has become a $$$$$ racket.

[pa28]

23. Great idea but negotiation may not be possible after the Trans Pacific Partnership passes.

Here is Peter DeFazio:

It is also rumored that it might actually prohibit the United States
Government from negotiating or allowing under part D Medicare--
pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are involved but the
insurance companies can negotiate under authority of law lower drug
prices. It may also prohibit the drug formulary for Medicaid which
saves hundreds of millions and billions of dollars a year, and the VA,
which provides our veterans with low-cost pharmaceuticals.

Canada will have to actually raise drug prices to be in compliance and Australia considered dropping out for this very reason. The "good" news is American taxpayers have been pre-screwed so we won't notice any difference.

I agree with you here but the very first thing we have to do is raise awareness about the TPP, insist on transparency and try to stop it because repealing that provision would only be a temporary fix.

[CrispyQ]

240. Finally, some much needed laughter this morning!

"The "good" news is American taxpayers have been pre-screwed so we won't notice any difference."

[merrily]

129. To the contrary, Medicare for all would be the best way of dealing with health care in this country.

And you and I know exactly why we got Obamacare instead. And why Medicare was forbidden to negotiate drug prices in the first place.

[jsr]

198. Violation of chess rule

It's in the book somewhere.

[KoKo]

17. Okay...we expected better...but, the Sh*t hit's the fan once again........

Let the Middle Class Retirees who are making nothing on their Safe Money in the Banks..with almost 0 interest rates now Dig Into their Empty Pockets to save the Deficits caused by the Maurading Bankers who brought down the Global Financial System.

Yeah...that's good. The Meme from our Party is that "Old People are Grifters" taking bread out of the Mouths of their Children and Grandchildren. That's been the MESSAGE our Dem Party has Signaled to get their Young Demographic to turn against their Parents, Grandparents and anyone who is over the 18 to 29 Demographic that they want to sell PRODUCTS TO.

It's

[Cha]

18. It's The Hill, octoberlib.. they like to start shit.

But, whatever.. glad the activists are out there letting it be known.. they can't afford anymore out of pocket payments.

Let your Congress people know too.. I will.

[KoKo]

56. What if the "shit" is true though. It often turns out to be...these days..doesn't it?

They are the "Gossip of the Hill" so...they hear buzz...

[octoberlib]

100. I think you're right , Cha.

I will be calling my Congresspersons.

[merrily]

117. Congress does not seem responsive to our calls anymore. White House either.

[markpkessinger]

21. And cue the rationalizers . . .

Which one, or combination, of the following arguments will it be this time?

• It's just a rumor!/It will NEVER happen!
  
• It's called a 'trial balloon,' silly!
  
• You still don't understand 11-dimensional chess!
  
• He just set a trap for Republicans!
  
• Wait until his second te...oh, wait.
  
• You're ignoring all the good things in his proposed budget.
  
• The only reason you are posting this is because you want to suppress the vote in 2014
  
• You never loved him!
  
• It's called 'rope-a-dope' -- don't you know the President is the political version of Muhammad Ali?
  
• You would have preferred President McCain/Romney?

Did I miss any?

[bbgrunt]

26. you forgot "you're a known O hater"

[markpkessinger]

29. Oh, right -- "You never loved him"

Fixing that momentarily! Thanks!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

33. He's roping the dopes, emoprog!

And as we learned during the Chained CPI budget debacle, "You're willing to let children SUFFER because of your own self-interests!"

[markpkessinger]

36. That one, too!

Rope-a-dope definitely belongs on the list! (Can't believe I forgot that one.)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

47. I can't wait for the Crap Blogs to be trotted out in defense.

(Providing this is indeed true, but based on what we're seeing of The Big O, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.)

[tblue]

45. Loving or liking him is required by law.

I did not know that. I'm doing it wrong.

[Puglover]

183. My personal favorite.

[Skittles]

30. see #25

[markpkessinger]

32. LOL

Actually, I think that falls under "It's just a rumor."

[Skittles]

40. well.....yeah, I believe you are correct

[rhett o rick]

37. How could you forget, "would you rather have McCain, er check that, I mean Mittens?" nm

[markpkessinger]

41. How could I have forgotten that?

Will add to the list. Thanks!

[Safetykitten]

38. You forgot, "You NEVER adored him!"

[Cha]

42. Cue you to try and shut down discussion. This being a discussion board and all.

I don't give a crap if you acknowledge reality or not. I certainly don't give a shit if you like President Obama.

[markpkessinger]

54. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion . . .

. . . rather, I am trying to foster a more honest one.

[wickerwoman]

46. Oh Mark,

Don't you know protecting Medicare is a rainbow-farting pony that only dope smoking Communists who've never worked a day in their life think it is possible to preserve?

[markpkessinger]

52. Oh, right.

I forgot. Sorry! LOL!

[Union Scribe]

92. now "You're shutting down the discussion!"

How exactly you're doing that I have no idea, but cut it out!

[markpkessinger]

94. I'm not sure either, but I will endeavor so to do!

[merrily]

126. Respectfully, rationalizers on message boards are not cutting OASDI or Medicare.

[jsr]

187. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Please keep in mind the president is doing important work on terra, and we must support him 1,984% in everything we do and say.

[QC]

213. You never really loved him!!

[pecwae]

259. It's been too, too long!

[QC]

260. Howdy! n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

246. This entire subthread reads like

a 5th grade lunchroom snarkfest.

....and you wonder why your "concerns" aren't taken seriously?

[Doctor_J]

24. FAR to the right of Reagan

Countdown to party switch...

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. I would pay attention to this ...

if the article had linked to the proposal (so I could read it for myself, rather than rely on "critics", unsubstantiated concerns) ... or the critics running of the numbers (so that I can see how they came to their conclusion) ... or an alternate analysis by a "non-partisan" disinterested group.

I am so sick of "They say it'll be bad" articles/posts that are completely devoid of facts.

[Cha]

39. And, it's the Hill.. known to start shit in my experience.. and, of course,

it's sooo easy.

[Raine1967]

57. +1

Someone is feeding a story to the hill.


I've learned to read these stories and call my reps as needed -- and then wait to find out The rest of the story.

[KoKo]

59. Again..."The Hill" catches a Buzz and more often than not what they buzz

these days turns out to be true. I know it's staffers and often has what most of us here in the old days would have called "slanting" the news.

But...the bad news is...there really is BAD NEWS these days...if one is a Dem who fought against Bush...that is.

[randome]

50. "Sources say..." "Leading activists say..." "Correspondents say..."

You're right, this is all speculation devoid of facts. Plenty of time to get outraged if the time comes

[OnyxCollie]

60. Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Batting a thousand, Randome.

[randome]

131. Ouch!

[Cha]

63. That's enough for some. Let 'em rage.. maybe channel it into actually

calling their Congress People to help those who need the money they've taken away from Headstart, Meals on Wheels, and the Nutrition program for mothers and children.. and, put money back in the Voucher system for housing rentals.

[defacto7]

83. Thank you 1StronBlackMan.

I was starting to tip over. I have been holding the fort on my opinions of Obama lately hoping for the best, and this article was beginning a shift for me. I MUST wait for fact confirmation before making decisions. If it holds true... then I'll tip over.

[merrily]

130. Is the proposal in writing?

[randome]

132. Not only is it not in writing, it's year-old 'news'.

[merrily]

134. If something is being "floated," I would not expect the details to have been worked out

enough for it to be in writing. And, unless a proposal is in writing, linking to it is not possible.

That is what I was responding to, the statement that there should have been a link or it is not credible.

The fact that it is old news, I agree, but I am not sure why you think that is relevant. Proposals for a health care plan have been floating around since Nixon (TR mentioned national health care, but did not submit any plan. Eventually, though, it did happen.

Proposals for cutting OASDI and Medicare have been floating around a long time, too. That doesn't mean they won't happen.

[randome]

154. Understood.

This, to me, however, is so unlikely I don't give it credence. Especially since, as you say, there is no link or any proposal in writing. It's more in the line of, "Sure, guys, let's talk about this. Just sit down at the table so we can get started on that whole budget thing." IMO.

[merrily]

157. No, I am not the one who pointed out there was no link.

I am the one who pointed out that expecting a link for something being "floated," as another poster said, is simply not realistic.


Obama pledged to cut entitlements before he ever took office. So, whether he cuts them in this particular way or that particular way is not all that relevant. He wants to cut them in some way and has wanted that all along.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform

[randome]

196. And after more than 4 years, no cuts have been made.

Yet the outrage and hand-wringing continues. This is politics, nothing more. Until actual cuts are put into writing, I fail to see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[merrily]

199. What part of my prior posts did you not understand?

I have already addressed all the points you raised at least once. You've simply restated them. You have gone back to square one.

[Marr]

216. Yeah, but you also insisted he'd never offer to cut Social Security.

Even after the offer had been made and reported on by reputable sources. Even after it was part of his own budget proposal-- you were still shaking your head and scoffing and insisting it was paranoia.

You laughed at the notion that the Obama Administration had asserted the right to kill Americans abroad as terrorists, without any evidence whatsoever-- and you were still laughing and denying it after the memo was released that specifically said as much.

You always think people should reserve judgement and give your hero the benefit of the doubt (again).

[gulliver]

238. Yup, this OP is the worst kind of drivel.

I looked for the evidence first too and found nothing there.

[ruffburr]

31. And I wonder Why?-

50+ folks are at major risk of suicide? Most 50 + folk where raised in a mom / pop store world, Most were taught that if your honest and work hard at your union job you could maintain a good life and send your kids to college , Guess What, We were sold a line of bullshit and fell hook line and sinker for the pol./corp. B.S. ( not all but many) They killed unions using media and bad union officers who totally stole from the various unions (think Bernie M.type B.S.) in such a way as to discredit the movement towards workers rights, Now those of us over 50's folk that totally got screwed are just supposed to stop breathing and annoying the 1%, Workers rights and safety are being ignored, Not to even Mention Wages, Sorry for the rant folks ,BUT DAMN IT

[markpkessinger]

34. Thank you -- superb rant! n/t

[tblue]

49. They believe workers are peons

Invisible peons. We don't even register on their radar.

[grilled onions]

35. There Would Be A Cap?

They make it sound like those with major medical problems are raking in the big bucks. It is not the choice of a senior/disabled person to run to the hospital and get a chance at yet another surgery. After every surgery is costly wound care visits. Many have to have home care or nursing care. It costs and it costs some more but what option is there? If they get cut off what then? Meanwhile we are giving bundles to the Middle East and it seems to do little but stir the pot for more. How many do we have on our side these days? Who can we vote for that won't change their mind time and time again? I have been on disability for quite a few years and every day I was fearing the dreaded mention of "the cap". I can't even get supplemental because I live in one of those states where the state yokels feel it is their business to prevent me from getting that gap coverage. We are screwed from all directions and you wonder when the next show will drop!

[Savannahmann]

48. I find it disturbing

For two weeks we've been outraged that Republicans would be so determined to defend one of their core groups, gun owners. But think about it. Republicans always launch a full throated defense of their core supporters. Not the individuals, the groups. Far right Christians are defended valiantly. Business owners are saints who make the country work according to the Repugs. Anti-abortion groups love the children.

On the other hand look at the Democrats. Is there a group of core supporters we won't abandon for a minuscule perceived political gain? Pro choice and women groups last week. Gun control advocates the week before. Civil Liberties groups are disappointed daily. This week it's the seniors. Who will it be next week?

Is there a line we won't cross or a principle we won't betray? If there is one, I haven't seen since Bush and company left Washington.

[HomerRamone]

51. Is there to be NO acknowledgment by Obama/Congress of the recent complete discrediting of austerity?

Reinhart/Rogoff etc.?

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Austerity is not, in reality, about doing what's best for the 99%

It's about stealing what little the 99% have left.

Reinhart and Rogoff's work was simply a useful excuse while people believed it. But It's discreditation is of no consequence.

[merrily]

133. Sing it!

[limpyhobbler]

53. Not really. The Democratic Party is supposed to be the center party.

There's supposed to be another party that sits on the left, but it was erased a long time ago so there is just a void there.

[merrily]

138. There's center and then there's center.

The New Deal may have been part way between John D. Rockefeller's wet dreams and Lenin's, but it was not a center right position.

We have had center right Democratic Presidents from time to time, but the entire Party has now gone center right.

That is why Republicans have been so consistently successful in getting through the agendas that were important to them at the the time, even though they have been successful only on and off at the polls.

IMO, the Green Party now occupies the space that the Democratic Party held during the days of FDR and Truman.

[ReRe]

58. I'm usually leary....

... of what I read in The Hill. But since PO has more or less changed boats in the middle of the stream, that this story showed up there isn't surprising. We're in a fix and us old folks need to take our O2 machines and nebulizers and meds and tents and camp out in DC as close as we can get to the WH. damn, damn, damn, damn....

[merrily]

152. He has not changed boats. He has wanted all along to cut what he calls entitlements.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

(Note the dates on those articles.)

He got into the White House and started negotiating Obamacare. Before he signed that, he appointed the Cat Food Commission. Then the Super Committee. Then the sequester.

It's been one step after another in the same direction.

He is implementing the policies of think tanks like the Democratic Leadership Council, the Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way. This is what our Party has turned into, thanks to the Democratic Leadership Council.


Therefore, the problems do not end in 2016.

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Finally, the Republicans will know they can trust us

after so many long years of not being attentive to their every need.

Huzzah! Huzzah!

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[octoberlib]

104. It's just us left leaning Democrats who want

crazy things like a social safety net. I can't stand the way the media portrays this.

[DerekG]

65. Mr. Hope n' Change strikes again

At least Mitt Romney wasn't elected. Sure, he'd do the same things, but with a shark's smile.

[Phlem]

70. You don't know

how much of a beating I took when I said that after he lost the majority. Gotta love history.

-p

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. This is better?

Fooled ya.

[DerekG]

207. He didn't fool me; I voted for Jill Stein

I no longer pull the lever for center-rightists, no matter how satanic their opponents are.

[merrily]

155. You don't know what would have happened if Romney had been elected.

Maybe he would not have attempted the same things.

Maybe, if Romney had tried things like this, Democrats in Congress andaround the nation would have thwarted him, rather than supported him and made excuses for him.

Or, maybe things would have been much worse under Romney.


We don't know what imaginary President Romney would have tried-- and more importantly--been able to get away with---any more than we know what imaginary President Gore's administration would have been like.

I know many believe with all their hearts that they do know. But, they don't.

[blackspade]

68. You would think....

"Left-leaning groups" . Isn't the Democratic Party supposed to be left-leaning?

Apparently not any more. The corporations have bought our party now.

[merrily]

160. They were invited to buy our party.

In 1980, the DNC sent out a memo to Democrats in Congress asking them to see if they, too, couldn't get some of those nice donations from lobbyists that the Republicans in congress were getting.

A few years later, in 1985, the conservative wing of the Party, mostly Southern white males, with a few exceptions like Lieberman and Hillary, formed the Democratic Leadership Council.


Yadda, yadda, yadda, as corporate owned as anyone else.

[AAO]

72. I feel ill.

[merrily]

162. You better dig out your wallet, then.

[AAO]

202. Why do you say that?

[merrily]

204. If no one wants to pay much for treatment, being ill is going to cost everyone money.

Nothing to do with you personally; everything to do with the bipartisan desire to cut "entitlements."

[Poll_Blind]

73. You who need it most? He would scatter you to the four winds. "Fend for yourself." nt

PB

[octoberlib]

75. It was also mentioned in the NYT on 3/28

In particular, participants say, the president told House Republicans that he was open to combining Medicare’s coverage for hospitals and doctor services. That would create a single deductible that could increase out-of-pocket costs for many future beneficiaries, but also could pay for a cap on their total expenses and reduce the need to buy Medigap supplementary insurance.

Glenn M. Hackbarth, chairman of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a group of nonpartisan experts that advises Congress, said a combined deductible could increase costs for those who use only doctor and outpatient services — a majority of beneficiaries in any year. It could reduce costs, he said, for the roughly 20 percent who require hospitalization.

Proponents, including some in the administration, acknowledge the political risks of increasing most beneficiaries’ costs, even in exchange for capping their total costs, as in cases of catastrophic illness. A 1988 law protecting against catastrophic costs caused such an outcry among older Americans, who faced an extra tax, that Congress quickly repealed it

“The president has said this to the Republicans: ‘You want to do entitlement reform? I do, too. I can produce entitlement reform and bring Democrats to the table, because I am a Democratic president. And so I’m ready to sit down with you and work out an approach,’ ” Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a Democratic leader, said at a recent forum hosted by The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/politics/common-ground-in-washington-for-medicare-changes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[LeftInTX]

82. Thanks - I didn't see the NY Times article

(I googled News for Medicare combine A & B)

I posted in #76 below and this post wasn't up while I was searching for the info.

[octoberlib]

101. That's ok. I think your article was more current anyway. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

86. "See! I can be a Republican too!"

God help us.

[Skittles]

91. he wants them to want him

[merrily]

146. He is simply being a New Democrat.

Which means his desire to cut "entitlements" is almost as strong as the desire of any Republican to cut "entitlements."

[CrispyQ]

241. Today's democratic platform more closely resembles the republican platform of the 1950s,

so being a New Democrat is actually being an Old Republican.

[merrily]

247. Well,

I don't mean to be contrary, but Republicans then were more liberal than New Democrats.

For example, Nixon was VP in the 1950s. His health program proposal, when he was President, imposed an employer mandate, no individual mandate.

In an attempt to neutralize Nixon's plan, the Heritage Foundation, which was to Nixon's right on that issue, came up with the individual mandate. Hillarycare was patterned after the Heritage Foundation plan. So was Romneycare. So was Obamacare, which Obama considers--or at least once considered--his signature achievement. (Funny, Romney once considered it his signature achievement, too).

Charter schools are another example. Originally, the head of the teacher's union, Shanker, pushed them. Then, he realized he was wrong and recanted. Meanwhile, though, Democrats glommed on to the idea and some Republican President's advisor--maybe Reagan's or Poppy Bush's, said, "Hey, Republicans need to get on that Democratic bandwagon." They did. And now, neither party seems about to get enough of charter schools. And so on.

On economic issues, I don't see a whole lot of real difference between neoliberals and Republicans of today, or at most the 1980s.

And lately, Republicans have been making noises about moving left on cultural issues. If they do, I am not sure how anyone will tell the two major parties apart without a scorecard.

[LeftInTX]

78. I found a few things. The second looks like it is from an insurance industry site.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/house-majority-leader-defends-case-austerity-now-155713674.html

************************************************

http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2013/4/9/experts-obamas-budget-likely-to-forgo-major-changes-to-medicare.aspx

Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said he expects that Obama's cost-sharing proposals will be similar to those included in last year's budget, such as:

Adding a $100 home health care copayment per episode for some beneficiaries;
Creating a surcharge for new Medigap plans;
Increasing Medicare Part B deductibles for new beneficiaries in 2017, 2019 and 2021; and
Requiring Medicaid-style rebates for Medicare Part D.

Park and advocacy groups from both sides say Obama likely will not include in his budget plan a proposal to combine Medicare parts A and B and use some of the savings to create a limit in catastrophic costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

Ouch, the part about the home health...I assume episode is not per visit, but per prescription

[Historic NY]

88. Another reason to invest in a long term care policy....

Medicare isn't gear for it and never was designed to, unless you give up your assets, etc.

[merrily]

172. That works for people who can afford it, have no pre-existing conditions and are younger.

Seniors, the disabled and the prematurely orphaned who don't meet all three of those criteria are depending upon Medicare, such as it is.

[blkmusclmachine]

87. The only elections BHO cared about are in the rearview mirror. Might as well let the real self out.

Social Security under BHO-->
Medicare/Medicaid under BHO-->
Public education/Public workers under BHO-->
All Bush's unconstitutional actions/actors under BHO-->
Washington, DC: By and for the 1 Percent ONLY. All else need NOT apply!

[SleeplessinSoCal]

89. Whoever has Obama's ear is harming him, us and our future.

March!

[WinkyDink]

120. I'm thinking it's a different part of his anatomy that someone has ahold of.

[merrily]

185. Ear schmear. Obama is not a puppet.

Obama promised to cut entitlements after his 2008 election, but before his January 2009 inauguration. His first priority when he took office was obamacare. Before he signed that, he appointed the Cat Food Commission. He has taken one step after another since then toward making good on his promise.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

Not only is this very much about Obama and not some advisor, but it is not only about Obama. This is what our party has become. Democratic Leadership Council, Progressive Policy Institute, Third Way. New Democrats. All on the same page, or at least very similar pages.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/bill-clinton-to-paul-ryan-on-medicare-election-give-me-a-call/

[Enrique]

90. if Eric Cantor came up with the idea

how bad can it be?

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 House Republican, proposed much the same in a speech in February. “We should begin by ending the arbitrary division between Part A, the hospital program, and Part B, the doctor services,” he said. “We can create reasonable and predictable levels of out-of-pocket expenses without forcing seniors to rely on Medigap plans.”

While Mr. Cantor’s proposal got little attention at the time, its echo by Mr. Obama hints at a new route toward compromise — in contrast with the budget that House Republicans passed this month that has no chance of Senate approval.

[merrily]

188. Is the precise way of tucking it to seniors, the disabled and the prematurely orphaned important?

If so, you can blame this on Cantor, if you like.

But, if the issue is the cuts, not the precise form of cuts, you can blame that on Obama.

Obama promised to cut "entitlements" before he ever took office.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform

He put cuts on the table before Republicans ever asked him for them.

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/

And, this is not just an Obama issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/bill-clinton-to-paul-ryan-on-medicare-election-give-me-a-call/

This is the policy handed down from Democratic think tanks like the Democratic Leadership Council, the Progressive Policy Institute and Third Way.

[graham4anything]

93. another anti-Obama post. Quaintly noted. BTW, doctors make too much money for a 6 hour day.

I think the doctors have one of the biggest pac lobby groups this side of the NRA.
Doctors need to be reigned in.

teachers should make more than doctors
after all, a doctor is only as good as the teacher that taught them how to read and write.

Doctors should receive X number of dollars tops for any procedure.
If they don't like it, there are 1000s of people world wide as qualified and hungrier to work who can easily replace them and do as good or better job.

[WinkyDink]

121. "teachers should make more than doctors" = WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU THINKING?!

I taught for 30 years; my husband taught for longer.

I'LL GO TO A DOCTOR TO SAVE MY LIFE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

But hey---feel free to go to a TEACHER if you get cancer.

[graham4anything]

147. who taught the doctor but his teacher

without good schooling a doctor would not be a doctor.

do you think they are born with their talents?

It takes a village to make a doctor. Doctor's don't do it by themselves.

Which of course is both Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's basic rule of thought.

BTW-doctors don't cure cancer by their minds. Doctors learn techniques from scientists and medical writers and pool their talents.

Who do you think teaches the scientists?

Everyone has a role to play in life. It is the basic rule of life itself.
Without one, there is no other.

And there are plenty of doctors who would work for free.
Isn't the reason to be a doctor to not make money but to heal?
Or is it the money and Tuesday afternoon golf?

[whistler162]

151. Also as a teacher how much was your

malpractice premiums?

[jazzimov]

95. Old news that DIDN'T HAPPEN.

This was back in late March early April, is not correct, and was proposed as an alternative to vouchers. It was also ONLY if Republicans accept higher taxes on the Rich. Which they didn't.

From the NYT back in March:

So far, the changes the president has proposed do not go as far as a single deductible and a cap on catastrophic costs. Instead, Mr. Obama has called for increasing the Part B deductible, which has risen much less than medical costs. He also proposed that beneficiaries pay something for home health care, which is among Medicare’s fastest-growing and most fraud-prone expenses; people just released from the hospital would be exempted.

Third, Mr. Obama proposed a 15 percent surcharge on Medigap plans that cover all or nearly all of a beneficiary’s initial annual expenses. Economists say that such coverage leaves beneficiaries insensitive to costs, increasing Medicare’s spending and the premiums beneficiaries pay.

[Summer Hathaway]

97. Please be cautious

when tossing around facts on this message board. There are many here who have a tendency to choke on them.

[octoberlib]

99. I wonder where this blogger from the Hill got her information.

The article was printed today.

This is exactly what senior advocates fear, and they are launching pre-emptive strikes on Capitol Hill to ensure lawmakers understand the downside.

Senior advocates trying to gin up outrage to prevent the possibility of this happening?

[merrily]

167. Oh, those naughty senior advocates, trying to prevent something like this!

[DCBob]

111. yes.. much ado about nothing.

[merrily]

168. I remember when people used to say that about the absence of a public option from Obamacare.

Turned out to be true anyway.

Point is, Obama wants to cut entitlements and has wanted that since before he took office. The precise form those cuts take is eons less relevant than that point.

[DCBob]

175. not me.

[merrily]

180. Never said you and it didn't have to be you for the point to be valid.

[merrily]

159. You expected a change in Medicare to become law in six weeks?

If not, what difference does it make if this news came out at the end of March or not?

It really doesn't matter how Obama ends up cutting Social Security and Medicare. Point is, he has wanted to cut them all along.


Even if he fails, this is what a Democratic President put on the table, before Republicans even asked him to. This is what he said had to be done.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-01-16/politics/36899872_1_barack-obama-key-economic-priority-items-entitlement-reform

http://www.crewof42.com/news/conyers-on-jobs-weve-had-it-lays-out-obama-calls-for-protest-at-white-house/


Nothing, but nothing, can unring that bell.

[Faryn Balyncd]

96. I did not vote (& work my ass off) for this shit!

[merrily]

170. Au contraire, that seems to be exactly what you did.

You may not have intended or wanted to do that, but that is a different issue.

[alp227]

98. So can we steal the Tea Party "Hands off my medicare" sign?

[octoberlib]

102. Lol. I think we better. nt

[DeSwiss]

103. ....

[democrank]

108. Reread reply #1.

[WinkyDink]

118. What would be the POIINT of "Medicare," then? Does Obama want to sink Hillary?

[madrchsod]

127. hillary? let`s worry about next year....

there`s no way we`ll get back the house and we`ll be lucky to keep the senate.

maybe barack thinks us old people will vote for him because the other sides knife is further in our backs.

[merrily]

174. I doubt it, but I sure hope someone sinks her.

[heaven05]

144. I'm

beginning not to like this guy and his clintonista insider adviser group and I've stopped trusting him with my health and safety.

[OKNancy]

145. JCoaS

You people just irritate the heck out of me. President Obama said he would consider as a way to reduce the deficit.

Obama may have said he would CONSIDER it, but that doesn't mean shit. He could consider many things. They never happen, but that doesn't prevent the kneejerk crowd from going off the deep end.

How about waiting until there is an actual proposal in the works.. and don't say we can't wait.
I remember this same conversation about how Obama was going to attack Iran and any number of other bs floated around here.

[heaven05]

148. tell

that to the people who could and will be hurt by the chained CPI, like me. It was never to 'be considered' in 'negotiations. No knee jerk here, just fear.

[OKNancy]

149. that isn't going anywhere either

It's dead in the water. I'm on Social Security too. Chill

[heaven05]

153. i hope

you're right, but......I am chillin, I,m just feeling left out in the cold. Not good. Enjoy you retirement.

[OKNancy]

165. I looked and Foxnation and the Hill are the only places where this is

being covered. THE NYTimes has an article dated March 28th that says:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/us/politics/common-ground-in-washington-for-medicare-changes.html?pagewanted=all

So far, the changes the president has proposed do not go as far as a single deductible and a cap on catastrophic costs. Instead, Mr. Obama has called for increasing the Part B deductible, which has risen much less than medical costs. He also proposed that beneficiaries pay something for home health care, which is among Medicare’s fastest-growing and most fraud-prone expenses; people just released from the hospital would be exempted.

Third, Mr. Obama proposed a 15 percent surcharge on Medigap plans that cover all or nearly all of a beneficiary’s initial annual expenses. Economists say that such coverage leaves beneficiaries insensitive to costs, increasing Medicare’s spending and the premiums beneficiaries pay.

[SunSeeker]

186. Thanks. I appreciate your voice on this thread. nt

[sabrina 1]

208. 'Beneficiaries 'pay something for Home Health Care'??? They DO, sadly since this entire

program should be available to all US citizens in the form of a National HC system, cheaper, more efficient, and LIFE-SAVING.

Who is the President listening to? I just got back from helping to care for an elderly family member and I can assure you AND the President that Home HC is NOT available except on the most minimal level and that this was a case where the 'beneficiary' pays quite a bit for supplemental insurance as Medicare would not cover his medical needs at all.

It would go to Medicaid if he could not afford to pay supplemental insurance which shocked ME it was so high for someone who is in their '80s. Maybe he should go out to work???

Seems to me the president doesn't understand what it is like to be an ordinary American. But I can assure him, we were UNABLE to get anything more than a short term nurse's visit twice a week, one half hour, for a limited number of weeks. But there was no such thing as 'home HC' other than that very limited time. To get Home HC you would have to be paying a huge premium and few people in their eighties can afford that.

Why doesn't the president surround himself with people who care about the PEOPLE? Why are his advisers mostly from the Corporate World?

[merrily]

190. Please see Replies 188 and 159.

[OKNancy]

203. pish posh

I stand by my post. Bellow all you want, but "entitlement reform" does not mean cuts to the beneficiaries.
Let's wait a year and see who is right.

[merrily]

205. Actually, that is exactly what it means. You can tell that if you read the entire article.

In fact, it is the only possible meaning of that article. It is also consistent with every step Obama took on this issue after his inauguration, starting with appointment of the Cat Food Commission.

And I also see you totally ignored Conyer's comments, which I also linked, and which specifically said that Obama put cuts on the table.

So, you seem a lot more interested in denial or some other agenda than you do in facts.

Besides, if "pish posh, entitlement reform doesn't mean cuts," is the best you've got, you didn't do yourself any favors posting that.

[OKNancy]

210. as I wrote... we will see

I bookmarked the thread. You do the same, then you can crow all you want if it happens.

[merrily]

224. As my reply 159 states, damage has already been done.

I have no desire to crow about poor people having to do with even less so that I be more correct on a message board than someone like you.

It's bizarre that you would even think in those terms.

[fredamae]

156. It's unfortunate

Dems have considered their base to be "Fkn Retarded"---and thusly "dismissed"....

They'll take on their base, force nonsensical bs via unnecessary cuts to vital programs in the face of "doable alternatives"---but won't take on those who seek to destroy our government?

Again, I ask: WTF is going on in DC?

[merrily]

193. The assets of the nation and of individuals comprising the 99% are

continuing to be given to the 1%.

Why is that mystifying? It's been going on for decades.

Maybe centuries, but it has accelerated mightily since Clinton was elected.

[fredamae]

217. I've grown to embrace

this reality-recognizing that which we were "steered" away from thinking and talking about...
Clinton brought us: "Three Strikes you're out" benefiting and growing the PIC; NAFTA/CAFTA/DOMA, the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, De-Regulated the FCC to bring us the "quality news" we (don't) enjoy today---clearing the trail for bushco---then the Bail-outs in 2008, supported by Dems--the wars, unfunded tax breaks for the 1%-FISA, Pat Act, subsequent renewals--it goes on and on and on...the Majority of these laws, rules and policies fully endorsed by the Dems--but we aren't supposed to "think" and "think about" all this especially in connection to the Current state of affairs.
It's not easy to accept the stunning revelation that "we dems" are just as Stupid and have been every bit as "snookered" as those we ridicule for "blindly supporting" those who clearly Don't represent our best interests...How many times have I laughed and asked "Why do "they" keep drinking the koolaid" (as I was cheerfully poured another glass by my dem leadership"....ahh, yes--and to some degree (sans hysteria) those who we are Most polarized with are BOTH correct in their criticisms of "the others".
The day leadership in both parties realize We've realized it--will be the End of our voting rights, imo---with 33 states Already making it damned near impossible to comply with unreasonable requirements? What is the DOJ doing about that?
I wish for someone to prove I'm wrong.

[merrily]

222. "I wish for someone to prove I'm wrong."

As my niece once told me, "Auntie, you have to be careful what you wish for. The wish fairy has no return counter."

No one but a damnable liar or an ostrich in deep denial is going to attempt to prove you wrong, though I imagine both can be found on many message boards.

And being in reality is almost always better than remaining in denial. So, I recommend that we all wish for more people on the left who will tell the truth.

I think you told the truth in your second post, so my wish is granted.

(FYI; This is not going to help much because I don't remember the details, but a poster on another board mentioned some other law that Clinton signed that is even more directly connected to the global economic collapse than repeal of Glass Steagall.)

but we aren't supposed to "think" and "think about" all this especially in connection to the Current state of affairs.

To my mind, that is the only political issue worth thinking about anymore, that and what, if anything can be done to help ourselves, given that neither major party wants to help the 99% very much. That is why I am desperately searching for: whether there is anything that we can do about it.

I don't believe that online petitions, email petitions, calls, letters or emails to the White House or members of Congress do diddly. Is there anything that might? If not, is jawing about it endlessly a waste of time? IOW, if going to hell in a handbasket is what we are going to do no matter what, I may as well forget about politics.

The day leadership in both parties realize We've realized it--will be the End of our voting rights, imo---with 33 states Already making it damned near impossible to comply with unreasonable requirements? What is the DOJ doing about that?

Actually, the D of J did file some suits before the 2012 election. I am sure the suits filed were against states in which Obama thought "vote caging" might make the difference between him and Romney. I know Pennsy was one of them.

I know that because I thought to myself "Abortion is a constitutional right, but the D of J could not be arsed to sue over requiring transvaginal wands, but they can sue to help Obama win an election. " Candidly, I don't like to even think about abortion, but just imagine if the exercise of any other Constitutional required penetration of anyone's genitalia against one's will.

On the other hand, the more the parties become like each other, the less we have to worry about vote caging. As the saying goes, "If voting really mattered, they'd never let us do it."

It's not easy to accept the stunning revelation that "we dems" are just as Stupid and have been every bit as "snookered" as those we ridicule for "blindly supporting" those who clearly Don't represent our best interests...How many times have I laughed and asked "Why do "they" keep drinking the koolaid" (as I was cheerfully poured another glass by my dem leadership"....ahh, yes--and to some degree (sans hysteria) those who we are Most polarized with are BOTH correct in their criticisms of "the others".

Yes, it is indeed embarrassing. And awkward, especially since our only hope, if we have any at all, is going to be to unite the 99%, from the Republicans we've ridiculed to the cops we've called pigs, especially the cops. (By "we" I mean the left, not necessarily you or I.)

On the other hand, there was a major difference between the parties for a time and a lot of effort and money has been spent by both major parties to convince us just how different they were from each other.

But, facing the truth is step 1. Telling the truth is step 2. I hope like anything there is a step 3 and we figure out what it is.

Well,

[fredamae]

231. At this juncture I can neither

disagree or add to your response. Its a sad day when civil rights, health care, economic equality, womens rights, marriage equality etc are considered "Leftist"....and loudly stated by "our own"

[merrily]

250. Thank you, fredamae.

It's encouraging to know that people are thinking along the same lines.

It would be even more encouraging if we knew what to do about it, but one step at a time.

I am proud that those issues are considered left issues. What human of any quality would NOT want to be associated with them?

Take care.

[fredamae]

258. Thank you as well-tho this

isn't an issue I've ever wanted to "find company" with--it is Imperative we Stop Denying the obvious.
It began, for me, a review of votes taken over the years and the chilling realization that the Dem "leadership" (not All Dems) aided the GOP...and of course the "lifting" of the mighty veil of greatness Clinton bestowed upon us all, with no one in media being willing to "speak of the unspeakable damage" that came with it.
The good Dems are out numbered, out ranked and out financed.

We likely need to start change at the local party level, run for offices-not just In the local party but city, county and state offices as well-apply for positions on committees/commissions etc.
But, yes, first we must stop living in denial of reality only then will the solutions begin to emerge.
There are good orgs out there-we need to support them. We need to educate, educate, educate-not with fear--but truth and facts.
Obama was correct about one thing and his actions (lack there-of) have allowed the "Corporate $cum" from Both sides to rise to the top for all to see and that: "We are what we've been waiting for"--now, lets get to work

[merrily]

265. I am not sure that I am what I've been waiting for, but I agree it will take work on our parts.

First, we have to organize somehow. That alone stumps me.

The left is in so many splinter groups it isn't funny. It's as though the house is in fire and the firefiighters can't work together because they can't agree on which of ten very similar hats to wear. Meanwhle, the arsons keep pouring gasoline.

Yes, the media is a huge issue--and the msm is controlled by about five mega-corporations. One has to wonder about all the antitrust regulations that had to be changed or waived in order to get that result.

In any event, they are never, but never, going to expose the truth, unless they are forced so to do. That, IMO, includes MSNBC. (I am not sure about Current because I don't get that.) If there is a way to the MSM, it is through their sponsors. Sharpton used to organize people against sponsors and the Christian right does it all the time.

As far as fighting the establishment, that worked for the Tea Party, IMO, only because the Koch brothers financed and organized it.

I once read an article in the New Yorker about the Koch brothers that said they had first conceived of the Tea Party--not necessarily by name--in the 1980s. If it took that long with all their money, contacts, etc.--and then fizzled anyway--I just don't know.

But every avenue is worth considering and exploring.

[paleotn]

245. They can't....

...in good conscience. What you've stated are simple facts that shatter the hopie /changie myth most of us swallowed hook, line and sinker. For the rest of this term, I expect nothing more than additional payback to the moneyed interests that funded probably the biggest propaganda snow job in US political history. In short, I agree with you 100%.

[CrispyQ]

249. Excellent post.

This:

It's not easy to accept the stunning revelation that "we dems" are just as Stupid and have been every bit as "snookered" as those we ridicule for "blindly supporting" those who clearly Don't represent our best interests...How many times have I laughed and asked "Why do "they" keep drinking the koolaid" (as I was cheerfully poured another glass by my dem leadership"....ahh, yes--and to some degree (sans hysteria) those who we are Most polarized with are BOTH correct in their criticisms of "the others".
The day leadership in both parties realize We've realized it--will be the End of our voting rights, imo---with 33 states Already making it damned near impossible to comply with unreasonable requirements? What is the DOJ doing about that?

Before 2004, the last time my husband voted was for McGovern. I convinced him to register & vote in 2004 & he happily did so, standing in an incredibly long line, on a brisk morning, to do it! In 2008, he unenthusiastically voted for Obama. In 2012 he enthusiastically voted for Jill Stein. Me? I've been voting dem all along & am starting to feel like a fool for doing so.

I wonder when the corporations will be allowed to vote. One vote per share of stock. If money is freedom of speech, then stock is voting rights.

[fredamae]

274. We don't need to feel bad

about supporting "our" party---(tho I fight it as well)


Now that reality has crept in, we need to come together, run for office(s) ourselves. It's not about winning it's about educating the attendees.
It is a Fact you don't need much cash to get the platform (to run) during a campaign and More truth can be exposed and an incumbants position can be laid out for All to see in this setting like No other! And that is Priceless.
Welcome reality--embrace the subsequent emotions as a gift of truth and move towards a solution. We are not gifted a problem(s) without also being gifted a solution.

[sulphurdunn]

158. I'm leaning left

because I'm being pushed that way.

[ctsnowman]

178. Well as long as we can keep those bases open in Germany

to protect them from the evil Soviet Union.

[Octafish]

182. Whatever happened to solving fiscal deficitis by RAISING TAXES?

Problem solve-ed.

[jsr]

197. When corporate profits and corporate cash reserves are at an all-time low?

[JNelson6563]

195. We need to flood the mail and phones.

We should get busy in real world and internet activism! Get everyone screaming bloody murder about this.

The trick is to raise awareness. So many don't pay a lot of attention for various reasons.

Julie

[merrily]

234. Tell me the last time that worked to affect anyone's vote or the White House.

As far as internet petitions, they are a vehicle for organizations to get your info so they can spam you asking for donations. I cannot think of a single time an internet petition changed anything.

Politicians can always dismiss calls as phone banking.

Polls ran 70% in favor of a public option. There was none.

Polls ran 90% in favor of expanded background checks and lord knows how much juice was behind that from all over the internet, calls, letters, etc., not counting personal visitors with the Senators by the Newtowne families. It did not pass.

Hard as it may be to accept, maybe the only calls that matter in D.C. are the ones made by people who make huge campaign donations.

[JNelson6563]

261. You can give up, I'm not.

[merrily]

267. I am not giving up, either. Just not wasting time on things that have been proven useless.

Makes no kind of sense to do that.

[JNelson6563]

273. Not enough do to make it matter.

Sure, there were high poll numbers for gun control but that's poll numbers, not the same as constituent contact.

Have you seen this yet? (posted by mojowork n in the Wisconsin forum)




Over $8 million from the gun lobby. Imagine if they got 8 million (or more!) calls and letters on the same topic. What if people started showing up in large numbers to the town halls and other gatherings legislators have "back home"?

I really believe that we could achieve much if enough of us make the effort. (And I don't consider on-line petitions to be any kind of "effort&quot If we spread the idea broadly (via the internet) and act locally (everyone go see the Senator/Congressman and share your views!)perhaps something would change. Until we do, nothing will.

Julie

[pmorlan1]

214. Privatizing Medicare

Oh great, now government will follow in the footsteps of private health insurance by cost shifting. I guess the ultimate goal is to turn Medicare into a high deductible, poor benefit plan like the healthcare insurance giants are offering.

[AllyCat]

219. It's already happening. At my employer (a hospital no less)

management wants to limit our two insurance choices to one, make us pay more for the remaining (worse) option in premiums, copays, and out of pocket maximums, AND demand "Wellness assessments" whereby anyone with a high blood sugar, high cholesterol, high BMI, or blood pressure elevations will pay MORE for the privilege of this reduced coverage (fewer docs and services covered, including all of my kid's specialists).

We might as well shop on the open market for insurance which is outrageously expensive.

[flamingdem]

242. The subsidies are substantial

if you have kids or make under 40k - have you checked this? It looked to me like a PPO plan would be reduced to 85-200 a month. Your mileage may vary, a lot!

[AllyCat]

271. That will not be us, even after management bends us over in bargaining.

We pay about $240 a month for the employer-sponsored insurance that we will be required to have under ACA. Wanted them to allow anyone to buy on the exchange, but it sounds like if my employer offers this minimal plan, we have to buy that. Maybe I'm not understanding it right, but I find the website for ACA unhelpful at best. On to October when they finally announce the exchange plans and I decide if it's better to leave my job so I can get government exchange instead of the horrible plan our employer is floating.

I live in WI where our idiot governor is going to to let the feds do the health care for us. Actually, that will be a benefit for many I think. Alas, it will likely not help us at all.

[flamingdem]

272. I'd say keep researching, the plans are supposed to be online this month

at least in CA. I think you can switch to the exchange and from what I'm hearing those plans are pretty good all things considered, and cheap.

[AgingAmerican]

227. "as a way to reduce the deficit"

This is Republican ideology. Why is Obama buying into this nonsense? We aren't Republicans. Obama knows it exists only as an excuse to destroy the safety net.

WTF?

[paleotn]

239. No, it's been Obama's, the DLC's and the Blue Dog's ideology

for a very long time. BO is just another in a long line of big money Dems serving his patrons in his second term. We had the same with BC and the Gramm, Leach, Bliley, Financial Modernization Act. He doesn't give a rats rear end about the safety net. He's got his and like the vast majority of his socio-economic strata, deep down inside they don't give a damn about anyone except insuring his patrons, bankers and Wall Street types are made whole on the backs of the 99%. And we really thought BO was any different? He just had top notch marketing and catchy propaganda. Nothing more. Feeling duped now?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

252. Why are we still spending millions on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan?

people keep turning a blind eye

http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-01/news/38165576_1_wartime-contracting-kbr-iraq-work

[CrispyQ]

255. This is how the elite siphon the Treasury.

Create a boogeyman to frighten the people, tell them, "We can keep you safe!" & wrap the whole charade up in nationalism. "USA! We're number 1!" My mother, who depended on government assistance, believed that "We need a big, bad military," & didn't want the MIC budget touched.

[ThoughtCriminal]

254. If it floats

We need a big fleet of U-Boats.

[ProSense]

256. This is what happens

"Left Boils as Obama Floats Major Change to Medicare"

...when the RW media deceive people. President Obama has made no such proposal, and it was pointed out that this was simple the media conflating issues when it was first posted. They are trying to shit stir on the left to protect the rich.

Here is the original post:

From the NYT article in that OP:

<...>

So far, the changes the president has proposed do not go as far as a single deductible and a cap on catastrophic costs. Instead, Mr. Obama has called for increasing the Part B deductible, which has risen much less than medical costs. He also proposed that beneficiaries pay something for home health care, which is among Medicare’s fastest-growing and most fraud-prone expenses; people just released from the hospital would be exempted.

The author of the piece in the current OP previously wrote about the RW ads attacking the President's proposal, the piece is posted here:

FreedomWorks hits Obama on Medicare Advantage cuts
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2590498

The group released an online ad Wednesday charging that the cuts will force between 2 and 5 million seniors to lose their private Medicare coverage, placing them back in the traditional program.

Obama Medicare Budget Targets Wealthy Seniors And Drug Makers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/obama-medicare-budget_n_3052762.html

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022670043