General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt is time for Democrats to draw a line in the sand!
We will not tolerate any reductions in scheduled Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits for any recipients at any time.
This is the only way we can make the choice 100% clear to the voters. Mealy-mouthed talk of compromises only muddies the water, soils the Democratic brand, and allows voters to think there isn't all that much difference in what the two parties would actually do.
Is my position reasonable? Hell yes it is. We don't have a Medicare crisis in this country, we have a health care crisis. Fix our ridiculous for-profit health care sector and that problem dissolves before our eyes.
Likewise, Social Security could be made solvent over the next 75 years simply by raising the cap on the SS tax so rich guys pay the same rate on their income as I do. Problem solved.
This ain't rocket science folks. Lots of countries far poorer than the United States have been able to provide quality health care and decent retirement income for all their citizens. We can do that too. Easily. There is no need for any grand bargain. We need to tell the Republicans to take their benefit cuts and shove them up their asses.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)Those benefits are not too generous. We can afford them. A decent society provides for its sick and elderly.
classof56
(5,376 posts)And for most of us, that amounts to 40+ years by the time we reach retirement age.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and humane. It is sickening that there are Dems who are thinking of cutting these.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)Full employment, growing wages, and ever increasing demand for labor are not reflective of reality. The need for labor will continue to diminish, expanding the pool is absurd unless your agenda is to crash wages and benefits to nothing.
The current paradigm is not sustainable, much less something that can reasonably be expanded on. The idea of raising retirement ages and/or reducing already insufficient benefits is fucking stupid or at best caught up in some steady state universe.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)I have come to the realization that until we get corporate money out of our elections we will never have health care. Corporations and the wealthy will continue to pay little or no taxes and enjoy tax breaks at our expense. Your right, This ain't rocket science folks. It's plain old corruption and greed on the backs of our politicians.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Where are all the sign-totin' TeaHadists, the ones who carried the signs "Government Hands off my Medicare" during the ACA fight? (I think I spelled my words correctly, though...) Are they too "low information" to get what the Romnyan plan is???
This IS THE ISSUE we need to get out front on PRONTO.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)to be thought of as "responsible" adults who are willing to take on the tough issues. But the last four years have shown that no matter how much we compromise - no matter how far we slide to the right - the professional "centrist" pundits will continue to give equal weight to the Republicans' insane proposals, the tea party idiots will continue to call us Marxists, and the low-information voters will continue to vote for whoever they have the best "gut" feeling about.
We have nothing to gain politically by bargaining or compromising our principles.
glinda
(14,807 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Obama's disastrous first two years should make that clear.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)CanonRay
(14,113 posts)It this isn't a core Democratic principle, what is?
We_Must_Organize
(48 posts)so that Republicans can't use the excuse that Medicare is going bankrupt, which they will use, to entirely gut the program. Medicare has worked wonderfully. The only real problem is demographics - people are having less kids and that means less revenue going into an aging population. However, healthcare costs are rising 3x the level of inflation. And Medicare is NOT ALLOWED by law to deny doctor ordered care to patients. Why is it okay for private, for-profit insurance to ration care because of profits, but not okay for Medicare to ration care based on excessive hospital charges, which aren't aiding the patients' recovery? A box of tissues does not cost $28, yet that is what my mother was charged when she was recently in the hospital. We need to get at the root of the problem: the unsustainable rise in healthcare costs.
dawg
(10,624 posts)Doctors who habitually order unnecessary procedures should be subject to review, suspension, and potential loss of license. But that is not an issue for the insurer to determine.
Medicare reimburses providers based on diagnosis rather than actual cost. Medicare does not get or pay the bills with the $28 tissues. Their payments to providers are much more standardized than that. For that reason, there is probably more fraud, waste and abuse in patient cases that are covered under private insurance than those that are covered under Medicare.
Hospitals lose a huge amount of money on the uninsured. They also lose a huge amount of money for patients on Medicaid. The Medicaid reimbursements fall far, far short of actual costs. Medicare is more generous, but it is less generous than private insurance. Hospitals come out on some Medicare patients and lose money on others. It all depends on the complications and their efficiency in providing care based on the diagnosis code that Medicare will reimburse.
Want to know how hospitals make up for all the losses they incur from the uninsured, Medicaid, and (sometimes) Medicare patients? It's through those $28 tissues, and the $10 tylenol pills, etc, etc.
Providers overcharge insured patients for everything in order to make up for losses elsewhere. This is part of our broken system. (And one of the reasons the ACA will not be as costly as some would think. We have already been paying a high price for the uninsured through our healthcare premiums).
Sorry for the information dump, but I have experience as a hospital auditor and thought it might be enlightening.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You said "Fix our ridiculous for-profit health care sector" when it should have read "get rid of our ridiculous for-profit health care sector".
Otherwise an excellent post and I agree 100%.
dsteve01
(312 posts)Democrats who say that SS is evil. It is the one thing our economy needs at the moment.
It's like saying that a hospital cannot afford a defibrillator. Sure, the electricity bill is expensive, but the overall protection in our human capital it provides is just -- insurmountable.
Let's not get trivial about pennies and dimes. We all know that there is much, much more corruption in gas and agriculture subsidies.
How about we end those Bush taxcuts? They were supposed to be temporary anyway.
I'm sure anybody who cares about balancing the budget will agree with me. Right? RIGHT?!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)wonder why Big media isn't discussing that.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)for blistering attacks from the Third Way crowd.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)dawg
(10,624 posts)He, along with all other Dems running for office, should be shouting it from their rooftops right now.
The past is the past. Some Democrats may have made a few rhetorical errors over the last few years in an attempt to appear moderate. But I sincerely believe that it is a winning strategy to stake out an unyielding position on Social Security and Medicare, and to make damn sure the public knows about it.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Here is a post that should clear the record:
What President Obama meant is plain. It doesn't require interpretation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1119041