HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Three-Quarters of Progres...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:02 AM

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

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.

22 replies, 1572 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Three-Quarters of Progressive Caucus Not Taking a Stand Against Cuts in Social Security, Medicare (Original post)
xchrom Feb 2013 OP
LWolf Feb 2013 #1
bvar22 Feb 2013 #16
LWolf Feb 2013 #22
Nite Owl Feb 2013 #2
PETRUS Feb 2013 #3
xchrom Feb 2013 #4
PETRUS Feb 2013 #10
xchrom Feb 2013 #11
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #5
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #6
jeff47 Feb 2013 #7
LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #8
jeff47 Feb 2013 #9
Scuba Feb 2013 #15
jeff47 Feb 2013 #21
LiberalFighter Feb 2013 #18
jeff47 Feb 2013 #20
marble falls Feb 2013 #12
woo me with science Feb 2013 #13
marble falls Feb 2013 #14
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #19
woo me with science Feb 2013 #17

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:05 AM

1. Should they then

be calling themselves the "progressive" caucus?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LWolf (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:30 PM

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.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:26 PM

22. Yep. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:36 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:37 AM

3. What the hell. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 08:38 AM

4. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:28 AM

10. Hey there, how's life?

We're having a "snow day."



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:32 AM

11. good. we FINALLY got some sun.

we've had gloom and rain for a while.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:23 AM

5. Sounds familiar

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:51 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:53 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 09:58 AM

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

If Medicare participants receive the same care or better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:11 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:01 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:52 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:39 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #18)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 07:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:51 AM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:54 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:55 AM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

19. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:36 PM

17. K&R

Had enough yet, Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread