Five Separate Sources Confirm Obama Floated Raising Medicare Age ‘As Part Of A Big Solution’

[daa]

This guy is soooo one term:

Last week, Inside Health Policy’s Sahil Kapur wrote that negotiators may consider raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 as part of an effort to reach a deal with Republicans on increasing the debt ceiling, and today Sam Stein confirms the report, noting that five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations have said that “the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues”:


The proposal, as discussed, would not go into effect immediately, but rather would be implemented down the road (likely in 2013). The age at which people would be eligible for Medicare benefits would be raised incrementally, not in one fell swoop.

Sources offered varied accounts regarding the seriousness with which the president had discussed raising the Medicare eligibility age. As the White House is fond of saying, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. And with Republicans having turned down a “grand” deal on the debt ceiling — which would have included $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms, in exchange for up to $1 trillion in revenues — it is unclear whether the proposal remains alive.

“That is one of the things they put on the table as part of a big solution,” said one senior Republican Hill aide.

“It was considered in the context of the big deal,” added a top Democratic source briefed on the deliberations.

At his press conference this morning, Obama repeatedly highlighted his willingness to include cuts to entitlement programs in a final agreement. “And it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involved some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation,” he said.

If the provision ends up in the final package, however, Democrats won’t only cede the political debate about the efficacy of privatizing Medicare, they’ll be accepting a portion of the Paul Ryan budget and effectively forcing Americans between 64 and 65 years of age to purchase coverage from private insurers in the state-based exchanges.


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/11/265671/five-separate-sources-confirm-obama-floated-raising-medicare-age-as-part-of-a-big-solution/

[ClarkUSA]

1. "Sources offered varied accounts regarding the seriousness with which the president had discussed.."

Heh. Love it.

President Obama always did love playing poker.

[blueclown]

3. "Here, John, I'll raise the Medicare retirement age.

Throw me a bone, won't you?"

[ClarkUSA]

14. Are you channeling Eric Cantor's latest political wet dream?

Good luck with anything cumming from that scenario.

:rofl:

[blueclown]

17. No, I'm apparently channelling President Obama's political wet dream.

He is the one who put raising the age of Medicare eligibility on the table.

And it's a shame, because I thought I could trust the man.

[woo me with science]

25. But, see, he wasn't SERIOUS!

He's such a CARD! :rofl:


This is the quality of the argument we are getting now. :eyes:

[blueclown]

28. Don't forget... he's playing poker!

Where's the extremely large "rolling eyes" emoticon?

[ClarkUSA]

36. Funny how many times people think anything an unnamed GOP source says is the God's honest truth.

Then when Pres. Obama says something totally contradictory, the same people discount it.

That's a very revealing dynamic.

[Divernan]

46. They named Obama as a source, didn't they.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Unverifiable hearsay from unnamed sources are as credible as months-old Quinnipiac polls.

[dennis4868]

26. you don't see what Obama is doing?

he triangulating the repubs....it's a game and Obama is winning!

[ClarkUSA]

32. According to unnamed Republican sources.

[blueclown]

63. You are making the assumption they are all Republican.

[dennis4868]

23. Obama is awesome....

he's playing chess and the repubs are playing candyland!

[NorthCarolina]

42. As in dealings, if you make an offer you must be prepared to back it up if it's accepted.

So you can speculate all you want on the "seriousness" of his offer, but if he were not open to the provisions of the offer, he would not have made it....even in jest. Further, if it was said in "jest" then that should also tell you a little something about his "seriousness" with regards to the plights of the poor and the elderly in this country. This man is no Democrat as far as I can tell.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. I really hope Obama was not willing to do this

At a time when we're spending billions and billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Palmer Eldritch]

4. He'll win this fight and be reelected. I'll guarantee it.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

7. Because he's the lesser of evils? Not sure that'll fly this time.

[Palmer Eldritch]

10. Because he's the best man for the job.

[dennis4868]

24. right on!

He is getting the same shit that FDR got from liberals when he was president...

[Autumn]

12. Yeah but the pukes might raise the retirement

age if we don't vote for Obama. :crazy:

[polichick]

43. Neither party gives a shit what the people want - it's clear that voters...

...of all stripes think we should raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations, cut military spending, and preserve SS.

[verges]

39. Do you really think Bachmann would be better?

[polichick]

41. That's why Obama's the LESSER of evils.

[SSDA]

48. Obama could do anything and some will support it.

Mandate in healthcare bill anyone?

Please - obama serves one purpose only - make a horrible NWO/Corporate agenda taste better than if it comes from Repub.

[polichick]

50. Sometimes I do entertain the thought that he was the perfect choice...

...of the corporate powers-that-be because he's so likeable - no matter how confusing his actions are, people really want to believe in him.

[SSDA]

56. KRS 1 said is straight about obama from Day 1. Hope is for Fools

I know this is alex Jones - but Krs 1 nailed it.

Krs 1 on bush v. Obama

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

[polichick]

58. Interesting about the devil not being brazen like Bush, but more slick than that. Who's krs 1?

[SSDA]

59. One of the pioneer hip hop artists from the 80's - here is another.

KRS 1 nailed it on obama in this one too. Not for the members of "Team Obama" who refuse to tolerate any criticism

"Which side are you on obama?"

Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-12MTDarTc

[polichick]

60. Thanks for that - I remember him now. Love this line:

"I don't know his agenda, but I know mine."

Here on DU I'm always amazed at how badly some voters want to believe, no matter what they see and hear from our "leaders" - maybe they're caught up in "emotional politics," another great point in that vid.

[leftyohiolib]

61. it has to fly. bitch like hell to your congress rep but come voting time

you hold your nose if you have to, tell yourself you're not voting FOR him but against the other if you have to but you have to vote dem because the supreme court is more important than any other issue.

[polichick]

62. Oh, I always vote (so far). But a whole lot of people are...

truly fed up - expecting Dems to keep voting for the lesser of evils may not work much longer.

[ejpoeta]

65. that's why they ignore us. where else are we going to go.

[bowens43]

53. yes

he'll sacrifice the elderly and the future of the young and the middle aged to further his ambitions. I have no doubt that.

[Unvanguard]

5. The only direction that age should go is down.

Preferably to birth.

[asjr]

8. . . .negotiators may consider raising the

Medicare eligibility age. . . That does not say they have raised it.

[ProSense]

9. Was one of them

Nancy Pelosi?

Sources offered varied accounts regarding the seriousness with which the president had discussed raising the Medicare eligibility age. As the White House is fond of saying, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. And with Republicans having turned down a "grand" deal on the debt ceiling -- which would have included $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms, in exchange for up to $1 trillion in revenues -- it is unclear whether the proposal remains alive."

<...>

The deal fell apart, in part, because Democrats demanded an upfront commitment from Republicans that they would allow the Bush-era tax cuts to be decoupled, rather than a commitment to revisit the issue at the end of 2013. According to a GOP official, that demand was interpreted as a way to simply drag out negotiations on comprehensive tax reform, as Democratic leadership would know full well that they had the fallback option of allowing taxes on upper income Americans to revert to pre-Bush rates.

Maybe Stein shouldn't quote anonymous GOP sources. Also, reporting something as definitive then claiming that it might not have been serious, adding that the deal fell through anyway, is pretty bogus.

[blueclown]

13. Baseless accusations smearing Nancy Pelosi?

Where is there any published report stating that Nancy Pelosi, in any way, agreed to raise the Medicare eligibility age?

[ClarkUSA]

15. "Maybe Stein shouldn't quote anonymous GOP sources."

Where's the accusation in that?

[blueclown]

27. Five seperate sources.

All of them saying that the President put raising the Medicare eligibility age on the table.

You can't blame this on the GOP. We know what to expect from them.

And this person has yet to apologize for her Nancy Pelosi smear.

[ClarkUSA]

40. Sounds like a concerted con job thought up by 5 unnamed Republican shit-stirrers.

Go ahead and believe them, if you want. I don't.

[ProSense]

20. What?

Pelosi participated in the meetings. She issued a couple of statements related to these negotiations and not once mentioned raising the retirement age as part of the discussions.

Nothing in my comment is "smearing" Pelosi. The comment was sarcastic.

The fact that this article is relying on anonymous sources, including GOP sources, to claim that something was "floated," but the deal fell through anyway is specious to say the least.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. I've already written the White House. Has anyone else? nt

[mike_c]

19. first thing after his news conference....

eom

[Sarah Ibarruri]

21. Me too. Good! We need to let him know we do not approve. nt

[dennis4868]

29. yeah...

I thanked them for making the repubs look foolish and the dems the serious party!

[woo me with science]

30. Yup, and the reps. nt

[democrat_patriot]

16. Brilliant. It had zero chance of success, and showed the Repugs asses.

Hey - "we'll give you a raise in medicare age - u give us those tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires."

And they turned it down. Every independant that sees this now knows the Repugs are nuts. They will watch us go down in flames all for their crazy ideology.

Add to that Bachmann's gaffes today....

[jberryhill]

35. That's the point of drawing them out

We have to get back control of the House, and voters in the relevant districts need to see the extent of crazy that their representatives are going to.

[Mojorabbit]

49. It will make a lovely campaign commercial for the republicans

It is the stupidest thing I have seen a politician do right before election season esp when seniors turn out for the vote consistently.

[mike_c]

18. we won't be given any credible alternative candidates....

This game is rigged at both ends. Democrats run someone to the right of Nixon, no credible primary challenges from the left, and the republicans are drawing their field from the looney bin. For the first time in my life I've come face-to-face with the realization that I'd RATHER vote for an Eisenhower republican than most democrats available today-- if only the republicans could find one. It really is the best political leadership that money can buy-- they just don't make 'em like they used to!

[John Agar]

22. If true, this confirms all of our worst fears about this man.

I'm really shocked by it.

[JoePhilly]

31. What are their names? Surely we know ... right?

Oh wait ... no, no names .... but we do have this ....

"That is one of the things they put on the table as part of a big solution," said one senior Republican Hill aide.

"It was considered in the context of the big deal," added a top Democratic source briefed on the deliberations.

A "senior Republican aid" (a source I trust implicitly), and a top Democrat .... who apparently is so close to the "top", that he was not IN the deliberations, but only "briefed" on them.

Wow ... powerful stuff!!!!!

[BklnDem75]

38. LOL!!!

At least it's not a source familiar with WH thinking.

[Andy823]

33. Here is the bottom line!

He is using the same tactics the republicans use when they vote in the house for something they know damned good and well will NEVER get through the senate, and if it did would be vetoed by the president! He can put all kinds of things "on the table" when he knows good and well that republicans will NOT go along with "ANYTHING" involving taking away the tax cuts for the rich, big oil, and corporations!

When you know you have the upper hand why not do all you can to make the republicans look bad? Now it will be Obama that wanted bigger reductions and cuts while the republicans stood their ground to protect the RICH and big corporations! He is showing the public just who it is republicans represent, and it's NOT the people! He will drive this home from now till the elections and make the republicans defend their stand on NOT reducing the deficit when they had the chance!

I like what he is doing, I really do!

[oviedodem]

34. Good. Then we can just have medicare/caid basically gone when Bachman or Romney

take over.

Then I guess at that time, we all would say that raising the age at least would have kept it around and lament

[bowens43]

54. what fucking bullshit......

Bachman or Romney could be no worse then what we have now....at least with one of those two in the oval office the dems in congress will fight harder....

[ClarkUSA]

37. Funny how many times people think anything an unnamed GOP source says is the God's honest truth.

Then when Pres. Obama says something totally contradictory, the same people discount what the President says.

That's a very revealing dynamic.

[Fire1]

57. You tellin me??? This place has REALLY changed. n/t

[okieinpain]

44. I have my hand up. you guy's should open a thread that spells

out all of this stuff you're mad about. I don't have any problems with a lot of the stuff that is being floated and not just because it's president obama doing it. I'm not for privatizing ss, but making adjustments to it that helps keeps it going seems like a good idea to me. from all of the stuff I've seen ss and medicare do have some problems looming down the road, so what's wrong with making some adjustments to it now. I'm 51 now and I imagine that I'll be working past 65, if it's physically possible for me too.

don't go all crazy, I'm just asking to be informed.

[TheKentuckian]

52. Raising the age is super stupid. Why the hell do you want to increase the labor pool?

We need to lower the age...desperately. Under what circumstances will we need more labor in the future?

Why do you think that we will overcome our job deficit and then exceed it by millions?

Why do you think the vast majority of seniors are holding up as well as you hope you are in 15 or more years and will have enough opportunity to hold them over?

Why do you want to reduce wages and make old, tired sick folks haul in to their non-existent jobs?

[Telly Savalas]

66. Yes. Raising the Medicare eligibility age is monumentally stupid.

But I wouldn't trust an unnamed source from a Huffington Post article further than I could spit.

[okieinpain]

68. well wouldn't reducing the age also put the program at risk

by having more people using it's assets faster. causing the government to have to tax higher. now which is super stupid as you say.

[Divernan]

45. When defense lawyers for Big Insurance are trained to negotiate settlements, here's how they do it.

Keep in mind that in civil litigation, the party sued usually has insurance coverage, and according to terms of the insurance contract, the insurer chooses, hires and pays for the defense lawyer. 95% of cases settle before trial. Insurers use fairly large law firms. Defense lawyers bill by the hour. The longer the case takes, the more money for defense lawyers, and they get paid on a monthly basis. I heard firms tell their lawyers to never even consider settling a case until the firm has billed at least $20,000 (and this was back in the late '80's - so now the magic minimum is more likely $40,000).

Plaintiffs typically go to solo practitioners or very small firms, which take the case on a contingency basis, and don't get paid squat (except for filing fees and expert witness's fees) until the case is completed, whether by trial or settlement. These plaintiff's lawyers really need the case to settle so they can get $$$ to pay their expenses and salaries. The harder up they are, the more they pressure their clients to settle for low numbers. Because a bird in the hand (33% - 40% of a settlement today) is worth a lot more than a bird in the bush (getting on a trial list with a 1 year or more waiting period, with no guarantee of the outcome).

Defense Lawyers have no incentive to settle a case and rarely initiate settlement discussions.

So you have Plaintiff's Lawyer (PL) and Defense/Insurance Company's Lawyer(DL). Whichever lawyer requests the meeting or initiates a phone call to discuss settlement is in the weaker position. Because then the burden is on them to throw out the first number. Throwing out the first number is a distinct disadvantage in bargaining. Since Obama called this meeting in the WH, we'll designate him as the Plaintiff's Lawyer (PL) for purposes of this example. Boehner is the Defense Lawyer)DL)
(PL) "I'm calling to talk about settling the Smith case."
(DL) "Oh, yeah? What numbers are you looking at?"
(PL) "I dunno - what do YOU think the case is worth?"
(DL) "I hadn't really decided that yet. Hey, you're the one who called me. What numbers are you looking at?"
(PL) "Well, I've discussed this with my client, (here the PL runs through the strongest points of his case) and we think the case is worth $75,000 to $100,000."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Somehow the often inexperienced plaintiff's lawyer thinks the DL will jump at that lower number. Nope.
At this point in the conversation, as any experienced negotiator will tell you, PL has already implicitly told DL that he'd accept the lower number of $75,000. Whenever someone gives a range, you know they'll accept the lower number. No way DL would ever offer more than the lower number. Now the DL shifts to presuring PL to agree to an even lower number, i.e., more disadvantageous settlement.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
(DL) "$75,000? That's out of the question. No way! Totally unacceptable offer. Call me when you have a serious offer. The Code of Ethics requires that I pass that offer on to my client, but I can tell you they will laugh at it.
I handle dozens of these cases every year and they have never been worth anywhere near $75,000! You talk to your client and tell him that he'd be lucky to get half that amount." And DL hangs up the phone, or in Boehner's case, walks out of the meeting. So DL has set the lower boundary at $37,500. Eventually, the desperate PL gets back to the DL and makes a counter demand. And 95% of the time, the parties settle without going to trial.

I'm sick that Obama offered to defer Medicare to age 67. Now Boehner is primed and perfectly positioned to push Obama farther, for even more of a concession. He knows Obama's "negotiating" style by now, and how pushable Obama is. This could be raising Medicare coverage to 70 and/or raising the retirement age (which has already been raised to 67) up to 70 as well.

If I were a betting person, and given Geithner's fear-mongering statements about how bad things will get and remain for a long time, I'd bet that Medicare will be deferred to an even greater extent than age 67. Obama has also said that SS and Medicaid are on the table, so brace yourselves for changes to them which will cost the average American dearly. Every year that Medicare is deferred will cost the typical American tens of thousands of dollars in health insurance costs. That will be as costly or more costly every year than deferring SS payouts.

I was driving home today in 93 degree, high humidity weather and saw men working for a tree service, and truck drivers unloading trucks, and my mailman walking the street and road crews repaving. None of them looked more than 40-45 at the outside - I don't see them able to do those jobs at 65, let alone 67 or 70.

[bowens43]

51. there is nothing he won't give up ,

no one he won't toss under the buss to please the republicans.

the man has no integrity

[polichick]

55. That's an interesting thought. Integrity vs pragmatism - is it really one or the other?

In my experience it's not either, or - but I'm open to others' viewpoints.

[Joe the Revelator]

64. Simple question....who are the sources?

[Telly Savalas]

67. Unnamed sources have evidence that at least one of the 5 unnamed sources

in the Huff Post article molests children.