Obama's speech makes it official. Social security cuts and medicare cuts will take place

[no limit]

Progressives have been saying for over a year now that this Democratic president will end up making cuts to social security and medicare. And since that time the white house has been using cute statements such as "no cuts to current retirees" or "no slashing funding for future retirees" to push back. Although Obama repeated these statements in his speech today without actually defining what "slashing" is or how he defines "current retirees" he did make it official that cuts will take place. In his speech he said that cuts to these programs are a progressive ideal, that they are absolutely necessary, and that they will happen.

So instead of moving the debate away from cutting funding for those Americans that need it most Obama has instead moved the debate to how much should be cut. And I'm sure the Republicans and the people that pay them are loving it.

On edit, here are the parts of the speech I am talking about:

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

....

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

[ananda]

1. No, cuts to entitlements and social programs are NOT progressive ideals.

Unless progressive means corporate, regressive, and meanspirited
teabagger ideals.

I'm a liberal though!

[no limit]

2. This president is doing his best to redefine what progressive means.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[sharp_stick]

3. And here we have the current

new talking point. I guess we've moved on from false predictions, now it's just toss out a bunch of straight up bovine fecal matter and hope somebody buys it.

Taken directly from the transcript the words then completely re-arranged to make them mean what the OP wants them to mean.

Pathetic post, truly sad.

[SidDithers]

5. Yup. Makes you wonder if the OP even watched the speech...nt

Sid

[no limit]

8. I did, sounds like you 2 didn't. Here:

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

....

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

[abelenkpe]

25. This is why it's important to read the transcript

after hearing the speech. It was a great speech and did much to reassure, however he did say there would be cuts made to medicare, medicaid and social security. Now I'm very cynical but am willing to see exactly what he means by that. If he's talking about raising the retirement age I'll be pissed. But doing more to limit fraud in medicare? Surely there is a lot that can be done there.

[Bandit]

36. Wasn't that a part of the Health care Bill that Republicans railed against

I remember Republicans railing against the five hundred billion in Medicare cuts that were in the Health care Bill. Obama said they only were for fighting fraud and waste but???????

[abelenkpe]

62. If republicans were against it

then it must have been good for the people. ;)

[no limit]

39. The fact he didn't get specific is what worries me

and tells me that they will make cuts. I hope to be wrong, but having seen this administration in action for the last 2 years my money is on the fact that I'm right.

[abelenkpe]

61. I completely understand :) nt

[Carolina]

100. exactly

vague and vacuous.

My senior Dad whom I care for has already had 2 years of no SS COLAs. He worked hard all his life since age 15 (now nearly 89) and planned well for his golden years which makes my caretaking less financially burdensome. Still, I have been tracking how his retiremnet income sources are drop, drop, dropping (some due to more Federal taxes!). Meanwhile the cost of food, caretakers, medicines etc are continually rising.

I don't trust a thing this POTUS says. And funny how he gives a powerful speech (according to some on this board) just after the announcement of his 2012 campaign.

Well, we were suckered by powerful words before: hope, change, audacity of now, senseless wars, public option, blah, blah, blah. And I agree with you: after what we've seen versus his lip service, I would bet my last dime there will be cuts and Mr. Nodrama will be the one to introduce them under the guise of fiscal responsibility

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. No, he didn't. He said that there will be cuts made to Medicare/Medicaid in terms of

unnecessary regulations that make it difficult for people to receive benefits.

When referring to reforms, he means Medicare Plan Part D, which was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and not paid for...through *RECONCILIATION*, I might add.

There's nothing in that proposal that says that the president plans on cutting any of these entitlement programs.

[Hestia]

91. Isn't that what teabaggers do - take a word or line and parse the hell out of it, and the next

thing you know he is a muslin Kenyan? Please...

[no limit]

96. You don't parse the words politicians speak? How well has that worked out for you?

How many times has this president left wiggle room on issues like this just so that he could do it? If Obama has no intention to cut these programs why not simply say that?

[Qutzupalotl]

106. He did come out and say no cuts.

As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.


He's talking about making changes, but nowhere does he say cuts. In fact, he specifically says "without slashing benefits."

There are a lot of changes that could be made to strengthen SS without cuts. He could raise the cap on taxable earnings, for instance.

[abelenkpe]

104. Wow.

That is really offensive. Equating a fellow dems concerns with a teabagger. Really if you want to further alienate someone on your side well bravo.

[Sheepshank]

109. parsing ,,,typical

A rejection of the Ryan budget's approach to Medicare and Medicaid, which the White House believes would unfairly shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable while undermining both programs in the long term. Instead, Obama proposed reforms to reduce the growth of health care spending (beyond those in the overhaul last year) that would save $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional trillion in the decade following
.....
A general effort to "strengthen Social Security for the long haul," without slashing benefits for future generations

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110413/ts_yblog_thelookout/key-from-the-speech-whats-in-obamas-deficit-reduction-plan


AND then there was also this direct quote from the speech:



One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates. It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years, and one that addresses the challenge of Medicare and Medicaid in the years after that.
..snip..
It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.
..snip..
Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.
..snip..
But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/transcript-of-president-obamas-speech-2011-4#ixzz1JRkicQNe

[Teaser]

122. You did not watch it. You were watching reruns of Symbionic Titan.

You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it, so just the pretense.

[RegieRocker]

57. Sid that is ridiculous. Every time you don't agree with

what someone has to say you come off with nonsense like this.

[Fuddnik]

69. You better watch it.

He might just unrec ya!

[no limit]

6. You are telling me this president didn't say social security and medicare will be cut?

You sure you watched the same speech?

[sharp_stick]

27. So your claim

seems to be that because Obama used the word changes while discussing Medicare, Medicaid that equates to "Obama is going to cut SS, Medicare and Medicaid"?

That is some weak cut and pasting

He also said:

"But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations."

[no limit]

34. There you go, you just proved my point. "we will reform these programs"

reform = cut. If you don't understand that like I said above, you haven't been paying attention.

[sharp_stick]

40. reform = cut?

blue = black. up = down. right = left. See I can do it too. My shitty car = a Porsche...... shit, doesn't work in the real world.

Reform does not equal cut, pretty basic English until you start to believe in super-villain code words being spread around to those in the know. No matter how much you want to gnash your teeth on shit that may or may not happen the fact is that it has not happened and it hasn't even been proposed that it will happen.

[no limit]

47. Yes, in this case reform=cut

anyone that has been paying attention to Obama knows this, I'm sorry you don't yet understand. Get back to me in June when this budget is supposed to be done.

[Fuddnik]

71. Kind of like tax "relief".

Billionaires were afflicted with a tax burden.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

90. Then he's adding to MC, SS!

:woohoo:

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. LOL! That's exactly what I was going to post!

We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations."

REFORM is NEVER a good word to use when it's connected to SS and Medicare. Of course, he'll wait until AFTER the election to completely destroy them. He'll talk pretty words around the issue to get votes....then watch out.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

78. Reform=Cut?? You are insane!!!! n/t

[mmonk]

4. I haven't examined the speech quietly without distraction yet.

I'll examine deeper. I know The Third Way is against the New Deal.

[leftstreet]

7. He needs to stop bringing it up. He can't afford a 'read my lips' moment

It's the only thing that could ding him in the election

He just needs to hammer on not letting the Rich Tax Cuts expire (again :eyes:)

and let the slashing of working class programs go unmentioned

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[Recursion]

20. Err... he didn't "do" anything to Single Payer. He never ran on it

Even in the primaries he said he would like it if we were starting from scratch, but it's too disruptive a change to do right now.

[Tx4obama]

43. You are 100% correct! n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. Exactly. He said it many times on the campaign trail. While he prefers single payer, this country's

politics won't allow us to make such a drastic, comprehensive change.

[dixiegrrrrl]

10. I did not hear that or read that in the speech text.

Maybe I missed something.
Here is text of what he said about Soc. Sec.:

"As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market."

[no limit]

12. I added the part of the speech I was talking about in my OP, sorry I didnt include it originally

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

....

Finally, there are those who believe we shouldn’t make any reforms to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed. I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don’t make any changes at all, we won’t be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before.

Indeed, to those in my own party, I say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

14. You missed the point, the point being that social security and medicare will be cut

but I'm not surprised you wouldn't address that head on.

[Recursion]

18. No, they won't

Your claim is as false as it was before the SOTU.

[no limit]

24. Then why wouldn't Obama say that up front?

And what will you think when it is cut?

[Recursion]

26. He did

Your concern, however, is still noted. Feel free to get the last word in; I'm done here.

[no limit]

32. You can be done here, I'm gonna bookmark this thread and get back to you in June

and I have a feeling you are done with this thread because you don't have a single example of Obama saying social security and medicare wouldn't be cut. Nor can you dispute that he said both these programs will need changes.

[Frances]

23. Find the word CUT in the speech

I surely didn't hear it.

He talked about reducing the COST of health services that are provided through Medicare by encouraging preventative care and the most effective ways of treatment! That is definitely not cutting Medicare but trying to get the most you can from what you pay. Sure makes sense to me.

[no limit]

29. A politician using political rhetoric to spray perfume on a pile of shit, you don't say..

The bottom line is he said both programs needed changes and he didn't take cuts off the table. So that means they will be cut, if you don't understand that then you haven't been paying any attention in the last 2 years.

[EFerrari]

38. He didn't use the word "cut".

He didn't say, for example, that there will be no cuts to Medicare or Social Security. It was a very carefully crafted speech.

I hope you're right but don't think you are.

[in_cog_ni_to]

46. BINGO! All he had to say is, "WE will NOT be making any cuts to SS or Medicare."

SO fucking easy to say! He DIDN'T say that though, did he. :grr:

[Recursion]

53. If he did, you guys would be parsing what "cut" meant

and saying that he will be doing "cost-shifting" or whatever other bizarro world talking point you came up with.

[EFerrari]

55. That bizarro world you speak of is known as critical thinking. n/t

[no limit]

56. the fact is he didn't say it

and there was a reason he didn't say it. If you don't know what that reason is get back to me in a few months.

Can you please tell me what you would think if he did make cuts? Such as raising the retirement age?

[RebelOne]

16. Well, I am enraged.

I am 72 years old and on Medicare and also collecting social security. If he fucks up my benefits, he loses my vote in 2012.

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. Oh, rest assured...he won't touch Medicare and SS until AFTER the 2012 election.

You can take that to the bank.

[EFerrari]

58. Yeah, that looks like the plan to me. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

113. See it worked! The OP makes shit up and people get pissed!

This place has become a fucking joke.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

15. He said we will "improve" Medicare and "strengthen" SS

so, yeah, I think you're probably right.

[Recursion]

17. Epic fail

I usually say "nice try", but this one isn't even that. Your "concern", however, is duly noted.

[Poboy]

"I will veto any health bill that does not include a robust public option".

[Recursion]

30. So he took a robust non-profit option instead

I never understood why that minor distinction between non-profit and public was so crucial to so many people.

You do no every state will be required to form a not-for-profit option as part of their exchange, right?

[no limit]

33. Non-profit is on local level. Public option is national. But you understand that well

you just like to pretend you don't.

[Recursion]

37. No, the "public option" plan was state-by-state (nt)

[no limit]

42. Nope, flat out wrong.

Although the plan would be made available through an exchange it would be administered and funded on the national level through the HHS:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111hqpDJv:e141945:

(a) Establishment- For years beginning with Y1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary') shall provide for the offering of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan (in this division referred to as the `public health insurance option') that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this subtitle. In designing the option, the Secretary's primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without comprimising quality or access to care.

[Recursion]

52. Oh come on that was the language that was DOA

Sorry, I should have been more clear: the public option that had a snowball's chance in hell of passing the Senate was state-by-state.

[no limit]

54. I believe that was the last version of the public option before it was stripped

This was the weak option you are referring to. And it was still a national program eventhough only some 3% of the people in this country would be allowed to enroll in it.

[SidDithers]

51. Made up quote...nt

Sid

[markpkessinger]

19. The President allowed himself plenty of "wiggle room" n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[WinkyDink]

28. He is soooo concerned about "higher health care costs" that he rewarded the insurance companies!

GMA*B here, Mr. President.

Actions, words, speak. You know the drill.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[madamesilverspurs]

35. Some changes ARE needed

in both Medicare and Social Security. They would address those requirements and processes that are counterproductive or redundant. Why pay for something twice if it's only provided once? We CAN eliminate costly elements without cutting benefits.

For the record, I have been receiving Medicare and Social Security for twenty years.

-

[Buns_of_Fire]

44. I truly didn't get that from it.

I think he even mentioned letting Medicare negotiate with the drug companies, like the VA does; which would take it out of the realm of not mucking about with what the recipient gets as much as it does with what the government pays for that benefit -- which strikes me as a reasonable approach.

Perhaps I missed something between the lines, but I didn't get the cold chills running up my spine that I was halfway afraid I'd get.

As with everything else out of DC, time will tell -- and I don't think we'll have long to wait.

[EFerrari]

50. His language was squishy. Here is the part that tripped my triggers:

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we’ve proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we’re wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

[Buns_of_Fire]

66. I'll tolerate a certain amount of squishiness when a plan is first unveiled.

I'm not real pleased that he's apparently planning to appoint another #$%^&*&^%$#@! commission, but I know there's a pisspot of details that'll have to be hammered out on the rest of it -- if that's even possible with the teabaggers. By now, I've come to accept that he's a "big idea" guy and leaves it to the congresscritters to fill in the blanks with minimal adult supervision -- and that's where everything may well fall apart and get real bad, real fast.

I'll give it a little while. Like I said before, I don't think we'll have to wait very long.

[EFerrari]

67. I think we'll wait until after the election as others have pointed out.

I don't have a problem with him being a big idea guy, I tend to the big picture myself. What I do have a problem with is when the language around those ideas is squishy and the outcomes always seem to go to the other side.

It would be nice to be very wrong about this. lol

[Buns_of_Fire]

88. We should start seeing any telltale signs well before that.

If for no other reason than, among other things, Shit-Fer-Brains' tax cuts WILL be an election issue -- and since the President just stated that we can't afford them...

I see your point about squishy language ultimately leading to undesirable results. But I'm afraid that tendency is in the DNA of almost every politician.

[Telly Savalas]

114. I see you chose not to bold the last sentence where he clearly fucking

said he wouldn't cut Social Security.

If it doesn't fit in your pretty little worldview, you fucking ignore it. That's what makes you part of the problem.

[EFerrari]

118. Why don't you show me where he says he won't cut Social Security.

Thanks.

[ecstatic]

45. You probably had this OP ready to go before the speech even started

Definition of reform:

# make changes for improvement in order to remove abuse and injustices; "reform a political system"
# bring, lead, or force to abandon a wrong or evil course of life, conduct, and adopt a right one; "The Church reformed me"; "reform your conduct"
# produce by cracking; "reform gas"
# break up the molecules of; "reform oil"
# a change for the better as a result of correcting abuses; "justice was for sale before the reform of the law courts"
# improve by alteration or correction of errors or defects and put into a better condition; "reform the health system in this country"
# a campaign aimed to correct abuses or malpractices; "the reforms he proposed were too radical for the politicians"
# change for the better; "The lazy student promised to reform"; "the habitual cheater finally saw the light"
# self-improvement in behavior or morals by abandoning some vice; "the family rejoiced in the drunkard's reform"

[no limit]

49. What if the retirement age is rasied? Will you still have your avatar?

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

60. I rec'd your OP because I think you're right.

It makes me uncomfortable to say so, but I do.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. And I unrec'd it because I knew you would.

"It makes me uncomfortable to say so, but I do."

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

68. Being ugly to other posters doesn't make the president's case, just fyi.

:)

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Just as being ugly to the president doesn't make yours.

;)

[EFerrari]

80. I haven't characterized the president in any way.

:)

[Tarheel_Dem]

92. You mean in this thread? Don't make me go searching. I'm familiar with your postings.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

93. Oh, have at it.

Please. :)

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. If I thought for one moment it was worth it, I would. Buh bye now!

:hi:

[no limit]

98. Nicely done. Attribute false positions to a person then when asked for examples back out

and with a smile on your face the entire time, very classy.

[JTFrog]

105. Nicely done. Complain that someone won't break the rules for you. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. If I provided said example, I think I'd be in violation of DU rules.

Of course, this is DU, where unsubstantiated rumor-mongering can get you 200+ recs. I suppose the rules really don't apply to everyone, huh?

[tekisui]

120. You've been violating the rules all night. WHy stop now?

Discuss issues, not people. Don't engage in personal attacks.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[no limit]

84. Thanks for being one of the few reasonable responses here

I don't understand how people don't understand that when a president refuses to say he won't cut these programs, and instead says he will reform them, how they don't worry one bit about that. Then when it gets cut these same people argue the president never said it wouldn't.

Drives me nuts.

[EFerrari]

87. I know

even though, I can't blame people for wanting to enjoy a moment of feeling good about something.

But when I hear that Obama wants to improve Medicare and strengthen Social Security, I don't hear the same things they do, apparently. :)

[bluestate10]

107. Reasonable. Like sniffing bullshit and coming away calling it chocolate. nt

[lamp_shade]

63. PATHETIC. Unrec.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

72. Well that's an interesting argument.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. On Medicare/Medicaid, this information is directly from the White House's Fact Sheet

<snip>

The President’s framework proposes specific reforms to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over the long term, including:

The President’s framework will strengthen IPAB to act as a backstop to the other Medicare reforms by ensuring that Medicare spending growth does not outpace our ability to pay for it over the long run, while improving the program and keeping Medicare beneficiaries’ premium growth under control.

Specifically, it would:

Set a new target of Medicare growth per beneficiary growing with GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent. This is consistent both with the reductions in projected Medicare spending since the Affordable Care Act was passed and the additional reforms the President is proposing.

Give IPAB additional tools to improve the quality of care while reducing costs, including allowing it to promote value-based benefit designs that promote proven services like prevention without shifting costs to seniors.

Give IPAB additional enforcement mechanisms such as an automatic sequester as a backstop for IPAB, Congress, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Reforming the Federal-State partnerships to strengthen Medicaid and promote simplicity, efficiency, and accountability: Under current law, States face a patchwork of different Federal payment contributions for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The President’s framework would replace the current complicated Federal matching formulas with a single matching rate for all program spending that rewards States for efficiency and automatically increases if a recession forces enrollment and State costs to rise.

In addition, the President has called on the National Governors Association (NGA) to make recommendations for ways to reform and strengthen Medicaid, and the framework will consider the ideas that its Task Force produces. The President also supports reform of Medicaid to incentivize more efficient, higher quality, care for high-cost beneficiaries, including those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare. These nine million beneficiaries comprise 15 percent of Medicaid enrollment but consume nearly 40 percent of total Medicaid spending.

Cutting unnecessary prescription drug spending: The framework would limit excessive payments for prescription drugs by leveraging Medicare’s purchasing power – similar to what was called for by the bipartisan Fiscal Commission. It would speed up the availability of generic biologics, and prohibit brand-name companies from entering into “pay for delay” agreements with generic companies. And, it would implement Medicaid management of high prescribers and users of prescription drugs.

Reducing abuse and increasing accountability in Medicaid and Medicare: The framework would clamp down on States’ use of provider taxes to lower their own spending while not providing additional health services through Medicaid; recover erroneous payments from Medicare Advantage; establish upper limits on Medicaid payments for durable medical equipment; and take other actions to improve program integrity.

</snip>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

To the OP: STOP MAKING SHIT UP!!!!!

[CakeGrrl]

75. What the hell speech did YOU listen to? n/t

[no limit]

82. The one I quoted in my OP

[madokie]

77. Me thinks you are out of line with most everyone here

[EFerrari]

83. Not entirely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x884578

[Tx4obama]

79. The TRUTH about Medicare from the White House

FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility

Excerpt

Health care: The President’s framework builds on the Affordable Care Act by including new reforms aimed at further reducing the growth of health care spending – a major driver of long-term deficits. The President opposes any plan that would simply shift costs to seniors and the vulnerable by undermining Medicare and Medicaid. Building on the foundation of the historic deficit reduction achieved through the Affordable Care Act, the framework would save an additional $340 billion by 2021, $480 billion by 2023, and at least an additional $1 trillion in the subsequent decade. These savings complement the new patient safety initiative that could lower Medicare costs by another $50 billion over the next decade by providing better care. The President’s framework includes initiatives that will:

* Bend the long-term cost curve by setting a more ambitious target of holding Medicare cost growth per beneficiary to GDP per capita plus 0.5 percent beginning in 2018, through strengthening the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).

* Make Medicaid more flexible, efficient and accountable without resorting to block granting the program, ending our partnership with States or reducing health care coverage for seniors in nursing homes, the most economically vulnerable and people with disabilities. Combined Medicaid savings of at least $100 billion over 10 years.

* Reduce Medicare’s excessive spending on prescription drugs and lower drug premiums for beneficiaries without shifting costs to seniors or privatizing Medicare. Combined Medicare savings of at least $200 billion over 10 years.

SNIP

Health Care

Medicare and Medicaid Savings of $480 Billion by 2023 and At Least an Additional $1 Trillion over the Subsequent Decade, Providing Better Care at Lower Costs:

* Building on the Affordable Care Act, the President is proposing additional reforms to Medicare and Medicaid designed to strengthen these critical programs by reducing waste, increasing accountability, promoting efficiency, and improving the quality of care, without shifting the cost of care to our seniors or people with disabilities.
* The framework will save $340 billion over ten years and $480 billion by 2023 (including the proposals already included in the President’s Budget). This framework includes the same aggregate savings that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan proposed in his November 2010 plan with Alice Rivlin and an amount sufficient to fully pay to reform the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) physician payment formula while still reducing the deficit.
* Over the subsequent decade, the President’s proposal will save well over $1 trillion by further bending the cost curve, doubling the savings from the Affordable Care Act.
* The President’s framework offers a stark contrast with the House Republican plan that would increase seniors’ health costs by $6,400 annually starting in 2022, raise health insurance premiums for middle-class Americans and small businesses, cut Federal Medicaid spending by one-third by the end of the decade, and increase the number of uninsured by 50 million.


Full statement here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

[EFerrari]

89. All of that material is about saving money on the backs of Americans

who need medical care.

Why does that seem like some kind of vindication to you?

[Volaris]

85. ummmmm......

in an actual Progressive Nation, wouldn't THIS:

"..we have the obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. If we believe that government can make a difference in people’s lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works – by making government smarter, leaner and more effective."

mean THIS?:

Cut the defense budget by the cost of wars were no longer fighting, Fixing the tax code and then jacking up the Tax Rate on this country's self-supposed owners, and ensure that Soc. Sec., Medicare and Medicaid are funded through the remaining lives of the Boomers by paying off the Nat. Debt, and running a national surplus for 20 or so years, no matter how much the GOP and their CorpoFascist backers whine and cry and complain and hold their breath.

[no limit]

101. "through the remaining lives of the Boomers"

Boomers being protected is certainly a requirement. But boomers aren't the only people that will rely on these programs. The president seems to act as if everyone else isn't as important, and you seem to be playing the same game.

[Volaris]

128. quite the opposite, what I should have said was

that the IMMEDIATE problem seems to be the funding of Medicare through the years of the Boomer retirement, eventually, they will be gone, and at that point, I guess my thinking is that there will be fewer Citizens in that demographic, and that will make the funding of such programs a bit easier to manage.

I actually think those people might actually be MORE important, because for most of their lives, the Boomers have expected Medicare and Soc. Sec. payments as a budgeted part of their retirement incomes, and many of them have acted accordingly.

If my 12year old and her friends don't have those programs to rely on because we were ONLY thinking of getting through the Boomer retirement years, and fuck you, you're on your own if you're not one of them, that generation will work their whole life just to fund a non-poverty retirement after they can't work anymore. What will my daughter get to leave for HER kids?

again, sorry for not being more specific in my first remarks...

[Tx4obama]

86. FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility

FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

[no limit]

95. Would you find it unacceptable for any cuts in social security and medicare to take place?

Simple question I'm sure you can answer for me.

[NYC Liberal]

97. The speech said no such thing, as many others have

already said.

Unrec.

[no limit]

99. Are you okay with any cuts to social security or medicare?

[Honeycombe8]

121. The retirement age will be raised. We've all known that for years.

I wouldn't characterize that as a cut.

So it's gonna happen. I've known it for years. So have you. In fact, they've done it before.

[no limit]

125. How is decreasing a benefit we all paid for not a cut?

And I"m glad someone else finally admitted what we all know.

[NYC Liberal]

124. Stop moving the goalposts.

Your OP claims that Obama's speech "makes it official" that "Social security cuts and medicare cuts will take place." Yet his speech did no such thing.

[no limit]

126. Yes, it did. By refusing to rule these cuts out this late in the game they will happen.

This is not a new play book this president is using, it's the same one he always used. And how you don't see that is beyond me, it should be transparent to anyone by now.

[NYC Liberal]

127. He didn't explicitly say "We will not invade Venus"...

I guess that means we're attacking Venus!

[no limit]

131. Nobody is worried about him invading Venus.

Social security on the other hand is a real big worry. If it isn't you tell me, you don't think social security will be cut (by raising retirement age or some other form of a cut)?

If I don't get a reply I'll just assume you do worry about this but you just don't want to say so.

[NYC Liberal]

132. I'm still waiting to hear about those huge SS cuts people

here were screaming about. Your argument is now, "He didn't announce any cuts, therefore there will be cuts."

[no limit]

133. Why did you not answer my question? Are you not worried at all that cuts will take place?

Wether those cuts are raising retirement age or in another form you don't worry about them one bit?

And when you say "huge" cuts you are moving the goal posts, the worry wasn't about "huge cuts" the worry has always been about cuts. Because when your only source of income is a $1,000 a month social security check any cut that might seem minor to everyone else is huge.

So the fact you didn't answer my question and instead moved it toward "huge cuts" I have a feeling you just conceded my point.

[NYC Liberal]

134. I'm about as worried as I was when you were screaming that DADT would not be repealed.

How'd that turn out?

[no limit]

136. Duly noted. You're not worried at all.

[somone]

102. Unshakable fealty to the MIC. Unparalleled fervor to dismantle the New Deal.

And people call this guy a Democrat?

[JTFrog]

103. /facepalm

[ClarkUSA]

108. Wrong. Instead of falsely parsing words, try acknowledging facts from the WH itself -->

Facts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=653027&mesg_id=653071

[Whisp]

110. your hearing aide or your reading glasses need some reform. big fat UNREC.

[Hoyt]

116. Perfect.

[joshcryer]

112. HAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA! AAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAA :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Hoyt]

115. It's clear to me you are wrong, or maybe just not listening for some reason.

[JoePhilly]

117. Plus, the bastard did not take using PUPPIES as a food source off the table!!

I predicted that he would not mention it. And I was right.

[pipi_k]

123. Like some others here...

although I didn't hear the speech, I did read the transcript, and I saw nothing in it to even suggest that cuts would be made.

And believe me, I didn't read the transcript with any pre-formed opinion, because I didn't have one. I didn't want to form an opinion one way or the other until AFTER his speech.


So I guess it's like most other situations in life. A group of people can see one specific event and all "see" different things depending on their internal filters.

I'm not going to call you wrong for believing what you believe, but neither do you have the right to call anyone else wrong for what they believe. Not before the actual reforms happen, anyway. Then we'll see which version of the "truth" became actuality.

[no limit]

135. If we have to wait to see which version of truth becomes reality then it's already too late

wether or not you believe the speech made it official that these programs would be cut if you think they shouldn't be you should be raising hell and demanding Obama take these cuts off the table as soon as possible. The fact he refuses to (as he did in the speech) is what worries me and many others. And simply being right won't bring me any comfort, I'd much rather be wrong in this case.

[inna]

129. kr. surreal to read some of the comments. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

130. I don't suppose President Change ever considered

raising the ceiling to $1M income. Nah, didn't think so. It's so much cheaper to let all those Boomers die off. I mean, there are so many options, aren't there? For example, many thousands can die of exposure once they've been turned out of their homes. Or die of untreated (even though normally very treatable) conditions for lack of adequate health care. Or they can just die of malnutrition. See, Obama and his rich crony friends won't ever have to worry about any of that will they?