What are the $650B in cuts to SS and Medicare?

[CreekDog]

it sounds like a generic set of cuts to get to that number but what does it really mean?

to get those numbers, something had to be offered-up, what were those things?

the reason i ask is that perhaps those cuts won't be part of the debt-ceiling deal.

however, now that they've been offered, whatever they were specifically --doesn't it seem like they'll be part of some agreement in the future, budget or otherwise? that is, unless it's stopped by congress, however, and i'm assuming that Obama will be the primary negotiator when some subsequent deal is made.

now my specific questions:

1) are there cuts in COLA's for SS or further delays in receiving SS or other restrictions to help come up with $650B in cuts?

2) are the identified $650B in cuts inclusive of raising the eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67 --even it's well into the future?

my two cents:

$0.01: our safety net is the smallest amongst nations of our wealth level --it needs to be expanded beyond it's current scope. projections for our safety net's growth anticipate it being the same inadequate size it currently is. you could say, spending IS the problem --there's not enough, there's not projected to be enough.

and cutting the projected growth? seems like a bad thing, unless it's just getting outrageous health care increases in line without decreasing health benefits.

$0.02: If the $650B in savings come from means-testing, I can see some logic to that but I don't support it. To maintain good programs, they need to be available to everyone --then everyone is invested in their success (re: Medicaid, Public Schools, etc.). The way to have the wealthy contribute more to their benefits is *not* by means-testing the benefits, but by making them pay more in taxes.

[ClarkUSA]

1. It's nothing but a strategic ploy, which Boehner walked away from.

[CreekDog]

2. i guess you just read the subject line

:eyes:

[emulatorloo]

3. They are going over the details of the plan now in the white house briefing room w reporters.

Please note that Boehner says he walked because Dems were not willing to make "fundamental changes" to Medicare and social security. In other words Boehner wanted Ryan plan on steroids, Dems said no

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Boner doesn't consider them to be fundamental changes

But he always lies. Are they fundamental changes? He was talking about billions in cuts to SS and Medicare.

[Recursion]

5. Hundreds of billions over a decade might or might not be fundamental changes

Particularly if a lot of them come in the form of cost controls for Medicare providers (which I'm still pissed our side is demagoguing as "cuts")

[emulatorloo]

6. +1 re the demagoguery

[CreekDog]

10. i expect an apology given the following:

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

[Recursion]

14. Nope, none of those are fundamental

We may disagree on what is "fundamental" to Medicare, I suppose.

[CreekDog]

9. they are fundamental changes to Medicare and Medicaid

jury's still out on Social Security --small changes proposed, but the amount they want to save requires more changes.

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that’s the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

[CreekDog]

12. it turns out he did offer to raise Medicare eligibility to 67 -a fundamental change

I await but do not expect your apology.

[Recursion]

13. I've never considered 65 vs. 67 (or 70 or whatever) fundamental, as long as you know going in

If we're talking about changing it for people who are near retirement that's one thing. It sucks either way, but there's nothing magic or essential to Medicare about 65.

[Rosco T.]

7. It may well have been the same end run Obama used on the last 'cuts'..

Old programs and funds that had never been spent, only marked and allocated, affecting nothing but 'it was a cut'

[PragmaticLiberal]

8. Thats what I suspect as well.....

[flamingdem]

11. I think Obama is offering cuts for later, Medicare age change in 2038 so...

that won't feed the teaparty greed right now.