Three-Quarters of Progressive Caucus Not Taking a Stand Against Cuts in Social Security, Medicare

[xchrom]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/27-0

Three-Quarters of Progressive Caucus Not Taking a Stand Against Cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

For the social compact of the United States, most of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has gone missing.

While still on the caucus roster, three-quarters of the 70-member caucus seem lost in political smog. Those 54 members of the Progressive Caucus haven’t signed the current letter that makes a vital commitment: “we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits -- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.”

More than 10 days ago, Congressmen Alan Grayson and Mark Takano initiated the forthright letter, circulating it among House colleagues. Addressed to President Obama, the letter has enabled members of Congress to take a historic stand: joining together in a public pledge not to vote for any cuts in Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

The Grayson-Takano letter is a breath of fresh progressive air, blowing away the customary fog that hangs over such matters on Capitol Hill.

[LWolf]

1. Should they then

be calling themselves the "progressive" caucus?

I'll bet there's a better term for them.

[bvar22]

16. I have a few.

Anyone NOT signing this letter is no "Progressive".
AFAIC, they are not a "Democrat".

On the political spectrum, they fall somewhere to The Conservative Right of Ronald Reagan.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[LWolf]

22. Yep. nt

[Nite Owl]

2. They talk a lot

but when it comes down to a vote they do exactly what is asked of them by the White House and Pelosi. The ones who elected them don't count at all. Very few actually vote how they speak, not enough to change anything for sure.

[PETRUS]

3. What the hell. nt

[xchrom]

4. +1

[PETRUS]

10. Hey there, how's life?

We're having a "snow day."

[xchrom]

11. good. we FINALLY got some sun.

we've had gloom and rain for a while.

[MotherPetrie]

5. Sounds familiar

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Let us note the courageous few who did sign the letter:

Brown, Cartwright, Conyers, DeFazio, Ellison, Faleomavaega, Grayson, G. Green, Grijalva, Gutierrez, A. Hastings, Kaptur, Lee, McGovern, Nadler, Napolitano, Nolan, Serrano, Takano, Velazquez and Waters.

[jeff47]

7. Believe it or not, there are actually good cuts to Medicare

Right now, Medicare can't negotiate with providers like an insurance company. As such, it's paying more for a lot of things than private insurance companies. It would be good to let medicare do so. But that's technically a cut - Medicare would be paying out less money. But we're talking about excesses like $100 band-aids. It would be a good cut.

In addition, Medicare covers pretty damn near anything. Even when the treatment isn't proven, or when a cheaper treatment is more effective. It would be good to require new, expensive treatments to demonstrate effectiveness - say, cut them off after 5 years if they don't show better results than the old treatment, unless the old treatment is not a good idea with a particular patient. Once again, that's technically a cut, but it's still a good idea.

Medicaid may or may not benefit from such changes - the rules vary by state and some already do these kinds of things.

But there's no reason to cut Social Security.

[LiberalFighter]

8. If it's not a cut to benefits then it's not a cut.

If Medicare participants receive the same care or better.

[jeff47]

9. Those are cuts to benefits

Using the $100 band-aid example: Medicare negotiates with the hospital to only charge $1 for a band-aid. So Medicare pays $1. That's a $99 cut to benefits - the patient is receiving $99 less for care. They're just not getting charged that $99 by the provider.

(And yes, that's an arbitrary and probably not technically true example, but it's to illustrate the point)

And the effectiveness requirement would also be a cut to benefits - Medicare would no longer pay for the expensive, not-more-effective treatment for most patients.

[Scuba]

15. Wrong. The patient still gets the bandaid, so there's no cut to the benefit, just the cost.

[jeff47]

21. Benefits are measured by their cost. The patient is receiving $99 less.

It's the fact that the patient gets the same band aid that makes these cuts good.

[LiberalFighter]

18. How is it a cut if the patient still receives the exact or better care?

[jeff47]

20. Because $1 is less than $100.

It's an accounting technicality that makes these cuts.

That's why these cuts are still good - the patient receives same or better care for less money.

[marble falls]

12. Sad day when a progressive can't sign sign a letter promising to keep an agreement.

[woo me with science]

13. They aren't progressives.

Picture "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Our government is captured/purchased by corporatists. We have one corporate party masquerading as two.

And it will continue this way until we get the damned corporate money out.

[marble falls]

14. I agree 100% We can drone Americans abroad and also maybe in the US with no due process ....

but bankers don't have to go to jail.

[HiPointDem]

19. +1

[woo me with science]

17. K&R

Had enough yet, Democrats?