HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » The fiscal cliff deal com...

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:42 PM

The fiscal cliff deal comes clearer: a 37% top tax rate and a higher Medicare eligibility age

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Rhiannon12866 (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Wonkbook at WaPo

Something hilarious happened in the Senate on Thursday.

The White House has been pushing a plan to transfer authority for the debt ceiling to the executive. They call it the McConnell plan, because itís based on an idea Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell proposed in July 2011.

...

Talk to smart folks in Washington, and hereís what they think will happen: The final tax deal will raise rates a bit, giving Democrats a win, but not all the way back to 39.6 percent, giving Republicans a win. That wonít raise enough revenue on its own, so it will be combined with some policy to cap tax deductions, perhaps at $25,000 or $50,000, with a substantial phase-in and an exemption for charitable contributions.

The harder question is what Republicans will get on the spending side of the deal. But even thatís not such a mystery. There will be a variety of nips and tucks to Medicare, including more cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments, and the headline Democratic concession is likely to be that the Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67.


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/07/the-fiscal-cliff-deal-comes-clearer-a-37-top-tax-rate-and-a-higher-medicare-eligibility-age/



Raising the Medicare age is stupid, but not the apocalypse (and if anything, having the Medicare and SS ages be the same makes some sense as long as we're still shackled with employer-supplied health insurance, but now they'll both be too high).

Anyways, signs that Congress might actually be working again inspires at least a little hope.

82 replies, 11479 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply The fiscal cliff deal comes clearer: a 37% top tax rate and a higher Medicare eligibility age (Original post)
Recursion Dec 2012 OP
sadbear Dec 2012 #1
Recursion Dec 2012 #2
Ash_F Dec 2012 #8
AAO Dec 2012 #48
Ash_F Dec 2012 #57
AAO Dec 2012 #71
dsc Dec 2012 #3
Myrina Dec 2012 #13
Lasher Dec 2012 #45
thesquanderer Dec 2012 #53
curlyred Dec 2012 #70
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #56
AAO Dec 2012 #73
Squinch Dec 2012 #82
INdemo Dec 2012 #65
ProSense Dec 2012 #4
David__77 Dec 2012 #5
aandegoons Dec 2012 #6
fleur-de-lisa Dec 2012 #47
itsrobert Dec 2012 #7
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #20
kath Dec 2012 #46
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #55
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #78
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #34
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #9
cosmicone Dec 2012 #10
Myrina Dec 2012 #19
Recursion Dec 2012 #27
dixiegrrrrl Dec 2012 #44
Walk away Dec 2012 #11
Recursion Dec 2012 #15
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #28
thesquanderer Dec 2012 #51
AAO Dec 2012 #63
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #12
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #14
Recursion Dec 2012 #18
splat Dec 2012 #16
LibDemAlways Dec 2012 #24
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #54
HockeyMom Dec 2012 #79
Myrina Dec 2012 #26
LibDemAlways Dec 2012 #17
Recursion Dec 2012 #21
Scuba Dec 2012 #33
Recursion Dec 2012 #41
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #60
Scuba Dec 2012 #75
Walk away Dec 2012 #61
Firebrand Gary Dec 2012 #22
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #25
LineReply *
DJ13 Dec 2012 #23
Disconnect Dec 2012 #29
1StrongBlackMan Dec 2012 #30
Coyotl Dec 2012 #31
Recursion Dec 2012 #32
Coyotl Dec 2012 #38
forestpath Dec 2012 #50
Scuba Dec 2012 #35
Recursion Dec 2012 #42
kickysnana Dec 2012 #36
Recursion Dec 2012 #43
Firebrand Gary Dec 2012 #37
geek tragedy Dec 2012 #39
Scuba Dec 2012 #40
forestpath Dec 2012 #49
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #52
OKNancy Dec 2012 #58
wryter2000 Dec 2012 #59
grahamhgreen Dec 2012 #62
ProSense Dec 2012 #64
Fearless Dec 2012 #66
Mass Dec 2012 #67
Recursion Dec 2012 #74
Comrade_McKenzie Dec 2012 #68
Teamster Jeff Dec 2012 #69
stupidicus Dec 2012 #72
AAO Dec 2012 #77
defacto7 Dec 2012 #76
joshcryer Dec 2012 #80
Rhiannon12866 Dec 2012 #81

Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:45 PM

1. 37%?

And what is it currently?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:46 PM

2. 35%

Getting it back up to 39% would net about 800 billion over ten years. 37% would be about 400 billion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:49 PM

8. How will the job providers survive with this massive 2% tax hike?

It's probably effectively more like 0.5% anyway.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:24 PM

48. It's not about the job providers, but the job creators.

 

The job creators are you and me. Demand is what creates jobs. The more people with money in their pockets, the better businesses do, and the more they employ.

On edit: I also agree with what you said - I just got carried away by what you said and went off on a tangent.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:38 PM

57. Good point.

Just wish Dem leaders could turn that talking point on its head like that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ash_F (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:58 PM

71. You know it's not because I'm smarter than they are!

 

Bums. Unless they can step up and make a difference, Those are our heroes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:47 PM

3. That is completely unacceptable

First, 37% isn't even half way (37.3% is halfway). Second, raising the Medicare age will literally kill thousands each year and actually raise the cost of Medicare, not lower it. Plus it will raise the cost of private insurance as well.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:54 PM

13. Don't overlook this nugget:


"... including more cost-sharing ... "


In other words, higher co-pays or deductibles, or lower benefit rates.

We are being screwn. Again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:21 PM

45. More like higher co-pays AND deductibles

AND lower benefit rates.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:34 PM

53. How does it raise the cost of Medicare?

I'm not in favor of the change, but I'm not sure how raising the eligibility age (therefore paying for fewer people) would raise its cost. It would have to be a savings, at least in the short term. I guess there could be an argument that longer term costs could increase, if people who were 65 and 66 didn't get needed treatment, and then needed more expensive treatment when they hit 67+. But I'd still be very surprised if there wasn't a net savings here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:55 PM

70. Contracting the pool

Means you are covering less but more sick people. If we really want to lower Medicare costs, you would lower the eligibility age and expand the pool by adding younger healthier people, this lowering the average cost per participant.

That is how all successful insurance companies operate- spread the risk by expanding the pool.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:38 PM

56. Screw that deal - off the cliff is better

Then cut the middle class taxes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:01 PM

73. FUCK'n "A" !!!

 

Still don't know what that really means. Grew up saying it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AAO (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:14 PM

82. Yeah. Why are we even discussing this? They are over a barrel. Let's just roll it over the cliff.

Then let the Republicans dare to not cut the taxes of the 98%. It would never happen!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:42 PM

65. I agree...

here is what happens with Democrats including the President..We work our ass off to get them elected..We phone bank,we give we canvass because we dont want the medicare age raised nor do we want cuts to Social Security..We hear the President during his stump speeches say that medicare will only be streamlined,administrative costs cuts,provider payments lowered,etc etc but the medicare age will not be raised...he said it. Now he enters the White House for his second term slams the door behind him and flips us the bird and thanks us for all our help....
I am ready to join protests in Washington to make sure the Democrats don't cave and we get what we were promised for all our money and hard work to get these double crossers elected

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:47 PM

4. This is absolute garbage.

Thatís not a policy I like much, but New York magazineís Jonathan Chait accurately conveys the White House thinking here: They see it as having ďweirdly disproportionate symbolic power,Ē as itís not a huge (or smart) cut to Medicare benefits, and most of the pain will be blunted by the Affordable Care Act. But Republicans and self-styled deficit hawks see it as a big win. And Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who staunchly opposes raising the retirement age, has stopped well short of ruling it out.

It's Ezra Klein pushing Chait's idiotic idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1941503

Greg Sargent has a better read on Boehner's position:

John Boehner nervously eyes the clock
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021941791

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:47 PM

5. No progressive should support this.

...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:48 PM

6. Good cop Bad cop

Hmm wonder who the suckers are?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:23 PM

47. The suckers? That would be the middle class.

And welcome to DU!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:48 PM

7. Repeal on tax deduction for donations to churches

problem solved. The federal government has no place subsidizing religion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:56 PM

20. Not sure that would be Constitutional

Because if you allow tax deductions for other charities but not churches, that is arguably discriminating against religion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:23 PM

46. The thing is, most churches don't really do much in the way of real "charity" - functionally,

they're social clubs.
Especially the big huge mega-churches that sit on acres and acres of tax-free land, with their movie theaters, cafes, gyms, TV equipment for their TV services, highly-paid "ministers", etc.
It's total fucking bullshit that all that stuff is tax-exempt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kath (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:37 PM

55. I think that most churches do perform a lot of charitable work

What you're talking about is the exception, not the rule.

Getting back to the topic, 37% isn't high enough.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kath (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:07 PM

78. Definitely not the case for my synagogue

We host a group of homeless men for two weeks every year during Christmas, cook a meal for a homeless shelter once a month, collect various supplies for shelters, do an interfaith MLK Day service with a church in a poor neighborhood designed to raise awareness, and do a lot of other social justice work, mostly targeted at the poorest city in the county.

I think going after churches that abuse their deductible status is a good idea, but I am pretty sure removing deductions to all churches while retaining it for other non-profits would raise first amendment issues. Especially since contributions to other "social clubs" with 501(3)(c) status are tax-deductible.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to itsrobert (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM

34. If the repeal is ONLY for CHURCHES, I too would support that.

but totally eliminating the charitable deduction for all NGOs and/or not-for-profit
public benefit 501c3 corporations is a really bad idea. These groups do TONS
of human services work, such as building truly affordable and decent housing for
lower income folks, providing technical assistance to lower income people wanting
to start their own micro-business, food banks, homeless shelters <--- ALL of these
are run by non-profit organizations that get LOTS of their funding from private donors,
BECAUSE of the charitable donation deduction. Just sayin' ... this may be a can of
worms we don't want to open, as most of these truly beneficial kinds of agencies are
staffed by progressives who are doing the work as a profession, and also are doing
important work to assist lower income people, and minimize suffering of the poor.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:50 PM

9. ACA blunting the effects of higher Medicare age

Until it doesn't anymore. This is shite.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:50 PM

10. Not going to happen

Obama would rather go off the cliff than accept this.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cosmicone (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:56 PM

19. ... and you know that, how exactly?

The man is NOT a liberal. And in his post-election pressers, he said everything was on the table.
This, I imagine, is part of that 'everything'.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Myrina (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:00 PM

27. Err.. he's said SS is off of the table

He's also said that Presidential authority over the debt ceiling, which isn't even in the game yet, is preemptively off of the table, on our side.

The SS age has been upped to 67. As long as we're getting insurance through our employers, the Medicare age being the same thing makes some basic sense, particularly with ACA coming into play. And if we (hopefully) stop having employer-provided health insurance, then it doesn't really matter that much.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:18 PM

44. Right now there is an option for "early" SS retirement, at 62.

With a % loss of monthly income.
So I am sure that raising the SS age to 67 woud not exclude early retirement.

Right now, anyone getting Soc. Sec. disability is automatically entitled to Medicare after 2 years of disability.
No matter the age.
In fact, if you get Soc. Sec. disabiity before age 65, you will be automatically enrolled into "normal" Soc. Sec. when you turn 65. ( or 67, after the age change passed..if it passes).

The DANGER with Soc. Sec. funding is if the payroll tax decreases continue. Soc. Sec is funded via payroll tax.
so those tax decreases are eating away at SS on paper reserves.

The OTHER danger is when they cut Medicare payments to service providers.
Those docs who do not flee from Medicare patients will do what my doc just did..raise the office visit rates.
Medicare will still pay for some of that office visit charge, but the Co-pay will jump. As mine just did.


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:53 PM

11. A Medicare eligibility age rises from 65 to 67 will end President Obama's mandate for anything else

he may want to accomplish in the next 4 years. He and the Democrats in the House will be D.O.A. going forward.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:55 PM

15. Sort of like anybody who raised SS eligibility from 65 to 67 would be politically dead forever?

Oh... right...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:01 PM

28. In my book they would be. You really do start to tire when you hit your late 50s. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #28)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:31 PM

51. I think you missed Recursion's point

Someone already did raise the SS retirement age from 65 to 67.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thesquanderer (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:40 PM

63. It's gradual - I'm waiting to 66.

 

I think at a minimum the SS & Medicare ages should be in sync. Most people can't retire without both.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:53 PM

12. A tax trick may also be used to reduce Social Security benefits.

 

It was first used by Reagan.

Prior to Reagan, 100% of Social Security benefits paid by the Federal government were kept by the recipients.

Reagan changed the law so that 50% of the SS benefits became subject to Federal taxation when a certain threshhold was met.

So, the Federal government made SS payouts and then took some of them back.

Clinton repeated this trick. He reduced SS benefits by increasing the tax liability on such payouts so that 85% of SS benefits became subject to taxation under similiar conditions.

With Obama, it's likely that he is going to compromise with the Republicans and reduce SS benefits by further increasing the tax liability to 100% of SS benefits under similiar conditions.

In short, one hand will give while the other hand will take away. They won't take it all. But they will take more than what they have been.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:55 PM

14. I predicted something like this a few days ago

I can't remember where I posted it, but I predicted that we would end up with a 37% tax rate for the top 2%, a 2-year hike in the Medicare eligibility age (most likely phased in over 5 or 10 years), a hike in the premiums for Medicare Part B for higher-income beneficiaries, and hopefully some stimulus.

A deal like that is not ideal, but it would be worth considering IF and ONLY IF it took away the debt ceiling as a political weapon, kept the scheduled hikes in the capital gains rate in tact (probably more important than top income tax rate, since most rich people make more in capital gains), and restored the domestic side of the scheduled sequester cuts. But I really hope they can come up with an alternative to raising the Medicare age. I agree that it's not the apocalypse (especially if it's phased in over 10 years), but it's a bad policy that will cause more pain to seniors than it saves the government.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:56 PM

18. Agreed: this has to include something like the McConnell plan

And Obama has made it very clear that the debt ceiling authority is not something he's going to negotiate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:55 PM

16. Raising Medicare age will keep older workers from retiring

Employers don't want older workers hanging on just because they can't get Medicare till 67.

This will just suppress the job market for younger people.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to splat (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:57 PM

24. Employers are already letting older workers go in droves. This just

would increase the number of seniors without work and without insurance.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:35 PM

54. Exactly nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:08 PM

79. Iam 64 and not working

My husband is the same age and working, BUT it would cost $500/month for spouse coverge ($700 family) under his employer FLORIDA insurance. Insurance is INSANE in this state.

If the age is raised for Medicare, it would be cheaper for us to pay the PENALTY than try to get private, or employer, insurance for me.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to splat (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:00 PM

26. I think it will be slightly different ...

... you're right that employers don't want older workers hanging on ... so they're going to be 'retired' and without the SS or Medicare eligibility, they'll either have to buy high priced insurance plans until Medicare/MedSupp can kick in, and/or they'll represent a 'burden' on their children who will have to step up to support them: another kick in the head for the struggling middle class families trying to stay afloat.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:56 PM

17. The raising the Medicare eligibility age part is bullshit. There are already too

many people over 50 but not yet 65 who are out of work, have no health insurance, and are trying to hang on until they qualify for Medicare. Obama and Congress should absolutely not go along with this. Why should the little guy suffer while the rich have to pay only a little bit more that they'll barely notice anyway?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LibDemAlways (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:57 PM

21. ACA will help that, somewhat

A lot of people in their 60s will be newly eligible for Medicaid. Not ideal, but it's something.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:10 PM

33. Bullshit. Raising the eligibility age would cost, not save, money.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:15 PM

41. Of course it would, but the cost would be shifted to employers and individuals

It's another way of moving costs from public to private. It sucks. And we're going to have to do some of it to get anything done.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:40 PM

60. A top rate of 37% is a win for the Republicans (they get to keep most of the Bush tax cuts

for the wealthy).

And then they get to DECREASE the number of persons eligible for Medicare.

If true, it would make Obama the all-time worst negotiator on Planet Earth.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:05 PM

75. Why must we do "some of it"? There's lots of places to get money besides stealing it ....

... from the People who paid into it, planned on it being there for them. The wealthy can easily afford a much higher rate than even the 39%.

If Obama signs off on this he'll lose his support for anything else he wants to do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:40 PM

61. Sure, after they lose their home.

If you have nothing you can apply for Medicaid. If you own a home or a condo and have a little income to get by you are shit out of luck with Medicaid or the ACA.

No point in saving for retirement if you can't afford to stay alive until then.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:57 PM

22. NO ONE campaigned on raising the Medicare eligibility age, NO FUCKING DEAL!

Rates go up on the top, we campaigned on it, the public agreed! Leave Medicare and SS alone. Period.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:59 PM

25. Nobody campaigned against it either

At least, I don't remember it ever coming up.

I think it's bad policy, but the president showed receptiveness to it before the election, so I don't think it's completely fair to say that he broke a promise or pulled a fast one or anything.

I could be wrong about that...has he ever said that he opposes raising the eligibility age?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 06:57 PM

23. *

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:07 PM

29. Social Security has already been lowered

 

to the many that have lost good paying jobs. By the lowering of income their wage average goes down, and also the amount of OASDI they would collect upon retirement.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:07 PM

30. I read the article ...

and the links and the links to the links ... I even put on my DUer glasses ... and still don't see anything to support the title's claim of raising the age is/will be a part of the deal.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:07 PM

31. If they raise Medicare to 67, I'll never vote for a Dem again!

Period. Fuck em!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:08 PM

32. Cool story, bro

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM

38. I'm not only dead serious, I'll likely be dead and unable to vote.

People will die, plain and simple, if they don't have Medicare when they need it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:28 PM

50. Neither will I. Might as well just hit myself with a hammer.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM

35. Totally unacceptable, such a plan will be met with millions in the streets.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:16 PM

42. No, it really won't

It's a bad idea, but millions will not show up in the streets because of it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM

36. Apocolypse for those recently disabled and over 50

Disability takes 5 years to slog through. Hospitals no longer give credit. You need a heart valve, cancer treatment or even complex diabetes treatment, tough. Try to live another 5 let alone another 20 years.

The obituaries are now full of those people who could have lived if they had medical care but they live in this third world country that does not value human life and dignity.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kickysnana (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:17 PM

43. In two decades when the age increase comes into effect, Medicaid will be expanded

Or, maybe not, but either way pretending that anything planned for 20 years from now can be realistically predicted is kind of stupid. The whole "long-term deficit" fight is stupid, particularly since this Congress can't bind a future Congress's hands.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:11 PM

37. 716 Billion, 716 Billion, 716 Billion, 716 Billion, 716 Billion.......

Why on earth would we permit an altered repeat of this? Let the GOP drive us off the "cliff", teach them that we do not negotiate with economic terrorist!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:12 PM

39. This is speculation, not news. A complete disaster if true though.

And proof that the new Obama turned out to be the same caver-in-chief as the old Obama.

Pray that this is false.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:12 PM

40. Why would any Dem in Washington be interested in giving the Republicans a win?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:27 PM

49. This would be a complete betrayal as far as I'm concerned.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:33 PM

52. This is great

if you already have medicare. Otherwise it's just a way to make your children pay for an economic crisis they didn't cause. Yeah, make em work longer and pay more for less so the very rich don't have to pay a couple percentage points more in taxes.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:39 PM

58. For what it's worth, this is not breaking news

it's pure speculation on the writers part... I do like him, but if you read the whole article, he is just guessing

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:39 PM

59. Fuck that

People need Medicare earlier, not later. After 60, health care expenses skyrocket. People can't wait until nearly 70.

I already have to wait until 66 to retire because the SS eligibility age went up under Reagan. If I now have to wait until 67 for Medicare, that's a year of my life lost to a crappy job when I don't have many more years left.

To the 30-somethings here...at some point, you're going to realize that your time alive is limited. One or two more years matter.

I hope the Dems tell the President that this will not fly. Nope. No way.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:40 PM

62. This would be a slap in the face to all of us. No deal gets us 39%!!!!!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:42 PM

64. Krugman: I Hope This Isnít True

Krugman: I Hope This Isnít True
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021943877

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:48 PM

66. "cost-sharing and decreases in provider payments" = YOU GET FUCKING SCREWED! n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:51 PM

67. Sorry, but increasing Medicare eligibility age will kill people

A lot of people wait until they are 65 to see a doctor, and sometimes it is too late. Imagine what it will mean if it is 67.

So, no, No Hope There. Just a feeling that the fiscal cliff will be done on the back of the poorest, those who are typically do not have health insurance or one with a HUGE copay. But I knew that for a very long time. This party is and always been about f*ng the poorest, as they do not vote.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #67)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:02 PM

74. Keeping it where it is will kill people.

For that matter, since there are currently about a million iatrogenic deaths per year, lowering it will kill people too.

Worrying too much about plans for 20 years from now (when any age increase would kick in) is futile.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:52 PM

68. "Proposed in July 2011"

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 07:53 PM

69. If it's true

Obama just handed over the Senate to GOP in 2014. Not that it will matter by then.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:00 PM

72. it reads like a sellout, if that's the case.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stupidicus (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:06 PM

77. What sucks is we have to just wait it out, hope

 

for the best, expect the worst, and try to adapt and regroup. The people will always win in the end.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:06 PM

76. Give me the cliff...

Here's my plan....

Forget Medicare and SS.

Prosecute churches for political activities.

$250,000 to $400,000 - 39%

$400,001 to $750,000 - 45%

$750,001 to $1,000,000 - 57%

$1,000,001 up - 70% plus 1% for every million above that with a cap at 90%

As you can see, I'm no politician... (or tax accountant) But we need some plain, blunt action.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:12 PM

80. This is what I figured would happen.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:14 PM

81. Locking, not breaking news, but analysis, opinion

Please consider reposting in Politics or GD. Thanks!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink