Report: Obama Prepared To Raise The Age Of Medicare Eligibility Age To 67

[jtown1123]

From Forbes:


"Politico is reporting that, prior to the ‘grand bargain’ negotiations between the President and Speaker John Boehner falling apart, the two had tentatively agreed on raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 – albeit over a twenty year period.

According to the report, the plan was to begin in 2017 and would involve raising the age of eligibility by one month per year until the eligibility age reached 66 in 2029. The age would then rise by 2 months per year thereafter until reaching 67."
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/07/27/report-obama-prepared-to-raise-the-age-of-medicare-eligibility-age-to-67/

This is unacceptable. It also makes no sense if you're trying to improve Medicare's solvency.

From Daily Kos:

Indeed, particularly considering the huge cost shift this would mean for seniors (Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that it would cost "$3.7 billion in out-of-pocket costs for those ages 65 and 66 who would otherwise have been covered by Medicare" in 2014) for the pretty small return for the government. Volsky points to a CBO finding on the proposal that raising the eligibility age "would have little effect on the trajectory of Medicare’s long-term spending … because younger beneficiaries are healthier and thus less costly than the program's average beneficiary."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/27/999586/-Politico:-Obama-and-Boehner-had-agreed-to-raise-Medicare-eligibility-age

[Lasher]

1. I wonder if Obama knows this would gurantee him a single term presidency.

[closeupready]

13. He will lose Florida and Arizona, at a minimum.

nt

[MoonRiver]

81. Would a Repub put it back to 65?

No, s/he would probably raise it to 70.

[SwampG8r]

93. when will you get tired

of the republicans will do it worse analogy
not you personally but enablers in general
this is what you are telling us

let my guy sodomize you because his penis is smaller and wont hurt you as much
dont let their guy sodomize you because he is hung like a horse!
im just as fucked either way so the whole ooooooooo they are so much worse thing is wearing reallllllllllllly fucking thin

[ejbr]

199. +1 n/t

[JHB]

223. A choice between...

...getting squashed flat as a pancake and getting squashed flat as paper.

[latebloomer]

238. I like the way you phrase that!

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[inna]

143. +

Except that I doubt that he's "finished"; not as if we live in a democracy, after all. :shrug:

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[n2doc]

113. Obama sure won't lower it

And he may very well raise it to 70, or 75 or whatever, just so long as he can get his 'bipartisan' agreement with the repub terrorists during the next manufactured crisis.

At a certain point, really, how much do you trust obama to actually do the right thing? At least the dems would be unified again in opposition without their leader cutting the floor out from under them.

[sabrina 1]

149. And what has that got to do with anything? It was that kind of

thinking that got us to where are now, with the unbelievable fact that a DEMOCRATIC President is about to do what no Republican president was able to do. Because they knew there would be people on the 'left' who would never support this if a Republican did it, but those same people would make excuses, like 'a Republican would do worse' if a Democrat did it.

Well, guess what. Maybe you're wrong. Bush was a Republican and he tried messing with these programs. Dems were not in control at that time. BUT, a united Left stopped him.

Now the left is no longer united, with some willign to do anything to protect this president.

Logically speaking then, we were better off with a Republican in the WH.

All the threat of 'Republicans are worse' does now is lead to people remembering that no Republican was able to destroy these programs, no matter how much power they had or how much they wanted to do it.

[Dutchmaster]

233. Republicans are worse? The last few years gave felt NO different to me

than the Bush era.

[hulka38]

228. He's still left of Satan so

vote for him.

[A Simple Game]

230. They don't have to raise it to 70. They just need to tell

Obama that they want it raised to 75 and he will negotiate them down to 70.

[Frisbee]

252. Ain't that the sad truth! n/t

[russspeakeasy]

255. he would have negotiated them up to 76.

[sulphurdunn]

250. The Republicans have

never raised the medicare age. They didn't do it when they had the votes to do it. I hate Republicans, and I'm sure they'd love to kill the program, but that's a fact.

[WinkyDink]

101. PA.

[closeupready]

122. yep, and maybe Ohio.

All of the borderline states with aging populations where unemployment is high. MI, too.

[Enthusiast]

209. He's working for the other side.

Is there any question?

[Creideiki]

225. He's not working for the Republicons. He's working for Wall Street

Follow the money.

[Enthusiast]

227. That's the "other side"...............nt

[Creideiki]

261. I'm up for a class war.

And oddly enough, got almost perfect scores on the small unit leadership exercises at Marine Corps OCS.

[Creideiki]

224. Is Arizona up for grabs?

I can't see a roadmap to 290 electoral votes right now. The racist south won't go for him, and he'll probably lose NV, CO, NM, NC and Florida doing pulling this. He needs an energized base, not a demoralized one.

[certainot]

14. i don't know- i think he would like to get it lower - or have a single payer alteernative

if he had his way without an obstructionist GOP. unfortunately the left continues to give 1000 coordinated radio stations a free speech free ride to give 10% the power of 51%

[jtown1123]

15. Really? If you want to have it lower, why would you agree to something the complete opposite?

makes no sense to me...

[certainot]

17. maybe to raise the debt ceiling without getting to the point soon where all

of us may soon be fucked by these motherfucking ignorant sacks of shit dittohead teabaggers

and maybe fix it later when americans finally wake up

[jtown1123]

24. I'm sorry but once you harm a program, it's very hard to restore it. Look at the MMA.

It's very hard to undo that shit... I really doubt raising the Medicare age was something Boehner really wanted. Like I said, it produces no savings.

[WinkyDink]

104. Completely bizarro.

[Hawkowl]

105. Cognitive dissonance

Why?! WHY?!? Would you continue to believe that Obama would rather do things one way and ALWAYS does the opposite? Why?

[certainot]

175. it's called politics, democracy, and who's got the power. if youve been watching politics for the

last 20 years you'd know the that we have little democracy left, that the republicans will do anything, and the idea that a black man could walk into the white billionaires house and kick ass is silly and naive, especially when the left has no clue what the right's most effective weapon is and give them a free speech free ride from 1000 radio stations 24/7/365.

[BulletproofLandshark]

180. "and the idea that a black man could walk into the white billionaires house and kick ass is silly.."

Especially when said black man is completely unwilling to try, for the sake of "compromise".

[certainot]

201. his position is weakened because the left ignores the right's best weapon, because

the whiny left sticks their iPods in their ears and walks past the giant soapbox that screams that liberals' mothers are whores and their fathers are thieves

[TheKentuckian]

260. It wasn't us that allowed massive deregulation of the airwaves or allowed monopolies to buy up

most of the channels.

At this point, most of us don't have billions to buy out or counter the flood of stupid on the air and all legislative efforts get the gasface from our "centrist" "leadership".

If stupid ass "centrists" and fuckwitted Reagan Democrats had listened to reason rather than eating up at the Voodoo buffet we wouldn't be in such a mess. Add to that finding every way under the sun to funnel more money to these same assholes to blow on such efforts and there is little to do but lay siege to the channels and terrorize their pundits.

[Creideiki]

226. So you can read minds now?

I thought only progressives could read minds.

[damntexdem]

51. And that he would deserve it.

[rhett o rick]

183. I wish there was a scenario for that to happen. I cant come up with one. Maybe you can help? nm

[Lasher]

191. Maybe I could send a candid reply to one of those fundraising emails.

But I doubt if Obama wants advice from an old New Deal Democrat like me.

[rhett o rick]

259. I send them back with comments all the time. Doubt they have effect. nm

[Enthusiast]

208. He also plans another payroll

tax holiday. This will allow social security to be attacked because it will no longer be adequately funded. Obama IS a Republican.

[Fearless]

2. THIS IS NOT ABOUT DEBT!

If the Boehner plan falls apart (it will), then you have a DEMOCRATIC plan raising Medicare?? WHY??!?

[certainot]

27. because the greedy corporate jet fume sucking dittohead teabaggers

won't vote for a plan that doesn't kill some americans

[Lasher]

40. You are correct, it is not.

If we slash spending to balance the budget and the GOP would just cut taxes again, creating more debt. It's really no secret. Saint Ronnie and others after him said they would do this. Yet this aspect is strangely absent from national discourse.

[tallsherri]

82. Medicare Age

I know it's a stretch but... Maybe his health care reform law will be in place by that time. And maybe folks will be able to purchase health insurance at a reasonable cost until they reach age 67.

[Rex]

94. And the millions that cannot afford it will have to hope they make it to 67.

Affordable health insurance is becoming a joke.

[Fearless]

100. Whose health reform law? And welcome to DU!

[jtown1123]

102. That's a big fat maybe...this is absurd. This proposal is immoral and produces no savings...n/t

[WinkyDink]

106. ".... purchase health insurance at a reasonable cost "? Bwahahahahahahahahah!

[cordelia]

144. Oh, yeah.

I just tried that. What an utter joke at the ripe old age of 53.

[WinkyDink]

160. I'm paying a retired-but-group rate of $500+/mo. I asked the Indiv. rate and was told "$900+."

PSERS:
http://www.psers.state.pa.us/

[Hawkowl]

108. Maybe a giant Monkey

Maybe a giant Monkey will fly out of Obama's ass and sprinkle gummy bears over the entire country!

There is no maybe. There is only planning and execution. Planning the destruction of Medicare and then executing said plan.

[inna]

146. "planning and execution", is right. It never ceases to amaze me that this simple fact

seems to escape most people, for some reason.

[WinkyDink]

161. Mmmm.... Gummy bears... Mmmmmmm

[bullwinkle428]

3. It's so easy to get health insurance on the open market when you're 65 or 66!

:banghead:

[jtown1123]

6. I know. That's why Medicare was invented in the first place. Insurers wouldn't cover seniors.

[Bluebear]

60. +

[WinkyDink]

109. He'll be long out of office by then.

[PA Democrat]

111. Those of us who are self-employed know this. The rest of America will learn the hard way

when employers start reducing or eliminating health insurance. Hope people who support this are confident that their employers will guarantee them a job through the age of 67 because companies already aren't hiring older workers. They claim it's about "skills" but a lot of it has to do with the cost of benefits for older workers.

[riderinthestorm]

164. After 2014, businesses will have no incentive to provide health insurance coverage anymore

Why should they? Everyone will be mandated to buy it. There's no incentive for companies to keep forking over that much cash on behalf of their employees when it crystal clear the employees are now going to be mandated by the government to carry it themselves.

Does anyone really think corporations are going to be so altruistic they will keep paying for employee health coverage?

[LibertyLover]

251. So true -

where I work we must retire at age 62. A few of the executives get exemptions, but us regular people, no way. Every time HR reviews our benefits and compensation package, our employees association tries to get it raised to 65 and each time our BoD says no. Once again we are in the middle of a "review of benefits" and the employees association says that they will try once again to get the mandatory retirement age raised. I don't have any hopes. I've got 4 years until I hit the mandatory retirement age and I figure I'll be out. My one and only consolation - I have an old fashioned pension from working here, so I am luckier than most. But health insurance for me, my husband and our minor daughter will eat up a chunk of that pension, even with the group rate I'll be able to get. Oh joy.

[CBGLuthier]

4. Ahh the old we got ours fuck you ploy

I love a good we got ours fuck you ploy.

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. For certain he doesn't have to worry about this. Nope. Doesn't affect him or his.

How does he sleep at night?

[DURHAM D]

5. Oh for pete's sake - just raise the payroll reduction.

It has not been raised in 25 years. Its a simple and rational solution. Guess that is why they won't use it.

[jtown1123]

8. Agreed. Or allow everyone to participate. That would pretty much end private insurance...great!

[dkf]

28. We would have to keep raising it quite often.

The costs are rising at twice the rate of growth. In a time of stagnant wages, does that mean pay cuts going forward?

[grahamhgreen]

75. IT'S THE Obvious answer!

[theoldman]

7. Let's face it, we live longer and can work longer.

If you need to retire early for medical reasons you have two choices. If you have the money you buy insurance. If you are poor you use Medicaid.

[jtown1123]

9. Not necessarily. What about people who get laid off? This doesn't even save money so why support it?

[bread_and_roses]

21. OMFG, what world do you live in?

Try standing behind a cash register for hours at even age 60 - much less 65. Try working on a road crew. And there's a hell of a lot of people BETWEEN able to buy private insurance and Medicaid eligibility. There are a hell of a lot of elders staying in the work force ONLY because they need health insurance - jobs that could go to younger workers, who are enduring something like a 25% un/under-employment rate.

And btw, US is #50 in life expectancy on CIA World Factbook - behind Bosnia/Herzegovina and Singapore, for fuck's sake. Behind every Western European Country that actually has a universal health care system AND an earlier retirement age.

How can anyone support this? It is deadly - literally - and totally unnecessary and a total sell-out to our Corporate Overlords.

[raccoon]

46. There are a hell of a lot of elders staying in the work force who DON'T have health insurance

through their employers.

Also, if they raise the eligibility age AT THE SAME TIME THAT FEWER AND FEWER EMPLOYERS OFFER HEALTH INSURANCE--because that is exactly what's happening, and I don't see it changing--what are those under 67 to do?

[bread_and_roses]

50. Exactly so.

No disagreement here, if I gave such an impression, it was inadvertent. There is no such thing as "affordable" health insurance in the private market unless you are in the top 5% at most - and that's the top 5% in wealth, not income. I said that from the beginning of the health care debate and railed against my "progressive" cohorts for accepting the word - to no avail, obviously. My post was directed at the assumption that you could either "afford" private insurance or you would be eligible for Medicaid - which is simply not true.

[GreenPartyVoter]

62. Amen!

[inna]

147. exactly! thank you

[BeyondGeography]

23. 65 becomes "early" retirement now?

Dreary.

[onyourleft]

47. At what jobs? n/t

[WinkyDink]

110. You are how old, and doing what work? Tell me "67" and "construction," and MAYBE I'll give you

credence.

[City Lights]

127. Too bad there aren't any jobs for those who can work longer. eom

[dana_b]

129. delusional

you do know that they want to cut Medicare too, right? I have been on my goddamn feet my entire working life and there is no way in hell that I will make it to 67. I already have to have back surgery. This anecdote is not just about me though - there are MILLIONS of people like me. Oh - and many of us are unemployed and cannot find jobs. How in the hell will we be able to work until 67 when the jobs are vanishing?

[Enthusiast]

211. I guess you'll have buck-up and quit whining.

:sarcasm:

[Cali_Democrat]

136. One of the most uninformed posts I've seen in a while

Thanks for that :eyes:

[rhett o rick]

184. Use your head. Just because we could work longer doesnt mean there will be jobs for us.

You are using Republican talking points. I am watching you.

[Enthusiast]

210. Nothing personal but I do not like you. nt

[_ed_]

229. Let's face it: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about

The reason that "people are living longer" as you said is because infant mortality rates have plummeted over the past 50-100 years. People are not actually living any longer than they did in the 1950s.

Congratulations on buying Republican talking points hook, line, and sinker. They must love people on the other side using their own propaganda.

[City Lights]

249. Are you hiring? Please PM me your address so I can send you my resume.

Thanks. :hi:

[LiberalEsto]

10. Totally unacceptable.

Bastards.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. And meanwhile the rich and corps get to enjoy this country for free, while we take up the slack

by paying taxes.

When are the taxes going to be increased on the rich and corporations? I'm so tired of this shit.

[HughBeaumont]

30. Never.

Three reasons -

1. Too many millionaires on Capitol Hill, and they aren't going to vote to raise their own taxes.

2. Too many "D"s are actually "R"s.

3. Too many delusional "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" in this country comprising our votes.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. At the bottom of this, is lobbying and the fact that to run for office, one needs HUGE $$$$$$$$$$

How else can one run if not first bending over for corporations and the mega-rich?

And lobbying is just corruption by another name. Nothing else.

[sad sally]

118. The idea of campaign reform is as dead when our party

has determined that a sitting President (supposedly our guy) sez' he's raising a billion dollars to get re-elected. Democracy in America is a Billion Dollar election.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

121. Exactly, and that means there are NO elections at all. We may as well be watching

reality shows. Any notion of democracy is only in our imagination.

[closeupready]

12. If he does, I'm writing someone in next year.

nt

[Enthusiast]

212. Pete DeFazio for president! .........nt

[izquierdista]

16. So much for 'Medicare for all'

That was the easiest way to introduce universal coverage in this country, keep lowering the eligibility age until all were covered.

Well, so much for "change you can believe in"; what I can believe is we still have a chimp in the Oval Office.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Not much difference is there? And what little difference there is, is bad for most of us.

x(

[newportdadde]

18. Well at least I will get to see my boomer coworkers enjoy retirement.

For us younger folks its becoming a joke and my kids... geez.

[WinkyDink]

163. Yep. Our fault for when we were born! We had the Beatles, too!

[Lil Missy]

22. Life expectancy is 15 years longer now than when Medicare was established.

This is not a big deal.

[jtown1123]

26. Where is that stat from? That is way off. Life expectancy argument is bull. Insurers hate seniors

and won't insure them. This is a big deal.

[Lil Missy]

32. Sorry. Here's the source:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43912701/ns/business-going_green/

<snip>
There’s widespread agreement that the program needs fixing. When first created in 1935, the earliest retirement age was 65, a year older than the average life expectancy. Today, with the average life expectancy at 79, beneficiaries can begin collecting at 62 and might well live for decades into retirement.

[jtown1123]

36. Medicare wasn't enacted until 1965. Also, people have a rough time getting health care before 65 as

it is. This forces hardship for literally no savings to the government. Why on earth do you support this?

[City Lights]

39. That's referring to Social Security, not Medicare. eom

[Jim_Shorts]

200. That link is to an article about SS ,not a stat sheet

Life expectancy changes a lot depending on your socioeconomic status and SS was recalculated in a bill negotiated by Tip O'neill & Reagan to take into account for the baby boomers, so any age arguments on that are just repug talking points.

New York Times & government stats : since 1977, the life expectancy of male workers retiring at age 65 has risen 6 years in the top half of the income distribution, but only 1.3 years in the bottom half.

link: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/income-and-life-expectancy/

[newportdadde]

33. This is false, 1965 - 70.2, 2010 - 78.2

True we see an increase here, but lets face it a working year in your 60s is not the same as a working year in your 20s. If you have seen a 60 year old parent working a physical job like I have you would understand that it is just not the same. My father is 62 but to see him you would think he was 75. He did a lot of lifting at his job, 3 hernia surgeries in the last 5 years of his job. It was all he could do to make to 62 for early SS and luckly could get medical through his employer after retiring, something we see less and less of. When I was born he was six feet tall, he basically my height now(5'7''), stooped over, can't sleep in a bed anymore with his back, he is a mess.

So through the use of medical technology we are living longer but those years are coming from lower infant mortality and better care at the end of life. Your average 65 year old isn't going to be *that* much better then his or her 1965 counterpart.

I'm not sure how you feel but I would at least sometime in my lifetime be able to retire. The thought of working even my desk job with its carpal tunnel and back problems already in my 30s does not sound like much fun if I were to tack another solid 30 years on it.

[jtuck004]

52. It is a big fucking deal to people who might die hungry and poor because of this.

Raising that age is a heartless and thoughtless way to insure increased misery for a few hundred thousand more people.

According to the SS Administration a full third of people who retire at 65 have NO other income than SS. Nearly half hit that age with less than $2000 in the bank.

Millions of our neighbors, in their 50's, have lost the last job they will ever have. The pathetic and totally inadequate Social Security check is the ONLY thing that may allow them just a little respite.

We added about 600,000 people to the SS rolls in the past year, but now 8000 people a day are turning 65, bringing upward pressure on that number. A two year increase in that age, then, means that at least a couple hundred thousand people will lose the only lifeline that may be available to them. And given that there are about 6 million homes in the foreclosure pipeline, and 65 is when a large number of people today will try to sell the only real investment they have, it is quite likely that the numbers of those with not enough food might increase by 500,000 or more.

From Bernie Sanders report on senior hunger:

"...hunger among our elderly population is a growing crisis—hunger rates have more than doubled for poor seniors in the United States in recent years. According to a 2009 study, there are over 5 million seniors who face the threat of hunger, almost 3 million seniors who are at risk of going hungry, and almost 1 million seniors who do go hungry because they cannot afford to buy food."

Not a big deal to add 500,000 or more of our neighbors to those numbers - maybe one of our old teachers, our parents, maybe someone who cared for us when we were young?

We had enough money to shovel multiple trillions of dollars taken from taxpayers to crooks and thieves and friends of the government as a reward for the Ponzi scheme which they used to destroy our economy. Now we need to cut on the backs of the people who worked to build this country, who watched their sons and daughters killed in wars to protect us?

It's not a big deal to kill off some old people by denying them money they have already paid in?

Their only hope would be the Republican Health Care Plan - Die Early.

Not a big deal. Respectfully, that's a hell of a thing to see written.

[Lil Missy]

67. Oh FFS. Retirement age would increase as well. They would still have employer insurance.

[jtown1123]

69. You are not accounting for people who get laid off and can never find employment.

Again, why do you support these draconian and unnecessary policies? It makes zero sense.

[RobinA]

84. Arrrggghhh!

Only if they still have jobs! Many of the older laid-off are already counting the minutes until they are eligible for Medicare. It's not like you find a job, let alone one with benefits, when you lose your job at 60.

[WinkyDink]

114. "THEY"? You're partaking of the Fountain of Youth, I presume? ("Employer insurance"?)

[City Lights]

123. Where are these people employed?

Are you hiring them to guarantee they have employer insurance?

[jtuck004]

124. They. Don't. Have. Jobs. Do I need to type slower? n/t

[dana_b]

130. evidently because she keeps pushing this b.s.

no jobs and a lot of people like myself will not be able to physically work until age 67. Some of the people on this website are incredibly self absorbed and have little to no sense of empathy.

[jtuck004]

173. There are those for whom Fox is an easier meal... (not personal, just as a general observation)

If we were talking 100 people, I would certainly consider it, but it seems like the loss of a job by 9,000,000 people (to start) in a relatively short time, along with growing homelessness, poverty, and hunger, might suggest some external force, even to those challenged by empathy.

[PA Democrat]

131. Oh FFS, you forgot about the self-employed.

And the fact that more and more employers are reducing or eliminating health insurance benefits. My husband and I are self-employed. This would cost us about $50,000 at TODAY'S rates.

[nobodyspecial]

141. Yeah, if we had employers

[riderinthestorm]

168. Mark my words, employer insurance is going to be an archaic perk before long

Why? Because there's no incentive for companies to keep offering it anymore. After 2014 everyone is mandated to purchase insurance. Why would any company continue to offer this "perk" when they know they can drop it from the company's bottom line and all their employees must get it on their own.

It's going to go the way of the dinosaur. More and more companies are going to be stopping covering employees within the next 5 years. Guaranteed.

[eShirl]

222. For a great many of us, it already is.

[_ed_]

239. Do people who work at WalMart have employer insurance?

Educate yourself about this one example and then consider your bullshit statement.

[WinkyDink]

112. SAY WHAT?! Uh, NO. Americans haven't gained 15 yrs since the LBJ Administration, FGS.

[Evoman]

120. And apparently we are trying our hardest to reverse that trend

Jeezus. I can't imagine living in your shitty country. My gandparent would be dead if we lived there. Hell, considering some of my health issues, I'd be dead too.

[_ed_]

231. Wrong

Infant mortality rates dropped, creating the impression through statistics that people are living longer. They are not. This change in life expectancy is almost solely tied to infant mortality.

Thanks for "catapulting the propaganda" for the Republicans, though.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

25. Hillary is lookiing better everyday.

[Pisces]

55. Hillary is 63 will be 64 in Oct. and 65 in 2012 according to most she is too feeble to hold a job

much less the Presidency. If she can be considered for the most important at 65 others can work regular jobs until 67.

[grahamhgreen]

76. What about retiring before you're too feeble to enjoy it

[RebelOne]

126. What do you mean "too feeble to hold a job" at 65?

I was working at age 70 and would still be working now at age 72 if I had not been laid off. And it was not because of my age. Three others were laid off at the same time and I was at least 20 years older than they were.

[City Lights]

138. Where are these "regular jobs" of which you speak?

Are you hiring?

If not, who is?

Where can all these able-bodied 67-year-old people apply for jobs with full health benefits?

[WinkyDink]

165. Completely stupid "logic." No-one is claiming automatic feebleness. But one trusts you HAVE heard of

the infirmities the flesh is heir to?

I HOPE YOU HAVE TO ---NOT WANT TO, HAVE TO--- WORK UNTIL YOU ARE 67. YOU HAVE NO CLUE.

[_ed_]

232. You're a massive fool

You've not only bought into Republican propaganda, now you're spewing it on a liberal website. Get lost.

[Pisces]

256. You fuck off. I was only pointing out you can't argue out of the side of you mouth. If Hillary is

not too old to hold the most important job at 65, neither is anyone else. It is usually having a job that keeps most seniors engaged and active. 65 in 20 yrs will be the new 50. Too bad that the purity tests on DU mean bash Obama endlessly or you are not a true progressive.

I am a life long Democrat who is not cemented to any ideology. Changes and adjustments do not mean dismantling. We are living longer, we are healthier, and I for one would rather have a Democrat make reasonable adjustments than a Repuke make crazy changes that would alter the program forever. I guess some of us are practical while others are utopian dreamers.

[still_one]

29. The actions of the President these past several weeks have destroyed any trust left between liberals

and his administration

[SammyWinstonJack]

34. How does he not think he won't be reviled after pulling this crap?

Does he want to lose '12?

What the hell is he thinking or does he know something about '12 that we don't?

Maybe he knows that the 'fix' for '12 is in and pulling this crap won't matter for him?

[still_one]

37. It still doesn't mean progressives won't vote for him in 2012, especially if a tea party element

is part of the equation, but they will never trust anything from this administration again, and I suspect he will not go down as a very popular president among Democrats

[Big Blue Marble]

44. If they vote for him,

they then endorse the cuts to Medicaid, SS, and Medicare that he wants. They are saying
go ahead and destroy what is left of the safety net and The New Deal. It is fine with them.

I, actually, think differently. I know many who will not be voting for him. He and you
may actually be overly confident this time. And Obama not the pukes, make have stepped
on the third rail.

[still_one]

49. It can be argued that if they vote for him it isn't because they endorse his inane proposals to cut

SS Medicaid and Medicare, but because they believe that the opposition would even be worse, and destroy it completely

The ideal situation would be for someone to challenge him in the primaries. Someone like Russ Feingold

[Big Blue Marble]

63. That is "logic" that has boxed us in for the last twenty years.

It is not working. The longer we keep voting for them, the weaker and less effective they have become
in protecting our interests. It is death by slow water torture.

They have learned that they can keep moving right and we will follow......right over the cliff.
When we continue to vote for this process, we are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

[Enthusiast]

213. That was part of the plan.

Just like when he extended the Bush tax cuts and enacted a payroll holiday that damaged social security. This action was designed to suppress voter enthusiasm. No doubt it will work again.

[Big Blue Marble]

35. Obama's consideration of this cut to Medicare

undermines the Democrats argument that they will protect it. And there goes their best strategy for
regaining the house next year. Oh I guess Obama would rather work with Boehner and his tea bagger
cronies.

He has never been that fond of Pelosi.

[jtown1123]

41. Thank you. Tea baggers are already running ads that they are the defenders of Medicare. We are

losing credibility...

[OnionPatch]

242. I keep hearing this.

What, exactly, are they saying in these ads that makes it seem like they are "protecting" medicare? Are they hyping up their voucher system to sound like it will be as good as the real thing? I'm just curious how they are framing this, because I haven't seen any of these ads.

[INdemo]

38. If Obama doesn't want a second term he should step back and allow

the Democrats to proceed..We need to challenge this guy..He cant win in 2012..So for those that say 1980 all over again ..no
Carter was done for before the Kennedy challenge..We can win with a progressive candidate, otherwise Repukes win and what is left of our Democracy is history.
Obama makes these deals behind our back and then gives us this speech about "will make not cuts on the backs of Seniors" Obama cannot be trusted.
I am recently retired and if Obama is all we have to choose from I wont be voting.
Come on Democrats..we have a Republican disguised as a Democrat and we are suppose to keep supporting this guy???

[Big Blue Marble]

42. I, truly, do not understand why so many blindly support this man.

He has now exposed his real intentions. Any of his policies that matter are all center-right.

The more irrationally right the Republican Party becomes, the more to the right our party shifts.
Are we to just blindly follow for the sake of tribalism when the core values are left behind?

With this strategy, we are about to be lead off the cliff.

[Bluebear]

65. A visual aid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqsd0WNl8u0&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLKXehyAT2wPA

[Big Blue Marble]

125. Thanks N/T

[U4ikLefty]

145. Great stuff...lol!!!

[loyalsister]

43. Beginning in 2014

Everyone will have coverage according to health care law. What really is the problem with changing or supplementing at 67 rather than 65?

[Big Blue Marble]

45. The problem is the costs of paying for insurance when you are in you mid-sixties.

Who at this age does not have some pre-existing condition that will drive up their premiums?
Why are we forcing older people to remaining in the corrupt private insurance system two years longer?

I though we wanted to public health care for more, not less numbers of our citizens.
This is crazy!

[loyalsister]

54. WE do

Those corrupt the practices are the ones that Health reform addressed.

A lot of people who are covered under Medicare because they have chronic conditions\disabilities. I have seen nothing to indicate that of Medicare to accompany disability insurance under SSA\SSI would no longer be available.

When more citizens are insured to begin with, fewer need public health care.
No it is not a perfect reform, but better than massive numbers of people not being insured. And massive numbers acquiring chronic illnesses because they were uninsured.

[cbdo2007]

48. Report: Obama prepared to Raise The Age of Medicare Eligibility to 100

Just because someone reports it doesn't make it true....

[jtown1123]

150. WOW just wow. No, sorry. Denial isn't a good excuse anymore n/t

[Pisces]

53. 67 to start for current 40 yr old and under is reasonable. We are living longer and working longer.

This is not unreasonable. I don't understand why everyone has their feet in cement on every issue???? This sounds like a reasonable adjustment due to life expectancy. Giving people 20 + yrs to prepare for said increase is also reasonable.

[RoadRage]

58. Totally Agree...

I'll stand next to you when the flames come out in 3...2...1... ;)

[Desertrose]

71. Wait til you hit your 60's before you say it's no big deal.

I probably would have said the same thing 30 or so years ago but now that I'm in my 60's, those added 2 years to wait for medicare seems cruel.

We may be living and working longer but how healthy will those current 40 yo's be in another 27 years with poor or unaffordable health care along the way? The body tends to wear out as you age...just seems to be the way things go, no matter how healthy you are and how well you take care of it. Late 60's before medicare kicks in? No, that's not right.

[Dappleganger]

72. Because nobody wants to employ people in their 50's and 60's, that's why.

[jtown1123]

77. This is ridiculous. False choices. Let's force people to work until they die so they never collect

benefits. Are you serious? Many people go bankrupt waiting for Medicare to kick in. What jobs? I can't even comprehend this sentiment on a Democratic board.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. Who is 'we'? Life expectancy for African American Men is 70.9

The seeming 'longer life expectancy' stems from higher survival in infancy and childhood much more than from people 'living longer'.

[Bluebear]

85. Well we are givng them 20 years to brace themselves. What's wrong with you?

Can u believe this shit?

[jtown1123]

97. No I can't. It is really depressing...

[TheKentuckian]

174. With fucks like these the Republicans are redundant.

Some are actually arguing another retirement age increase as well!

Where are these jobs going to come from and what reason would prevent wages from being further eaten away by adding more people to the labor pool?

Also, let it be known that the Wealth Care and Profit Protection Scam is, as predicted, being used to defend this happy horseshit.

Add in the inflated bullcrap about living longer when the reality is they are using the numbers from the fucking 30's and using decreased infant mortality as a a figleaf to cover for little movement and most of that likely due in no small part to Social Security and Medicare being available so the elderly were no longer dying on the streets and can see doctors.

Take away the child mortality inflation and we are down to something in the area of three years. How much of that little increase is due to the programs these shits want to cut?

Die quickly ain't just a Republican talking point anymore.

Fire up the Soylent factories!

[Bluebear]

187. THANK YOU

[Piltdown13]

159. Exactly!

This subthread got me curious, so I decided to see if my Google-fu was up to the task of ferreting out some actual numbers. Guess what I found in just a few seconds:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lifexpec.htm (fourth link under "More data")

This document contains life tables providing life expectancy at birth as well as several other age milestones, for years ranging from 1900 to 2006. It turns out that although life expectancy at birth has increased by 18.5 years between 1929-1931 and 2006 (59.2 years to 77.7 years), additional life expectancy at age 65 has increased only 6.5 years (12 extra years in 1929-1931 versus 18.5 extra years in 2006).

Lots of other interesting stuff in that document!

ETA: And the point I wanted to make is -- yes, we are "living longer" to some extent, but a much bigger factor in the increased life expectancy at birth seems to be that *more* of us are making it to retirement age.

[Bluebear]

83. The GOP hearts you. Really they do.

Every cold hearted rationale in your post right out of their cookbook for dismantling safety nets.

[Pisces]

157. Who is talking about dismantling???? I said people are living longer and 20+ yr time to plan is

reasonable. If you want our plant your feet in cement that is fine with me, but if we must consider options this one is not the worst thing ever. You can take early retirement at 65 instead in of 63.
Cold hearted?? I am a person that will have to rely on this safety net, I prefer there be one at a later age than none at all.

You make it sound like there are just easy choices and the democrats are choosing to go with the Republicans. There are no easy choices just the least terrible ones.

[WinkyDink]

167. "Democrats" is capitalized the same as "Republicans." J/S.

[Bluebear]

170. No way in hell. Keep your hands off medicare.

[Enthusiast]

215. "none at all"?

How about the nation makes it a priority? How about we place more emphasis on the well being of actual living human beings than the military industrial complex, the ultra wealthy and corporations?

Your position is completely wrong headed in light of the fact that we waste enough money on the military to correct the problem.

[_ed_]

240. People aren't living longer

Infant mortality dropped, increasing the stat for life expectancy.

Thanks for using DU to "catapult the propaganda" as your buddy W used to say.

[RobinA]

89. Got Numbers

to show we are working longer? I would not be at all surprised if this is not the case.

[City Lights]

128. Where are people working longer?

What companies are hiring these older workers?

[WinkyDink]

166. May you get your wish, and need it.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

182. I agree.

I would object to an age increase for those 50 and up, but this seems reasonable.

[brentspeak]

190. "Reasonable" to well-off latte liberals, I'm sure n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

197. I'm well-off?

I wish I'd have known sooner. I would have bought much nicer clothes.

[Enthusiast]

214. When people do not have adequate

health care life expectancy will plummet.

[_ed_]

235. WE ARE NOT LIVING LONGER YOU FUCKING FOOL!

Infant mortality rates dropped, creating the impression that people are living longer. You've completely bought into Republican talking points.

Get a fucking clue. It's people like you who are the problem here. Too fucking ignorant to even educate yourself about the statistics involved.

Go spew this fucking nonsense on some conservative website where this bullshit belongs.

[OwnedByFerrets]

237. Idiot statement, pure idiocy

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Inherently Unfair

If you want to restructure and tell all new entrants that they have to wait until 70. But, to make people who have been paying into the system for 30 or 40 or 50 years wait longer than what was promised is INHERENTLY unfair and unjust.

We're puking all over ourselves over the idea of bond default. That's because we made a promise and commitment to pay that money back. Why is this any different?
GAC

[RoadRage]

57. As a 34 year old.. I have no problems with this...

Frankly, I'm living with the idea that there will be NO Social Security by the time i'm ready to retire.. and i'm saving accordingly. If at age 67, I wake up and have checks coming in.. that's great.

At 20 years away.. this would effect people aged 43 - 45 and younger - not people who are current retierees. And, this gives people TWENTY YEARS to plan for up to two additional years of work before retiering. Considering that people are living longer, and are healthy longer and able to work longer - I think it makes sense.

It's this "NOOOOOOOOO DON'T TOUCH IT AT ALL NO MATTER WHAT STOP STOP STOP" mentality on the left that mirrors the "NO, don't raise the wealthy's taxes no matter what" on the right that I disagree with. Both sides are going to have to make some changes and adjustments in the next few years - no matter how much you want it to, it's not going to be one-sided. And, it shouldn't be IMO.

RR

[Bluebear]

59. Uh what does Medicare have to do with "checks coming in"?

Know what you're talking about before you start lecturing people on what you have "no problems with".

[Starbucks Anarchist]

181. Sorry, wrong place.

[jtown1123]

73. Why on earth do you assume that? That's just what anti social safety net people want you to think

so you won't fight to protect benefits. Guess their strategy is already working with you...

[RoadRage]

92. I'm opting for the "better safe then sorry" option..

And, I realize that this threat is about Medicare.. not SS - sorry for posting in the wrong thread.

But, on the topic of SS - if I assume SS will be there and it's not - i'm screwed. If I assume it's not going to be there, and it is - i'm in great shape.

Medicare is a different issue, but again, I think if they tie it to the retierment age, you're OK. If people can still retiere before medicare age - you have have big problems.. because most can't retiere unless they have medical insureance. 65 or 67 though.. doesn't matter to me (at age 34). If I was 55 - it would definitely matter.

[RobinA]

96. "Plan" to Work Longer?

I am 53. I got out of college and went to work in retail. I was happy and good at it and got promoted. I planned on working for that company 'til I retired. That company no longer exists. Some version of this has happened to most of my career "plans" since then. Most of my friends have had "plans" that were similarly derailed. More than once.

I went to work for the state three years ago because "planning" was a little easier in the public sector. The facility I work at is constantly rumored to be closing. If it does, the state is usually pretty good at finding most people another job with the state. No guarantee. My plan? To try to stay with the state in whatever capacity I can long enough to get a pension that will keep me off the steam grate. Whe it comes to employment, I would suggest that "plans" are pretty worthless over the long haul. They may work out and they may not. The only viable plan is the plan to become a billionaire, keep the loot under the bed, and enjoy a happy retirement.

[shanti]

133. state employment

will most likely turn out to be one of your best life decisions. it was for me.

[WinkyDink]

115. Your logic is 100% specious. But you go ahead and save; I'm sure you'll stay very healthy forever.

[City Lights]

134. Where are these people to which you're referring working?

You know the ones I mean...those who are living longer, and are healthy longer, and able to work longer. Where are those people currently employed? What companies are hiring them with full health benefits? I, for one, would love to work there. I await your list of companies....thanks in advance. :-)

[dana_b]

135. bullshit

according to the calculations, I, as a 46 y.o., will not be eligible for Medicare until I am 66 y.o. and 4 months. As it is, I am unemployed and have a partial disability due to years of working on my feet. There is no way I will be able to work to that age (if I can find a job in the meantime). But I guess fuck people like me (and there are many of us).

[rhett o rick]

185. You idiot. There wont be jobs for anyone over 50. nm

[rhett o rick]

186. Sorry, my calling you an idiot was wrong. You are just having a bad day. nm

[Enthusiast]

216. Millions of low income American workers

will be unable to save enough to support their retirement. And thanks for repeating the old right wing talking point, "Social security and medicare won't be around when I retire."

[rhett o rick]

258. Was this a drive by? I notice you arent responding to those that disagree w you. nm

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Imagine The Savings If He Raised It To 80

:sarcasm:

[Bluebear]

64. The right would really, really like him then! He will go down as the great Compromiser!

What a legacy! :sarcasm:

[ProfessorGAC]

66. Let's Make It 100

The system will NEVER go broke.
GAC

[woo me with science]

68. And now the inevitable shift from denying that it will happen, to defending it.

All over the thread now.

Told you so.

[jtown1123]

70. Yep. I was surprised people weren't denying it...guess this is the next step.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. But..but..he HAS to cut Medicare. The poor guy is powerless. It's not like he has a veto.

[tsuki]

78. Obama defaults on the working class to protect the elite moneyed class.

[Safetykitten]

79. Responses for review...

"Oh, that's just him negotiating".

"How do you know what is in the final bill?"

"Why are you not trusting Obama?"

"Well, IF he does it, it's not that big of a deal."

"FAIL"

"Mathematically it is logical for his point in negotiation".

"I'm on Medicare, and I am happy with anythinng he does",

"You NEVER LOVED HIM!!!!" *Weeping and typing*

[mmonk]

86. We'll see if the words of that extremist leftist,

Eisenhower applies:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."

[Marrah_G]

87. yeah- thanks Obama

Not that it matters, I'll work until I am dead anyway. Hopefully VT will have single payor in place by then.

[piratefish08]

88. Fuck. This. Shit.

see you in 2012.


oh right. no you won't.

[Bluebear]

204. +

[KamaAina]

90. No, no, NO!!! Lower it! To ZERO!!!

That's the ONLY way out of the health care mess!!

[Bluebear]

95. +

[Maven]

139. ++

[Gregorian]

198. There we go. I was looking for this reply.

I was going to post this, but thought someone would have posted it.

This is the test of whether or not we're a civilized nation. Of course we aren't. But I would love to start.

[Enthusiast]

217. You are exactly correct..............nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

91. When does "bipartisanship" become collaboration?

Maybe he should try seeking a "compromise" with progressives rather than threatening or dismissing them.

[PA Democrat]

98. I adamantly oppose this.

I don't care if it's 20 years down the road. It's wrong now and it will be wrong then. A 65 year old person is paying the HIGHEST rates for health insurance. To extend the time period by 2 years will result in higher unemployment (more people won't be able to retire at 65), more companies eliminating ot reducing health care coverage, more medical bankruptcies, more unnecessary death.

That's just not acceptable.

[jtown1123]

107. I agree. What makes people think 50+ have access to affordable health care when they lose their jobs

[jzodda]

103. bad idea...

tax the rich and these greedy corporations and take care of our elderly please.

[DirkGently]

116. Indefensible. Just hurting people to hurt them. Not because we need to. Makes no sense at all.

[MilesColtrane]

117. Consider the source of the story, Politico.

Then look into the background of the publisher and the president/CEO of the site.

If the past connections to Reagan and Pinochet don't raise some questions in your mind, they should.

[Major Hogwash]

119. Thanks, I was just about to say that.

Politico pokes more bees nests than any site I have ever seen before.
As if they have the "inside story", or something.

[jtown1123]

151. Fine, what about USA Today? Forbes? If this wasn't true, why doesn't he come out and say so?

[Autumn]

171. Yeah but Politico published this article too

which makes it all false and it never happened .:eyes:

[Bluebear]

188. That's the size of it anymore :(

[jtown1123]

153. Also, the White House confirmed this at a press conference. It's not a secret...

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/12/266334/white-house-confirms-obama-floated-idea-of-raising-medicare-age-the-single-worst-idea-for-medicare-reform/

[Bluebear]

155. Lol

[shanti]

132. question about this

as a state retiree, i am lucky to get health insurance at a low cost as one of the bennies of my pension. however, it is supposed to end when medicare kicks in at 65. does that mean that it will be 67 if this passes, or will my health insurance end at 65 and i'd have two years to "hang" without any?

[jtown1123]

152. I have no idea. Great question.

[WCGreen]

137. Without some kind of single payer program it will just increase the cost

of medicine for the people and we can only expect more gouging by the medical industry.

[nobodyspecial]

140. That's OK

I'm sure I'll be dead by then. Chronic conditions with no insurance already. No worries. I'm useless to society.

[Dragonfli]

194. Same here, actually dying and cannot get treatment, I think they are thinning us from the herd

[Enthusiast]

218. They should just encourage smoking.

It might be easier and it would make the tobacco states happy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

142. If he gets his way, will it be added to his Accomplishment List?

[Danger Mouse]

154. Obama will not be re-elected if he touches medicare. He would lose the senior vote...

...entirely. PO needs to consider the political costs of giving too much to Republicans. The Republicans can make Obamma accept medicare and SS cuts, then use it AGAINST Obama in 2012, and the corporate media wouldn't lift a finger to point out the hypocrisy. You put your hand in a nest of vipers, you're going to get bitten.

[Enthusiast]

219. "He would lose the senior vote"

He probably already has. He has been intentionally obtuse on the issue.

[meow mix]

156. "modest adjustments"

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

192. +

[oldlib]

158. This is poor judgment

on the part of Obama. As a long time Democrat I will not vote for his re-election. I will not vote for a GOOP, I will simply not vote. This is a sorry decision.

[RagAss]

162. Hope he enjoys his 1 term !!!!

[Autumn]

189. He is fine with being a one term President

I am fine with that too.

[jillan]

169. Don't be calling my house looking for donations.

[Ikonoklast]

172. Poliitico fools the gullible yet once again.

More Politico FUD on this site.

Some here have an agenda, and it isn't remotely Democratic.

[Lorien]

202. See post #153. nt

[jtown1123]

246. You guys are way off. The White HOuse has confirmed this. Watch the Jay Carney Video

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/12/266334/white-house-confirms-obama-floated-idea-of-raising-medicare-age-the-single-worst-idea-for-medicare-reform/

[MouseFitzgerald]

176. I'll wait until its official

but if its true hes fucking done. If Obama does this, there is no reason to vote for him, because he is supporting right-wing proposals that a republican president would never be able to get through.

[B Calm]

177. If only those Obama supporters had voted for Kucinich in the primaries. . .

[B Calm]

178. If only those Obama supporters had voted for Kucinich in the primaries. . .

[Enthusiast]

221. He had already dropped out

by the time the Ohio primary came around.

[WinkyDink]

236. Thank you. Amazing, the uninformed.

[RebelOne]

257. If Kucinich had been running at that time, I would have voted for him. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

179. "Make no mistake: time for old folks to eat their peas

and catfood.

Gotta run now - Jamie brought some awesome foie gras, and Lloyd always brings some damn fine wine."

[in_cog_ni_to]

193. I wouldn't do that if I were him! Big, huge, GIGANTIC mistake.

:grr::grr::grr::grr::grr::grr:

[w4rma]

195. Obama picked most of the people on the Catfood Commission. Always remember that. (nt)

[erodriguez]

196. K&R

[Hoyt]

203. "Tenative" -- Jeeez, they can talk about all the "tentative" stuff they want. It's just talk.

I'm not going to crucify the Prez over such a report, or such "talk."

Heck, they can raise the retirement age even higher, if they figure out a way to fill in the gaps in the meantime and protect those at the lower ends of the scale.

[Name removed]

205. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueMTexpat]

206. From Politico & a Forbes blog ...

when I see what the final deal is, then I will believe it.

In the meantime, calling and writing, sending LTTEs, etc. are far more effective than continuing to whip up anti-Obama frenzy on a Democratic forum. But people keep trying nonetheless.

[jtown1123]

247. Umm what about the White House confirming this?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/07/12/266334/white-house-confirms-obama-floated-idea-of-raising-medicare-age-the-single-worst-idea-for-medicare-reform/

[JDPriestly]

207. Jobs should be the FIRST PRIORITY

If jobs are plentiful, then people can decide whether to raise the Medicare age.

[PATRICK]

243. Jobs means solvency for medicare and SS

Nothing else does. Cutting just creates more bleeding to fill the other bleeding wound. The GOP somehow successfully argues that cutting BACK the tax bonanzas of the super rich will hurt job creation with little logic and less proof. To do BOTH theories eliminates jobs from the equation altogether and guarantees a meltdown for the little guy all around. The absolute, unarguable insanity of this absurdist drama being played out while we die as a nation would entitle the people to a little anger if both the ideas and the reactions of sane majorities of civic minded citizens concerned for rights like survival were not barred from corporate media and corporate government discourse entirely.

Quite a dumb club they have up there, beating us to death with it with the absolute impunity of the comfortably self-deceived.

[on point]

220. Obama the sell out demonstrates he does not understand SSI has NOTHING to do w/ deficit!!

[OwnedByFerrets]

234. If you sign a bill that does this, MR PRESIDENT, you will NEVER

receive my support in any way, ever again.

[muffin1]

241. I am so fucking over him.

[Swede Atlanta]

244. Yeah...he is willing to screw me......

I suggest if he does that then he is not eligible for his retiree medical until he is 67. In fact I think members of Congress and Presidents should be on Social Security and Medicare, nothing more. My employer does not offer a pension or retiree medical so why should he?

[jschurchin]

245. Yeah, so.

My S.S retirement age is 67 and I am 49 soon to be 50, so explain to me how this effects me and all the others in the 67 retirement group.

[fascisthunter]

248. and of course those with money don't see any problem with this

this is class warfare... those who are well off telling us all to accept this, mark my words, this will effect you as well, you fuckers!

[spanone]

253. it didn't happen

[valerief]

254. Anyone dreaming of Medicare for All should move to a civilized country, cuz America ain't it. nt