Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age (from 65 to 67) As Part Of Grand Debt Deal

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:45 PM
Original message
Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age (from 65 to 67) As Part Of Grand Debt Deal
Source: Huffington Post

Obama Offered To Raise Medicare Eligibility Age As Part Of Grand Debt Deal

In his press conference on Monday morning, President Barack Obama repeatedly insisted that he was willing to tackle some sacred cows as part of a larger package to raise the debt ceiling. Just how sacred, however, may surprise political observers.

According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.

The proposal, as discussed, would not go into effect immediately, but rather would be implemented down the road (likely in 2013)

...............

Sources offered varied accounts regarding the seriousness with which the president had discussed raising the Medicare eligibility age. ... "That is one of the things they put on the table as part of a big solution," said one senior Republican Hill aide. ... Obama's willingness to embrace the idea, however, was seen as a major bargaining chip that could help win concessions from Republicans on revenues.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is fucking awful. A death sentence to so many seniors.
Who is he listening to?

NOT us.

Damn.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. He don't give a fuck what happens to elderly people...
He's got it made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
259. You're right, he doesn't.
Here's an example:

Obama and Biden will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will provide an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors and relieve millions from the burden of filing tax returns.

http://change.gov/agenda/seniors_and_social_security_ag... /

Promise broken. And what do we get instead? Payroll tax cuts that leave retirees out in the cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #12
302. +1000 -- and the elderly aren't going to give a fuck for him in 2012
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
32. This action provides a neat multiplier effect: the more seniors who die prematurely
the greater savings: it not only lowers Medicare costs, but all those cobblers who die prematurely are conveniently no longer on the social security rolls. It's a win-win for all those pols eaten up with the obscene depravity running amok. ;) :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dept of Beer Donating Member (957 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #32
97. Why not just raise it to 80 years old?

So very craven.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
33. Who is he listening to? Himself
He came to Washington to war on Boomers - not Republicans.

Have you forgotten this from January of 2007?

"Shushing the Baby Boomers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SSDA Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
63. Hope & Change
Barf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #1
85. "Death Sentence"? WTF? just like the Death Panels?
It's only 2 years. Besides, it was only offered as a negotiating chip. Nothing has been agreed upon yet. talk about an over-reaction!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #85
99. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #85
100. Yes. This is a death sentence for that minority of people
who desperately need medical care between the ages of 65-67.

This is no exaggeration. I have had friends who died of cancer just about between those years.

In fact, we should open Medicare up to people 55 and over right now because so many people in that age group have been laid off or lost their businesses in this recession. Health insurance after age 55 can be very expensive because you most certainly have at least one, usually more than one, pre-existing condition.

People 55 and over should not have to pay the ransom that insurance companies charge just to stay alive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Agony Donating Member (865 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #100
109. When instead he should be proposing to LOWER the age to 55!
His negotiating tactics SUCK ASS!

:nuke: :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #109
171. Agree -- and Obama could do just that -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #100
150. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harvey007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #100
185. Right on
Those of us without health care need Medicare NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #100
283. Not only that, lots of people over 55 are working in jobs that don't provide any medical insurance,

or, like both my siblings, are self-employed and have to carry their own private insurance. Talk about $$$$$.....




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
right2bfree Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #283
305. Yeah, I am one of them and I have chronic illness too. Obama sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #85
121. Only two years?
I am Medicare eligible in 2013. I have some medical issues. That could bankrupt me and my husband.

I am not the only one.

I worked my ass off for Obama. I will never vote for a repub, but I won't vote for him if he does this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #121
167. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #121
173.  .... Imo, simply Obama's disgusting theat to do this is enough .... !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N7Shepard Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #121
213. I'm sure it won't take effect immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #213
215. So what?
The people who come after me can suffer? No thanks. That is not why I am a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N7Shepard Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #215
216. Would you rather he get this deal done to at least save
medicare for those over 67 or let the tax cuts and wars bankrupt us and then no one gets medicare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #216
220. The debt ceiling was raised seven times while Bush
was president, with nary a peep.

It can be done again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #216
229. That is one humdinger of a false dichotomy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N7Shepard Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #229
307. It may not be a true dichotomy, but it's not as false as you think
We are either going to raise the debt ceiling and have high deficits or we're going to get some tax hikes and some spending cuts. We're not going to get everything we want. That's just reality. Suggest some cuts or other adjustments elsewhere besides medicare that we might get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:52 AM
Original message
False dilemma. Those aren't the only 2 choices. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #215
233. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #213
225. I'm sure you didn't mean that to come over as selfishly as it did
Republicans are the ones who are every man for himself. Democrats tend to practice the do unto others thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #213
228. So what? It will be just as wrong in 2016 as it would be now.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 02:41 AM by No Elephants
Honest to goodness. The weak rationalizations and excuses burn.

(I picked 2016 because Obama seems to like timing bad stuff for when he thinks he will be out of office or almost out. "After me the deluge." Also a good saying for seniors who are okay with something that affects only those who come after them.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #85
164. Look....I paid into health insurance for 45 years before it priced me out!
Do you think I'm pissed? I need health care NOW! I can't get any doctor to see me because 1) I don't have health insurance 2) I'm over 50 years of age (yep....better believe it), etc. TWO YEARS IS A L-O-N-G time to wait. It may not be agreed upon yet however, I am doubly pissed it was brought up period. Sorry...I am very disappointed in this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #85
224. How old are you johnaries?
It's very relevant, given your statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #224
235. Very respectfully, I disagree. His or her statement stands on its own,
whether the poster is 17 or 70, and message boards are anonymous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #235
244. Not really
If the poster is 17, the statement is naive, if the poster has skin in the game (over 45), then it's malicious. I was interested in the angle from which this came. And, yes, this board is anonymous and johnaries has no responsibility to respond to me, but it would be interesting. That's why I asked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #244
246. IMO, the statement is naive, even if the poster were 90. I'm not sure it would be malicious if s/he
were over 45, either. It's not a given that someone over 45 gets it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #246
248. Point taken
Probably just a thoughtless comment, not meant maliciously but neither can it be defended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 04:32 AM
Response to Reply #248
254. I guess
I just bristle people on boards ask me personal questions. (IRL, too, actually.)

If a statement in my post is wrong, it's wrong. Or not. I'll gladly defend my statements, or apologize for them. Unless someone makes it about me. Then, I'll probably risk a post deletion by responding in kind.

In this instance, too, there is another possibility you did not consider. Someone who is anyhere from 18 to 54 who firmly believes the older generation has been incredibly selfish, including as to wanting every sniffle paid for by the government and therefore people their age will never see either Social Security or Medicare. They may be right or wrong on the cause and effect, but, as far as I can tell, those beliefs are sincerely held.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #85
227. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
86. Why doesn't he raise the celling by himself?
He can issue a Presidential order to raise the debt ceiling. Maybe he should wait and show Americans how willing the rethugs are to crash the world economy, Then say "fuck you" and raise the debt ceiling all by himself.

Jobs and wealth distribution are the BIG problems facing America. If we won't take to the streets, just put us out of our misery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #86
172. I think it is a constitutional issue that say only congress
can raise revenues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matt Shapiro Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #172
208. Raising the debt ceiling is not the same as raising revenues.
In fact the 14th amendment requires the USA to pay its debts. Effectively, that requires the debt ceiling to be raised. Constitutional experts disagree about whether the President has the power to implement the 14th Amendment directive on his own, and it has always been initiated by Congress in the past. So what? If he were a real Democrat, he would take the bull by the horns and just do it. He's certainly willing to act as a "unitary" president when it comes to civil liberties.

Clearly, he is not a real Democrat. He will not assert his power FOR the people (only the reverse). A real Democrat would not think of increasing the Medicare eligibility age or screwing with the Social Security COLA formula. If he goes through with this (as his track record suggests he will), he and any Democrat who goes along with him should be challenged in the next Primary by REAL Democrats!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #208
234. Sorry, just as Chuck Grassley was saying the 14th am. may require Rethugs to raise the debt ceiling,
Obama said the 14th am. issue was off the table, for reasons best known to him (and probably to his Republicon financial team).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #172
287. DeadEye, I am not sure about raising revenues, ie.., taxes,etc.
I am 99% sure that our President has the ability to raise the debt ceiling by Presidential decree. Anyone, please weigh in on this if you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
91. Keep in mind, the health care reform kicks in in 2014
I don't know exactly what the difference between the two programs is, but I don't think it will be a death sentence on one side and good coverage on the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaliforniaPeggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #91
98. I will be thrilled to be proven wrong on this question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #98
107. I'll be thrilled if I can finally get health insurance for my family
...and I think I'm there along with most people who don't know exactly how it will work out.

Hopefully the other side won't be able to axe it before it takes affect!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #91
124. Even under the HCR bill, I think that seniors aged 65 and 66 would be better
off under Medicare. Many of them will have pre-existing conditions, and under that HCR bill insurance companies will be allowed to charge and arm and a leg to people in that situation, and subsides for people who can't afford it will be inadequate. So I still oppose raising the age from 65 to 67. And if they get away with raising it to 67 you better believe they will be back later to raise it even more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #124
238. Yep. Obama has opened the door to a very slippery slope, if I may mix metaphors.
And, no matter what Rethugs do to OASDI, Medicare and Medicaid in the future, they can always say, "Even the Democrats acknowledged we had no choice but to cut."

No matter what actually happens now, cuts will be hung around the necks of Democrats forever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #91
237. Self delete. Totoinhere covered the point better.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:02 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N7Shepard Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
212. Come now, 65-67 in this day and age is not that old. Also, what do you propose he do regarding
the deficit, spending cuts, and tax hikes with a republican house?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #212
240. Remind us, what specific tax hikes have made it to the table from the Republican side so far?
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:07 AM by No Elephants
And 65 to 67 is plenty old enough to be living on the edge of poverty, with a boatload of health problems and looking to Medicare eligibility at 65 (OR SOONER)n as a life line.

What is an alternative? How about raising the salary cap? Cutting back on wars? Ending the Obama tax cuts? Paying OASDI the monies it would have if government had actually treated contributions as a trust fund, as promised? Many alternatives. Those are but a few.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #212
285. What's wrong with getting rid of the tax cuts for the rich, and ending some wars? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jannyk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. He can go fuck himself! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. that's what liberals said to FDR...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Obama is NO FDR!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. HuffPo is going to have to do better than "five anonymous sources"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
43. Obama loving is like
the GOP view on climate change - never will there be enough evidence for the true believers (read Eric Hoffer's excellent short book of the same name)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
75. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
176. +1 --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
301. Obama hating will believe anything, especially rumors made up by "anonymous sources".
Get real, you sound silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
70. Ah, all too obvious! Obama is not even a Clinton and I thought
Clinton was a disaster given NAFTA, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #70
243. Clinton said he wanted Gramm Leach on his desk ASAP. GL, aka repeal of Glass Steagall,
is pretty much responsible for the economic mess that has infected many countries, including the U.S. (And we still have not reinstated Glass Steagall or anything that would prevent crap mortgage derivatives).

So, Bubba did his part, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
174. Obama is the ANTI-FDR .... !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #174
218. well, liberals hated FDR...
because he did not make enough change fast enough and worked with congress per the constitution....Obama is continuing what FDR started....GOBAMA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #218
245. LOL!
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:25 AM by No Elephants
Sometimes, you just don't know where to begin with a post, but let's start here:

How is cutting a deal with a handful of Republicans "working with Congress?" No, it's an end run around Congress, trying to endgame the Democrats in Congress.

(FYI, the Constitution says nothing about a President working with Congress. Try reading it sometime. It's not very long.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im1013 Donating Member (527 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #4
207. +1000!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dennis4868 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
217. FDR took alot of crap from liberals...
because he, like Obama, went ahead with change in baby steps...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:29 AM
Response to Reply #217
226. Baby steps? FDR? Are you kidding?
You should read about his First Hundred Days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#The_First_Hundred...

Baby steps, my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #217
249. FDR? Baby steps? Like Obama? LOL!
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:41 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
242. +1 Not even same breath eligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
64. What FDR and LBJ gave to us, Obama may take away
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 05:10 PM by neverforget
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Actually, LBJ signed Medicare into law
But you have a point. Next at bat, what? Civil Rights? Americans with Disabilities Act? Women's Suffrage?

Surely those are preventing the wealthy, er I mean job creators from hiring, no?

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neverforget Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. You're correct. My bad. I changed it to include LBJ. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #67
175. True -- This will not end with Social Security & Medicare ....
this is corporate/fascism taking hold of America --

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:36 AM
Original message
Self delete.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:49 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:36 AM
Original message
Self delete
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:51 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
102. Liberals did not say that to FDR. You are misinformed.
They might have liked another candidate better, but liberals loved FDR, my grateful parents among them. It was God and Jesus and family and then FDR. And that generation, most of them, still feel that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
241. If they said it after FDR let Rethugs bully him about the deficit, liberals were right.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:48 AM by No Elephants
Besides, no comparison between Obama and FDR. When FDR stuck to his guns, his programs (actual jobs and controls on corporations, among many other thing) worked. After he caved to the Rethugs who were wailing about the deficit was when things went downhill.

FDR had to invent his way. Obama had the FDR experience to learn from. Instead, he is caving as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Such a move makes sense politically and financially.
Though many here may be set against it, and I can understand the argument opposing any raise of the retirement age especially for people in difficult or mind-numbing jobs, this is a sensible position giving current longevity rates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CurtEastPoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. If DOD spending were reined in, the wars stopped, the tax cuts for the rich deleted and we STILL
were hurting, it MIGHT be considered.

We CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT balance this budget on the backs of those LEAST ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Old people were already trying to decide if they should buy their
meds or food. How in the fuck will they live on less than what they had before the axe comes down. At least the Nazis took pity on old and disabled people and murdered them, instead of letting them starve to death and suffer for months or years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FLyellowdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Is he saying he'd change the age for those already drawing SS
or is this just for those not yet on SS? Seniors who aren't drawing SS yet wouldn't lose any money...their eligibility will just be delayed. They would have to work 2 years longer before retiring.So they wouldn't necessarily be living on less.

The reference to the Nazis in comparing/contrasting what's happening now is, in my opinion, inappropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #25
53. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
149. Oh, fer Chrissakes.
For starters, they will lose 2 years of SS income. And then their payments will be further reduced by the revisions in COLA calculation.

This hits hardest at people who worked physically demanding, even crippling jobs all their lives. Mostly those are low-pay jobs to start with, so it's not likely they saved up a whole lot for retirement.

And since both minorities and poor people have shortened lifespans (many dying long before 65), there is de facto discrimination here as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #149
152. Decent points.
But being a adult, I have no need to deride you for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #152
209. Weak tactic.
Say something fucking outrageous to seniors who will suffer & then play like a victim.

Typical when one has no real points.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #209
295. tactic? You think everyone is so disputatious they mainly consider tactics
for winning?

I wonder where such an assumption comes from?

Is there no other way of thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #295
300. Not everyone, just you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:01 AM
Response to Reply #149
256. The Op is about the age for Medicare eligibility, not the age for collecting full old age benefits.
But, either way, of course, people lose money. Skip Fox is mistaken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #25
255. Wouldn't lose any money?
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 04:53 AM by No Elephants
If at ages 65 to 67, they are lucky enough to still have a job with a large company that insures them and their dependents, and they are healthy enough to avoid co-pays, maybe they won't lose anything. That's a very small group. In any other scenario, they will.

Unless an employer insures them and their dependent, they will lose two years of health insurance premiums, which, at ages 65 to 67 will be quite hefty. If they've been paying the "Affordable Health Care" individual mandate penalty because they simply cannot afford health insurance, they'll lose two years of those payments.

And, if they should get something like cancer while uninsured, they stand to lose all they own.
\
By the way, this thread is about raising the age for Medicare eligibility, not about raising the age for full old age benefits under OASDI. That age is already 67, but the folks who raised it were sufficiently humanitarian to leave the Medicare eligibility age at 65 (or cowardly enough, depending on how you look at it).

If it were about raising the retirement age under OASDI, your statements would make less sense than they do in the context of Medicare. How is going from eligibilty for full benefits, say $12,000 or more a year, even if you work, to zero benefits a year for two years NOT losing any money?

Well, never mind trying to explain that, because, as I said, the thread is about eligibilty for Medicare, not the age for full retirement benefits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. WHY are they ignoring us on this?
This administration's priorities are mind boggling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #16
78. WHY are they ignoring us on this?
Because they know they can do *anything* to us and we'll still vote Obama in 2012 if the alternative is Palin or Bachmann.

Exactly like an abusive spouse who knows that their victim has no other options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
132. Because they believe that when all is said and done progressives will have nowhere else to go.
They can't imagine many progressives voting for someone like Bachmann. And I can't either for that matter. And it's probably to late to launch a credible challenge in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #132
156. I am just sick over this.
How could my party even CONTEMPLATE this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
257. "They know the Left has nowhere else to go." A quote from many Democratic
pundits and strategists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #257
299. Maybe we should start working right now for a bona fide progressive
presidential candidate in 2016. That might be the best we can do at this point as Obama continues to move more and more to the right. Bernie would be about 74 then which would make him about the same age that Reagan was when he ran for his second term. And he would be about the age that Ron Paul is now and Paul is considered a serious GOP candidate. And if Hillary Clinton ran against Bernie in the primaries she couldn't use the age issue against Bernie because she would be pushing 70 herself.

Of course the problem with that is the way things are going we might not have much of a country left by 2016.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #8
17. Good points all. a columnist for Huffington claimed if we simply
collected all the taxes that we were currently owed, we'd be 1/3 or more of the way to a 3 trillion savings. (Yet Repugs are cutting the investigating arm of the IRS--my son-in-law who works for a contractor for the IRS confirmed this.)

But I wonder if we can politically negotiate without allowing for a raising of retirement age. (I say this as a 64 year old . . . but in a way feel guilty since I love my job and am not planning to retire for at least 8 years.)

I don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
38. I know a boatload of construction workers in their mid 50s
who will probably not work again. Their bodies are wearing out and the housing market will be decades in the repairing. There is no work. This will be the icing on the cake for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
103. Most retirements are not "planned." They just happen. Health
A change in your boss. A change in business climate. So many things determine when you retire. Your own choices are kind of low on the list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #103
113. Point taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
258. OP is about medicare. From the wiki on "retirement:"
"n the United States, while the normal retirement age for Social Security, or Old Age Survivors Insurance (OASI), historically has been age 65 to receive unreduced benefits, it is gradually increasing to age 67. For those turning 65 in 2008, full benefits will be payable beginning at age 66.<5>

I put retirement in quotes because, if you reach the age for full "old age" benefits under OASDI, you can collect full benefits and work, but there will be income tax consequences. (If you are collecting OASDI on accouont of disability, rather than "old age," you will, however, lose your benefits if you make more than a nominal sum from working.)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
46. Yep, damn right! Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cstanleytech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
49. Mostly I agree but I think you might be wrong about deleting the tax cuts
as its not so much the cuts as the dang loopholes the wealthy and corporations like GE are using to get away with paying any taxes at all as a tax increase does nothing as long as the loopholes still exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:18 AM
Response to Reply #49
260. It's both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
74. Y E S!!!!!!
Let me tell you, if we cut wealthy seniors' SS and Medicare because they have the means to pay, all hell would break loose!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #74
126. Agreed. At least for a percentage of them. (My son is wealthy and
would not complain. Some rich people care thge society they live in.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:20 AM
Response to Reply #126
261. Those people CAN voluntarily forego benefits. Few of them do, however.
Eliminating something promised them, something they paid for all their lives, though, would be immoral.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #126
298. Actually many of them
Then greedy few are simply psychopaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ejbr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
89. + 2 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Sure, if you are a Republican.
Some of us think it would be politically and financially sensible to roll out Medicare for ALL and stop the profit taking of the insurance companies. Just how much you think someone 65/66 is going to have to pay for insurance while they wait ANOTHER 2 years to be covered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pooka Fey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
24. + 1 to infinity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canoeist52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
28. My answer too -if anything, it should be lowered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
39. Just as one should never argue with the facts, it is folly to argue without them.
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 04:28 PM by skip fox
In 1940 Americans lived n average of 12.7 years(for males) and 14.7 years (females) after the age of 65. In 1990 the figures are 15.3 years (males) and 19.6 years (female). Let's not just make up things like Fox News.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #39
82. The working stiff is not living longer, the people that do manual labor are not living longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #82
119. Okay. I understand. Probaly hard to find data on, but it's a good point.
Is it not also true that a far fewer percentabe of 65 year olds are doing heavy manual labor (and not supervising or put in the main office) than the percentage of under 50 year olds?

Just trying to look at the whole picture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #39
154. Let us also not ignore the fact that these increases in longevity
are not evenly distributed. Mean age of death on a reservation near where I live is 56. Black longevity has not gone up substantially. And many jobs just wear people out at relatively early ages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #154
158. Agreed.
I'm far from happy about this, but I'm tying to be pragmatic (a position fully open to attack it seems).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoralme Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #158
180. Pragmatic?Puhleeze..What this excuse for a president even
suggests is anti-Democratic. He does this, he will not get another term. I've heard that today from people much smarter than I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #180
181. The entire world is agreed then.
Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoralme Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #181
195. I care not what the world agrees to. I am a Democrat of 45 years. I
voted for Obama. It has turned out to be the biggest political mistake of my life. Not one person in the Senior Center I help run with my wife, a 40-year DON at SNF's, will vote for him either. I am having a hard time finding people who WILL vote for him again. I will never vote for a Republican, and the that is what Obama is; I don't care what his hood ornament says. Having said that, I still will vote for other Democrats. Indeed, sorry, that you apparently are not ostensibly even non-plussed by Obama's statements today regarding Medicare. My wife and I know people this will literally kill. But, then, no big deal, right, Fox? We have to eat Obama's peas. Right? Pfftttth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #195
203.  was making a joke based on your intemperance. "People smater than I am"
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 09:23 PM by skip fox
becomes "everyone."

Based on your tone, I responded in kind.

You're follow-up post makes me believe you deserve a better response.

You're points (but not your original attitude) are well taken.

(Calling someone by their last name is usually reserved for foremen, drill sargants, and old Harvard professors. It's not really appropriate if you expect an intelligent response in a forum of presumptive equals.)

By the way, way do people insist onb beiong anomous on such forums. There's an allowance of speech to it, I understand, but it seems to alloow for an irresponsibility of reaction. My name is Skip Fox, not postcon or Flying Dutchman, and I take responsibility for what I say and how I say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #158
263. All positions are open to disagreement or supplementation. Sad you see it as attack.
And from whose perspective do you purport to be "pragmatic?" (BTW, very condescending to refer to your own position as pragmatic, which implies those who disagree with you are unrealistic.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #39
262. Your figures are outdated. Also, they do not tell the whole story.

http://www.fairwarning.org/2011/06/u-s-shows-a-growing-... /


However, it's irrelevant. OASDI is insrance. It's paid for. An insurer does not get to change the deal for its own benefit when life expectancy changes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. oddly, most other industrial nations disagree with that assessment...
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 04:11 PM by mike_c
...and they manage to do it rather well, despite assurances from our leaders that "we must cut cut cut."

My daughter and SIL are in Europe (presently in London, shoutout to our Brit friends!). She had a relatively minor but painful health crisis recently, and went to the hospital with considerable trepidation. They have no insurance, you see. They cannot afford it. Of course, she received excellent, immediate, and FREE medical care in London, and would have enjoyed similar care, with minor variation in the arrangements, just about anywhere else in Europe.

Coincidentally, none of those European nations that can somehow afford to provide civilized medical care for their citizens (and visitors!) spends more than half their national budget on their military and its misadventures, like the U.S. does. None of them let their wealthiest citizens and corporations exploit the social order for personal profit without helping to support that selfsame order. Might be just a coincidence, of course, but I suspect there's a connection in there somewhere....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #29
104. Thanks for the reminder. You are so right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
35. True, if you have an (R) by your name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. No R has ever come close to mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #41
276. You've never said you're a Democrat, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aggiesal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
42. No it doesn't ...
Make more sense if you lower the retirement age to say around 62,
to allow people to start receiving both SS and MediCare.

This does 3 things
1) By lowering the retirement age, more elderly workers can retire
with dignity. This opens up their job positions for the younger
unemployed.
2) More younger unemployed into the system, allows more tax, SS,
and medicare revenue in to the system.
3) More younger unemployed off the unemployment rolls.

Besides, what does SS and Medicare have to do with the debt?
They pay for them selves. They don't use any tax money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #42
296. many in their fifties "are between a rock and a hard place"
In my hubby's company there were middle managers laid off all in their fifties. In order to get an exit package they had to sign an agreement that they would not sue for age discrimination. So, how many people in their fifties have lost their jobs, some who have worked for the same company for over thirty years? They are expected to go out in a diminishing job market to find something else-the competition is fierce vying for a job with hundreds who are younger.

So, how are those who have no job to survive until they can get any benefits?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
50. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
71. What makes more sense and is fiscally more sensible is
a national health care plan--single-payer--that removes the insurance companies from the equation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #71
128. Absolutely!!!!!!
I agree completely, but cannot see that happening at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
72. An even better solution is to tax the rich and corporations
Tax personal income over $1 million at 90%

End the cap on the salary limit for contributions to SS and Medicare

Stop rewarding companies for shipping jobs over seas

Award no government contracts to any non-US companies.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #72
123. Yes. I agree. But probably not politically viable at this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #123
199. why, since 80% or more of Americans favor exactly that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #199
201. Great question. Seriously.
Maybe Obama could take a stronger stance.

But we're playing with fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #201
231. Playing with fire taking on the oligarchy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #201
294. The party and the president are dead on their feet anyway
so taking a moral and politically popular stance can't lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:38 AM
Response to Reply #123
230. Who decides what is politically viable at this time?
If not now, when? Clearly it isn't the American people who are deciding viability since many a poll shows that these ideas are not only viable but popular with the populace. Not so much with the corporations. Are they the ones deciding political viability now, with their new found strength based on the treasonous Citizens United verdict?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #123
264. Only harming the most vulnerable is politically viable at this time?
Don't bet on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #5
76. What??????
People in difficult or mind-numbing jobs? What about those jobs that are back breaking? Do you want a 67 year old putting a fire out at your house? How about a 67 year old putting in wall to wall carpeting, or tile? Would you want a 67 year old on your roof? The are body breaking jobs, and many don't even make it to 65.

So, what happens to them if they have to retire early, but make too much money for Medicaid? Fuck them, let them die? Or go bankrupt? Just because people who do office work, live longer, it doesn't mean every one else does.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. True.
But when I wrote "difficult" I was including back-breaking jobs. Maybe there is a way of identifying these.

To be true to the general situation, however, most 60+ year olds are not pushing wheel-barrows but directing others either as master carpenters, bricklayers, etc. or forepersons. This is not invariably true, of course. So maybe we can identify those positions which are physically debilitating and keep their retirement the same.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #77
122. So you are for job-description testing?
Who gets to decide which jobs count and which don't?

Please define a physical hardship. Climbing a flight of stairs in a non-elevatored building due to bad knees?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #122
130. Agreed. I have no plan, but those who make them might create decent ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
87. Longevity rates? Life expectancy for black American men is 70.9
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #87
125. People are living longer with chronic, debilitating diseases
And there's significant disparity depending on the level of health care one has been able to obtain across their lifespan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #125
140. Both points well taken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
93. No, it doesn't, unless he just wants the Republicans to win in '12
Of course, maybe he'll just switch parties and they'll all vote for him cuz he's just like 'em at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #93
232. Um, no, they won't
We may be mad as hornets at him right now but one thing we don't give a damn about is the color of his skin. The other side does care. Many if not most Republicans are racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HERVEPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
110. And so many people in that age range have such a fucking easy time finding a job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
112. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #112
127. Thank you.
I was going to say that if nobody else did. Republican talking points abound around here sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #127
143. I've actually been in jail twice for my convictions. Liberal ones!
And have been strongl;y liberal for over 50 years. (Until 14 I didn't think about politics.)

But then it's easier and more entertaining to slap a label on people than actually have a conversation. (That's one of the reasons Fox News is so popular.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #143
163. I'm not the one who called you a fucking idiot.
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 07:16 PM by Blue_In_AK
so it's not correct to say that I'm "slapping labels." I was merely agreeing with the poster above who stated that the reason it appears that people are living longer is because of the reduction in the child mortality rate. And there are Republican talking points abounding on DU -- I see them every day.

That being said, I'm not really impressed by the "50 year liberal" thing because I can match you year for year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #163
183. As an old man, I'm not good on computers. I was responding to
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 07:45 PM by skip fox
the earlier post.

And I'm not trying to impress so much as to counter teh "Republican talking points" nonsense.


Here's the data on life expectancy:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #143
168. Besides the hilarious nature of trying to use an argument to authority in an anonymous forum...
You closed your supposed argument in your post with this jewel:

But then it's easier and more entertaining to slap a label on people than actually have a conversation. (That's one of the reasons Fox News is so popular.)


That's kind of hypocritical, don't you think? Accusing others of slapping labels, while slapping yourself a label on others. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #168
186. Shoot the messanger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #186
188. Who's shooting anyone? I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy
of complaining about being labeled, while labeling others within the same breath.

That's all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #168
191. If pointing out unthinking activity for what it is parallels classifying people
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 08:43 PM by skip fox
unstead of engaging with them and equates to calling someone a "fuckinbg idiot" and possibly a Republican giving talking points, then you are right.

If you'll note, my responses to temperate posts has been in kind. I speak clearly to name-callers and people who parade their confusion as intelligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:39 AM
Response to Reply #143
281. Civil rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #112
137. Check out the link which I gave. IUt did life expectancy for those already 65.
But then it's not as easy as looking up "idiot" in the dictionary.

I'll give it again, but I'm not under the illusion that you will check it out:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
165. I always thought Tom Tomorrow was a satirist
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 07:23 PM by liberation
it turns out he was more of a documentarian (sic)....



Dear lord, the line between real life and comedy gets blurrier with each passing day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #165
187. Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #165
194. I wish I could rec this post.
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:51 AM
Response to Reply #165
265. LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
206. It does not make sense financially...
Yes, we have a debt/deficit problem, but we watched debt skyrocket under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. They
spent decades spending trillions on defense and disgusting, lie-based wars. Now that the house is out of
money, we're going to tell grandpa and grandma that we're on a budget now--and they'll be the ones making the
sacrifices.

No, sorry. It doesn't have to be that way. Cut the Pentagon. End these money-sucking wars that have no
purpose, other than to sexually arouse the neocons.

It's amazing how people think we MUST punish the most vulnerable and needy in our society--but the rich, the
warmongers, the elites and the corporations have unlimited windfalls coming to them.

It's really sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
250. It makes neither political nor financial sense. Alao, the thread is about raising the Medfcare
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 03:59 AM by No Elephants
eligibilty age, not the retirement age.

Medicare for all makes financial sense.

As for political consequences, please see Reply 249 in particular. Then see most of this thread. Then see Obama's approval and popularity numbers in recent polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. 5 -Anonymous- sources? Color me very unimpressed.with the claims of this article
Note at least one of the anonymous sources is a Republican. Why should I beleive there is not a disinformation campaign going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #6
84. How come Obama doesn't tell us what he put on the table? Is he scared too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 04:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
251. Let's never give any credence to any news story using anonymous sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emulatorloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #251
304. I need at least one source on the record. Sorry,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. Screwing the seniors over and over again, what a sick country we live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm not surprised. As a 63 year-old, I feel left out.
Whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. If true..
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 04:02 PM by girl gone mad
it's malicious and cruel. He is intentionally setting out to harm working people while he has done nothing but pander to the casino class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
18. It would make sense to adjust SS/medicare every now and then automatically
to keep in tune with changing life expectancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Anything in there about stopping the massive for profit insurance cabal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
210. That's what I'm talking about!
Seniors...oh you seniors, you must sacrifice and "eat your peas". You must
learn that we must be fiscally responsible, and that we all have to make
tough choices. Sorry.

And the health-insurance mucky mucks, who saw a 20 percent increase in profits
this past year--you don't have ANY accountability at all. In fact, the next
time DC decides to do healthcare reform again, please remember that you'll be
writing the bill and we'll gladly preserve your profits for you!

Banksters--they'll be no accountability for you. You run a Ponzi scheme that
implodes the economy and destroys the housing market--and we'll simply write
you a check for untold billions of dollars. And don't bother telling us how
you're spending the money--you can do whatever you want!

Oil companies that destroy the Gulf...oh please. Fuggetaboutit!

Companies like GE and people like the Koch Brothers who make billions in profits and
never pay taxes. Oh please, you don't need to worry your pretty little heads. We
don't need any sacrifices from you. Carry on party people!

It's the SENIORS, and the DISABLED and the POOR who need to give up what little they
have left! The 80-year old man who lives off of $950 a month needs to give up 20 percent
of that and just shut the hell up! Elderly couples who can't afford health insurance
will just need to wait a few more years until they are covered, and if they die in the
meantime--you're just doing it for your country.

Sick. Really, really sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
289. Separate issue
if you were to comment on a thread about I dunno, gun ownership would it be fair to blast you for not going after the insurance companies enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Then I want Assisted Suicide
for those under 67 years of age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:53 AM
Response to Reply #34
266. Catch 22. Not covered until age 67.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #34
290. How about assisted suicide for anyone of sound mind that desires it?
I see no reason why it isn't allowed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #290
297. Me neither....
if we can't get affordable health care and we end up in bankruptcy.....suicide seems to be a logical solution to the problem. At least the sick person won't put their family at risk of living under a freeway.

Plus...so many diseases are a death sentence. If the sick don't want to endure painful treatments at a tremendous cost, why not let him/her leave this world with a bit of respect...like we do with our pets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #297
310. "like we do with our pets"
That really bothers me about this.

A person who keeps a dog alive in pain is a bastard.

A person who keeps grandpa alive in pain is a saint.

How is it that we are willing to tolerate more suffering in humans (sometimes lasting years or even decades) when we are squeamish at allowing that in pets?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #310
312. I think it has to do w/
organized religions...Catholics are always saying that 'suffering' is good. I don't follow any organized religion, but I believe this 'love of life' begins with them.

I believe there are many people who would choose Assisted Suicide if it were a legal choice....and given how our gov't won't provide health care, it's a LOGICAL AND REASONABLE CHOICE.

I can't bare to see animals nor people suffer. With people, the Medical Industry takes their last dime before ditching them into hospice. It's a damn scam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spedtr90 Donating Member (459 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
138. Especially if they are "saved" with "reforms"...

like the eligibility age going up, benefits going down, and Medicare getting "reformed".
Life expectancy will be going down, down, down.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
221. NO it wouldn't because life expectancies are changing in BOTH directions
Low income people are having DECREASES in life expectancy, while that of affluent people rises. So kill people who do physical labor because bankers and lawyers are living longer? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #221
291. That's not really true
And it's ludicrous to think a 65 year old today is the same as a 65 year old in the 1930s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #291
308. Of course it's true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #308
309. So the average life expectancy is still on the rise
and there is a discrepancy because some people are living longer, rather than others living shorter lives.

Do you really think the population FDR set social security up for is the same as what we have today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #18
252. No, medicare for all and a government that keeps its word to its citizens/taxpayers make sense.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 04:10 AM by No Elephants
If you break your word to your financiers, they can end up owning all your assets and, depending on circunstances, you may end up in jail for fraud.

Taxpayers are government's financiers. Well, okay, us and the Chinese. But were first, so we're the senior financiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
19. how many would die as a result of this?
My ex lives nearby and we've remained close friends over the years. She is "contingent faculty" at a local college-- a lecturer in the social sciences. She makes a tenuous living but has no benefits whatsoever. Without insurance, with some significant health problems, and in her mid-50s, she is desperately trying to stay alive and healthy until she qualifies for Medicare. Mandating private insurance purchase isn't going to do her any good at all-- she couldn't afford it even if she could find it. Her "preexisting conditions" might be less of a direct impediment after 2014, but I guarantee you she will still be priced out of the market for private insurance. Her only hope is Medicare. If she lives long enough.

How many other Americans are in that boat with her? How many will die as a result of not receiving timely medical care while they wait those two extra years for Medicare?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marions ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
40. this is the human toll
of misguided health policy :cry: :banghead:

You forgot the effects of stress on her (& others in the boat).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. "would be implemented down the road (likely in 2013)"
Sooooo...it would be raised to 67 in 2013?

No warning? No time to plan for that extra 2 years (when coverage for things would actually be covered)?

Bullshit.

Hey Prez O...can you say SINGLE PAYER for all?!?!

Thanks for not so much. You change this and you can expect to be out of office...oh ya, guess you and the family already discussed being a 1 term President already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
murielm99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
131. You have that exactly right.
My husband retired in March, at 66. He has Medicare, and no current health problems.

I am on the COBRA. I'm on it until December of 2012. I have to buy my own insurance for the first eight months of 2013. We have planned for this.

Now what will I do? What will my brother do, whose retirement is already in the works? What will our children do?

And this is not just about me.

I am not liking this. Let him be a one-term President. Let's just accept that if he has no backbone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pooka Fey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
21. I don't fucking think so!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertFlower Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
22. my friend is 66. her husband is 63 and has pre-existing
conditions. she's working and paying almost $700 a month for health insurance -- most of it to cover him. if she has to work another 5 years instead of 3 i think she'll have a nervous breakdown.

i'm almost 70 but hubby will be 64 in december. what if he's forced to retire? who's going to insure a 64 year old man? i don't have medicare because right now his employer's coverage is better.

president obama. you have betrayed us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
26. Has anyone heard that Obama's plan to possibly raise the retirement age would go into effect soon?
More likely it owuld be raised in 5-10 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #26
253. Not so and please see the replies to Post #223.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 04:15 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
30. It would have been a death sentence for me.
I had accumulated a pile of medical problems before I turned 65, that I was able to take care of once I got Medicare. Two more years without seeing a doctor and getting the treatment and surgeries that I needed would have been a death sentence to me. Medicare should really be given at age 55, if they can't see the way to giving Medicare to everyone who wants it.

The trouble with younger people and that includes Presidents, they don't see how awful it is to negotiate our medical system after middle age unless they are caught up in it themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
61. the trouble with Presidents...
and congress persons is they live at a different financial level than most of can dream.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #30
134. Please write the Whitehouse, Cleita
I have no clue if they are listening, but tell them what you just told us.

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #134
146. I will but I don't think it will get to the President.
He has a slew of gate keepers that keep annoying and disturbing stuff away from him. :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julian09 Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #30
157. Obama knows about negotiating with insurance companies
his mother had that problem. That is why he dedicated the health care bill to her when he signed it into law.
Something has to be done about medicare, to keep it solvent. A lot of people are working well past 65 while collecting social security and still on employer health insurance. Look for ways to keep medicare going for the next generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #157
192. Well, then don't mess with it if you want to keep it
going. One suggestion I have though is to get the private insurance companies out of the Medicare Advantage programs. They are sucking the life out of it and completely redo Medicare part D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #157
267. First, his mother had private insurance, which had little to do with this thread
Second, many things can be done to keep Medicare solvent. A potential death sentence for people 65 to 57 is not where that process should start. Third, Obama's bill does preciousl little to help sick people afford health insurance or relieve them of arguing with insurers, regardless of who he dedicated the bill to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alp227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
31. How downhill he has gone from coming into the national spotlight in 2004,
with that National Convention speech, to the "HOPE AND CHANGE" election of 2008, kissing the Republicans' shoes in 2011.

If you were following politics back in the 1970s, and if Obama really does go ahead, expect a resignation or a single term. Anyone prepared for a President Joe Biden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. I like Joe
Truth is, could he do any worse? Thats rather hard to imagine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
37. Why not raise the cap instead??
It seems like the president is pitching for the wrong team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #37
45. Ding ding ding!
Here's a theoretical gold star for your fridge.

The priorities of this administration boggle the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. There is no cap for Medicare.
You pay on all earned wages. Then when you turn 65 you pay a monthly amount to be on Medicare and if you are still working you are still paying from your earned wages.

Then when you start receiving a SS check it is automatically taken ($96-$110) from your disbursement. If SS recipients receive a COLA in the future (maybe 2014 or 2015) the monthly deduction will increase and take all if not more then the COLA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. Are you certain on that?
I thought it had the same cap as SS, which is just under $110k if memory serves?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. No - Medicare is taken on all wages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. Thank you for the correction. I will revise to 'up the damn % we pay' then, then.
FFS - balancing the 'budget' on the backs of those who can afford it the least, yet rolling back ill-advised tax cuts are off the table.

Did we just fall down the wormhole?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. The Medicare deduction is too low IMO.
The employee and employer shares together totals only .029.

I am certain the reason they are not talking about raising the deduction is that they don't want the employers to receive an increase. I own a small business and have thought for years this needed to be increased so we would not reach this day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. If only the Chamber of Commerce had your integrity
we might be living in a whole different place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N7Shepard Donating Member (191 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
214. It would be nice if capital gains were subject to medicare though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:01 AM
Response to Reply #54
239. You're right, actually, but I, and others(I think), we're talking about the cap on SS
And honestly, I don't think I'm the only one who tends to think of SS and Medicare as two parts of the same program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #47
268. The proceeds from raising the salary cap do not have to go to OASDI alone.
It's another potential source of money, like eliminating the Obama tax cuts, reducing defense spending, collecting taxes owed, closing loopholes, actually treating contributions to OASDI like a trust fund, as promised, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_ed_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
115. He's pitching for his own team
-- the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #37
236. How is it that such an obvious idea hasn't occurred to them?
Well, actually, I'm sure it has, it just isn't on the table. Why it isn't on the table is the most interesting question in this whole quagmire of fail, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
44. If true, its over. Bye Bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
51. Another hand out to the scumbag insurance companies
Under obamacare we all have to buy from these assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. just saying....my full SS was delayed until I was 66....I took it
early at 65....the point I am making is.... the full age would be 67 but other options are available such as taking it early....65 at full benefits age ended a while back...

don't know what is going to happen....(IMO) Medicare age should be lowered to 50...that would help lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
naaman fletcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. The only acceptable option is full gov't health care. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #56
269. The OP is not about the age at which you collect full "old age" benefits.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 06:17 AM by No Elephants
That was raised to 67 already (though to be phased in). The OP is about the age at which you become eligibe for Medicare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
57. WTF
:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
58. Locking
The facts of this story are too unflattering to Obama to be posted here at DU.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #58
81. Got that right. The story we should be hearing is about how
Obama is putting military cuts on the table, or that he has told them to raise the debt ceiling or to simply fuck off. He doesn't need to give them anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #58
90. Good point
Is it too much that we ask a "Democratic" president to act like a Democrat? A liberal/progressive/Democratic site should demand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:26 AM
Response to Reply #90
270. IOKIODI
It's O.K. if Obama does it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
60. Why don't they just send euthanasia pills to seniors?
Oops . . . don't want to give the GOP any ideas. I've got a suspicion where "pro-life" would stop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #60
272. They wouldn't be covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
65. In 2013? LOL.. just AFTER the next election.
...pretty shifty, eh?

And with the MANDATE kicking in in 2014...
BONANZA for the Health Insurance Corporations!!!
:party:

The crooks have got their timing down pat.
The Choreography of this Kabuki Theater has been very precise,
from the Great Wall Street Bailout, perfectly timed to happen during the change over of administrations,
to the final Death Blow to the Middle Class....right AFTER the 2012 elections!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!
:patriot:


Of course, "Democrats" will be unelectable for a generation,
but what does THAT matter anymore? :shrug:




Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their EXCUSES.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
68. 2013?! That gives people a lot of time to plan!
My parents are near retirement age and they're getting screwed on all sides at the moment. The state is messing with their pension and health benefits, and now the federal government wants to screw with Medicare as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emsimon33 Donating Member (904 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
69. A national health care plan that removes insurance companies
Would do exponentially more.

This Obama sure doesn't want to get reelected or to be remembered as anything but a disaster as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dyedinthewoolliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
79. I say NO!
NONONONOONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Turn off the fuckin' war machine instead. Rescind the Bush Tax Cuts. But some teeth into collection taxes from Corporate America. But DO NOT TOUCH, ALTER or CHANGE Medicare, Medicaid and SS.
People are gonna get pissed off................
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:48 PM
Response to Original message
80. Fuck Me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtuck004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
83. History books would reflect that Reagan did more for SSI than Obama.


Hello cruel world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #83
136. That is a powerful statement right there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #136
273. IMO, Obama is to the right of Reagan--and he did rank Reagan as one of his
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 06:48 AM by No Elephants
Top Ten U.S. Presidents of all time.

When you think that Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Truman automatically take up six of those slots (among rational people of both parties), that is quite a statement.

Hillary did the same, so we had precious little choice. Welcome to the post-DLC era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
88. Fuck him, I'm done. We need a 3rd party NOW. He doesn't deserve another term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
92. I think this may be the first time I've felt compelled to say this:
Fuck Obama. Why doesn't he just change the letter after his name...cuz he ain't no Democrat.

:mad: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divernan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #92
114. Why did Obama choose to run as/label himself a Democrat in the 1st place?
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 06:27 PM by Divernan
When Obama entered politics, he was based in a Democratic city and in an era when the Illinois GOP was not endorsing any black candidates. Wouldn't do him any good to relocate to any other state. Nationally, the GOP had not sent a black man to the Senate for over 40 years (Republican moderate, Edward Brooke, elected in 1967), and before that, Reconstruction. The last black GOP Congressman was J.C. Watts, now retired.

Illinois, on the other hand, had elected black Democratic female, Carol Mosley Braun to the Senate in 1993.

Obama had NO choice but to run as a Democrat to have a political career, and Chicago, Illinois was an excellent choice for an ambitious black politician.

The Democratic party welcomed this bright, well-spoken, minority guy with open arms and open hearts. We ended up bringing a Trojan Horse, filled with admiration for Ronald Reagan, Big Corporations and GOP values (profits uber alles) into our midst.

Based on his policy choices and actions, versus his campaign rhetoric, and particularly his announced ambition to raise a billion dollars for his next campaign, he's firmly tied himself to the big money interests in the country - who also have no use for traditional Democratic programs/values, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NCarolinawoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #114
155. Definitely a "false flag" Democrat.
:grr:

I still remember that interview he did on Fox News in April of 2008, when he said that Republicans "often have better ideas than Democrats". The interview was with Chris Wallace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
94. Ridiculous.
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 06:05 PM by JDPriestly
I started back to school when I was 50 and had no health insurance until I finished and finally got a job that offered it and made enough money to pay for it. During those years, I developed a condition that could have been avoided had I had medical care.

If you can keep the job you have and it offers health insurance, you will be fine with the change to Medicare availability at 67. The problem is that many of us are laid off and often because of our age or some problem that we would not have if we were not our age -- and then we have no income to pay for health insurance.

And don't talk about getting another job after the age of 63. If you are lucky enough to find one in this economy, it is very unlikely that your boss will offer you health insurance. At best you might get some sort of "independent contractor" deal so that you work off the bosses tax and benefits books. No health insurance at any rate.

So that means that when people turn 67 and finally qualify for their health insurance, they will be sicker and more expensive than they would have been had they only been on Medicare a little earlier.

Besides, the health care costs of the 65-67-year-old Medicare recipients aren't a problem. It's the care for the very elderly that costs the big bucks.

Obama should not be giving in like this. Are we a nation? Or are we just a set of special interest groups?

If there is one thing that just about everybody needs and uses, rich and poor, it is Medicare. If you live long enough to qualify, you use it. And if you don't live long enough to qualify, you can enjoy your life just a little more, however short it may turn out to be, because you know you don't have to worry about affording basic medical care when you are old.

So, Medicare does not just benefit those who are actually using it.

Obama has succeeded in offending just about everybody in the country now. He should have been more insistent on no cuts. Shame on him.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
95. Presidents Govern with Congress
Give the President a Democratic House and Senate and we will not be having these conversations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #95
139. Yeah, and how well did the insurance-company-written "healthcare plan"
work out for us in 2009 when we had both houses? Now, effective 2014, there is a mandate to buy insurance. Hows that going to play out for the 65/66 year olds who can't find work and get into a group plan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harvey007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #95
189. Democrats GAVE Obama a Democratic Senate and House in 2008
Don't you remember?

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-elec...

That Dem majority went to 60 votes once Al Franken got into the Senate.

What did Obama do with all that power?

He f*cking squandered it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #189
219. I Remember
and corporate power weaseled its way into the halls of Congress destroying health care and banking reform. Now, it's worse and it should give us an incentive to find better candidates and work for their elections. We're going to win by working harder, not by bitching louder. We need another majority in 2012! A majority that will push our president to the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #219
277. As to health care reform, corporate power found its way into the WH
almost as soon as he took office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #95
271. Yet, he did not allow Democrats in Congress to negotiate the
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 06:38 AM by No Elephants
terms of health care "reform" or the Obama tax cuts or raising the debt ceiling. That's not working with Congress; it's doing an end run around Congress and endgaming Congress.

BTW, we did give him a Democratic House and Senate in 2008, as Democratic as anyone has had in a long time or will have in a long time. Didn't make a lot of difference.

And please don't cite Lieberman to me. Obama campaigned for him and against Lamont. Nor did Obama deprive Lieberman of his prized Homeland Security chair or use any other Presidential/Democratic Majority muscle on him.

We've had more than enouoh of excuses and memes that simply do not line up with what has actually gone on..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
we can do it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #95
286. Really???? What About 2008? WTF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
96. I'd like to see how this meshes with the health care reform bill, in 2014
...or does it become fairly easy in 2014 to offer more or less equivalent care one way or another, while still upping the medicare eligibility age?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TNLib Donating Member (683 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
101. Whelp looks like dad won't be able to retire.
He retired last year at age 63, after closing his business, but couldn't afford health insurance. He was offered a job at his old company and took it for the health care benefit. His plan was to work for a couple of years so him and his wife can get Medicare. Now I guess he won't be able to retire for awhile.

My father is very fortunate, he was offered a very good job with great benefits at a very good income. But I really feel for seniors that did not have that option and are struggling to find work and pay there bills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #101
141. No worries - they will kick this can down the road and set it to implement in 2017
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 06:45 PM by Ruby the Liberal
or some shit when all of those who are responsible are out of office and comfortably writing their memoirs.

I would be more worried about anyone under 55.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
105. Well ...there's a death panel for ya. Thanks a lot Caveman.
God I wish there was a better alternative to him. I know there's no repuke alternative to anything but for fucks sake will someone please stand up for the weak, poor, homeless, hungry, sick and elderly people? WTF has this country come too? Dog eat dog greedy savages!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
106. Well that would fuck me over pretty good
As it is, I can hang on till I'm 65. Can't squeeze 2 more years to pay for overpriced health insurance.

I would imagine a lot of folks in my age group are in the same situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavapai Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
108. Here is some good reading that is starting to look pertinent to today's situation.

The French Revolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Estates-General of 1789: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates-General_of_1789


Is it time to hit the "reset button" yet???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
111. I would've expected this from a Republican President n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
craigmatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
116. This is disgusting. If this wasn't enough for them then they flat out want to cripple the country
and Obama isn't doing his job of leading his party or providing for the general welfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
117. I go on Medicare in a couple of months.
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 06:24 PM by Blue_In_AK
Would this mean that I'd go on and then have to come back off if it's changed next year?

I'm not counting on anything anymore. The stock market took a lot of our IRA money, now they want to take social security and Medicare. Next thing you know, my husband's defined union pension will suddenly become undefined. There's no rest...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #117
144. That wouldn't be politically expedient
No worries. They will set it to affect people 55 & under and not take effect until 2017 or some such. Far enough out where all those who vote for it will be safely out of office, the frog has been boiled ans we as a nation just sigh and accept it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #144
160. That's what they're counting on, I'm sure.
Even if I'm safe, my kids won't be, and that pisses me off. Not to mention the fact that they'll probably be finding a way to send my grandsons off to some stupid war somewhere.

I'm so disgusted with this country, I can hardly see straight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maineman Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
118. HELL NO !!!!
I know several people who are hanging onto a job for one reason - to reach Medicare.

Hell no, hell no, hell no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
120. This reminds me of the TARP negotiations.... we all know how that ended.
This has NOTHING to do with deficits or fiscal responsibility of any kind. It is a total failure of Democracy.

Please DEMS... join together. Don't say "No"... say "Hell No!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FlyByNight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
129. Not all change is positive
Hope? Right.

If this is true, stumping for votes from those who vote most reliably ("seniors") will be exceedingly more difficult. "Hey, vote for me. I'm marginally less worse than the other side."

That's some chess game President Obama is playing, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #129
148. Right now, it is a trial balloon being floated by the admin just in time for the 6:00 news
Looks like the hopes are for getting the Republicans to back off their tax line in the sand. I hope the admin knows what they are doing Bernie - because this is going to blow up in their faces when the Rs tell the teabagging crowd that the Dems cut their Medicare and they were powerless to stop it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
julian09 Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #148
166. Republicans really want to kill it for a voucher system
they hope to win in 2012 to finish the job. Stay home on election day and see what happens with Gop control of congress presidency and probably two more right wing supreme court justices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzanner Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
133. reminds me of a time
a song spread around: 'Grandmother is eating our bread, she must be k i ll ed', only it was in German in the time up to and during Hit ler. I was told this periodically by the daughter of a survivor of some prison camp in Germany in the war. She said her father told her this and she was adamant about it. She was my 3rd grade teacher. You could hear the fright in her voice when she went off on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #133
293. Judging by the song, the Germans were remarkably outspoken about such things.


In our society, they mouth platitudes about "family values" and "personal responsibility" but what they really mean is, "Drop dead."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
135. WTF... WTF..... WTF.....
Now that I got that out of my system. If medical costs to the elderly are the concern and the cause of all this unfunded liabilities crap then everyone must acknowledge that it is the costs of the care that are out of control. Until we change the concept that Medical care is a for profit capitalist private industry, the costs will continue to rise unchecked into the future. Medicine in the Private sector is unsustainable. We need cost controls and means testing you pay what you can afford for the care you get. If you make 20k per year and you need an operation then it should be basically free if you make 200k per year the same operation should maybe set you back 2k if you make a million a year that baby will cost you 20k and so on
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #135
151. Consider the costs of insurance under a mandated system (2014) to someone aged 65/66 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
142. They are hoping we're all dead before we qualify...our life expectancy is less
than many other countries, and even Puerto Rico. Dropping in many counties around the country, so it's a good bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justitia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
145. My husband is just biding time until he has Medicare to get a colonoscopy.
One of our friends died 3 wks ago - she was one month from being eligible for Medicare and was waiting to go to the doctor until she had it.

She died of cancer the month before her 65th birthday.

Reading this today almost literally stopped my heart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #145
153. Justitia, I implore you - write the whitehouse and tell them this
No idea if they are listening, but it couldn't hurt.

They floated this trial balloon - tell them what you (we!) think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
147. This is an artificial crisis manufactured by the House Rs.
The debt ceiling has nothing to do with any of this. They can raise the ceiling, avoid disaster and then work out a debt reduction plan. And yeah, anything that increases the number of uninsured people in this country is moving in the wrong direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
right2bfree Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
159. working and fighting chronic illness. Now he wants to raise the age limit?
Might as well apply for SSDI now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DollyM Donating Member (837 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
161. No, this is not the hope and changed that I voted for!
I am beginning to think it is worthless to even vote anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #161
274. Never worthless to vote, but worse than worthless to refrain from voting.
If you don't vote, your vote will surely be spun as dissatisfaction with the left and give more excuses to take the Dem Party, and therefore our ountry. further right.

If you must, write in someone at the top of the ticket. Usually, you can find Democrats down ticket who are good and need your support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #161
275. Never worthless to vote, but worse than worthless to refrain from voting.
If you don't vote, your vote will surely be spun as dissatisfaction with the left and give more excuses to take the Dem Party, and therefore our ountry. further right.

If you must, write in someone at the top of the ticket. Usually, you can find Democrats down ticket who are good and need your support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
larwdem Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
162. stick a fork in him
he's done, the republicans and the media will beat him over the head with that one. we will have a republican in the white house in jan. 2013 :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
169. Disgusting, Obama!! Just what this suffering nation needs .. even less health care -- !!!!
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 07:26 PM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marasinghe Donating Member (754 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
170. WTF (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
man4allcats Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
177. He is truly a great Republican President. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HatTrick Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
178. So, let me see if I have this correct

I am required to fund social security my entire working life, along with other working Americans.

Our last president gives massive tax cuts to the rich, and starts 2+ wars all without paying for it so we now have a massive debt.

Along comes our current President who along with those who voted for the massive tax cuts for the rich wants to now pay off that debt with my social security that many of the rich didn't even contribute to.

I think Obama owes me that $100 dollars I gave him to be come president. Besides I'm likely going to need it now that he wants to give away at lease part of my social security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:33 AM
Response to Reply #178
280. OP is about raising the age for Medicare eligibility, not OASDI eligibility.
Don't feel bad. At lot of posters on this thread understood it that way, or conflated the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
179. More chess. And we, the pawns, get sacrificed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harvey007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
182. Barack Obama IS NOT OUR FRIEND
The President is a deceiver! Don't trust him or any of his ilk in D.C. He is a neo-con/neo-liberal globalist-loving bankster-kissing traitor. The working people and middle class people of the U.S.A. need to tell him and his cronies to go straight to hell!

:argh: :argh: :grr: :grr: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neoralme Donating Member (812 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #182
205. Exactly. And anyone who doesn't see that now is an idiot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #182
303. precisely
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
184. Retirement was kicked to 67 already; for those who retire at 65 it's 2 year wait for Medicare now.
So I'm not sure this is really news. :)

I was surprised to find that many of the changes we've been so shocked about were part of a deal that Clinton made with the GOP during his term, only set to take effect now and we act as if it's something unexpected. It just wasn't revealed at the time, but the people in D.C. knew it was coming. :(

Thanks for the report, anyway, no offense to your OP. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ILFightinDem Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #184
193. Wrong - Medicare is 65 for all - SS is 67
Edited on Mon Jul-11-11 08:33 PM by ILFightinDem
(on edit: Disabled folks can qualify for Medicare earlier than 65 (after a 2 year wait) - otherwise, it's 65 for all)

You're thinking about the Reagan / O'Neill deal that bumped up 'full' SS eligibility to 67 - I'm part of that group who it hit. However, Medicare eligibility wasn't changed as part of that - it retained its eligibility for all who reached 65.

Take a look at most of the posts here - they describe having to get insurance for two more years at the stage of their lives where they're 'least insurable' and coverage will cost them an inordinate amount - if they can get it - oh, wait - the 'affordable health care act' will see that it's available to them (and force them to buy it) - at whatever price the insurance industry wants to charge them.

Reading your post further - what deal did Clinton do with the GOP that affected retirement programs? The only thing I can think of from a health perspective is COBRA - not much, but it's something. Think where we'd be today if the Clinton health care plan had passed. And, no, I'm not a big fan of the Big Dog - he gave us NAFTA, too, and that was the start of the slippery slope we all ride today with our jobs (those of us who still have one).

I'm beginning to think I'm sorry we gave BHO to you, everyone. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #193
202. I read it on another post here on DU. It was in a detailed reply. It was part of how he ended...
The shutdown at the time. I think the thread was about COLAs.

It's the way the GOP has played this game for decades. I remember when they put laws into effect in midnight sessions at the end of the year to diminish Medicare during Clinton's term, too late for debate, to change it into a lot less than it was. That was before the changes they made that went around Medicare's cost reducing efficiencies.

They'd put the changes in so that things covered for many years would no longer be covered and no one could rush in procedures or treatments by announcing it beforehand, so they did it in secret sessions. I'm not kidding, I was paying attention. They actually said that when they did it.

In order to end the shutdown during the Clinton era, concessions were made to many things that we are just now learning about. According to that other DU thread, the COLA reduction and changes with the CPI were already legislated years ago. That they have come into effect doesn't relieve them of anything. That Obama says he will follow the law that was in effect doesn't give them anything new.

As far as there being no waiting period, I was put on social security some years ago and they did not start Medicare for two years afterward. But I'm not your age, probably.

We can agree to disagree about Obama. Have a nice evening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #202
204. Not sure what you are trying to say but 65 is the Medicare age for everyone -
unless you are on disability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #204
211. If people will have to wait until 67 to get SS, they will get Medicare at 65?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #211
282. Yes. You may have waited if you applied for disability.
Edited on Tue Jul-12-11 07:53 AM by No Elephants
Disability applications often take a long time--too long--to process. The disability benefits are retroactive to the application date (with some exceptions and technicalities), but Medicare eligibility is not retroactive. You get Medicare as of the date your application is accepted--no retroactivity to the application date. So, it may seem to a disabled person that there was a two year wait for Medicare, but that is not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #184
278. You're mistaken about the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim_Shorts Donating Member (355 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
190. You guys are way too hard on the prez
Lets just see you collect one billion dollars from your friends to buy your job back.

Besides it's about time that the sick, poor, elderly pitch in and pay their fair share. They have had it way too good for way too long and they should be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.

I wish Barack would just stop waffling and embrace his roots as a moderate ... republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #190
247. Having it "way too good for way too long"-- like Lucky Ducky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #190
279. LOL! When PUMAs and Rethugs used to say that Obama had never run anything,
I would reply "Not true. He's run a highly sucdessful 750 million dollar operation."

So embarrassed now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
196. Bring in revenue you fucking imbeciles!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plumbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
197. Raising the age counts as one of my third rails.
I'll be done with any incumbent that supports this.

Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
198. Appease, appease, appease
and never gets a fucking thing in return, except more abuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unkachuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-11-11 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
200. "...was willing to tackle some sacred cows as part of a larger package ..."
....he's desperate for an agreement rather than defend and fight for what is rightfully ours....

....have we ever considered that maybe he's in over his head?....that the job's too much for him?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oNobodyo Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
222. LOL...it doesn't matter what Obama offers...
The republicans have to be against it...and loand behold they walked away from what is from their perspective a really juicy deal...No matter how good the deal the republicans can't take it...

All Obama has done is hand them all the rope they need to hang themselves...The best thing that the republicans can do now is pass a clean bill to raise the debt ceiling and back away with their tails between their legs...Which is what Obama originally asked for...lol

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #222
288. Don't bet on it. It ain't over til it's over. As far as Obama handing Rethugs a rope
to hang themselves, don't bet on that, either. He may have handed them a rope to hang Democratic politicians on Medicare (and OASDI) and seniors of all Parties. Please see Reply 238.

And so unnecessarily. The 14th amendment requires raising of the debt ceiling. However, just as Grassley was saying that, Obama took the 14th amendment issue off the table, so he could keep negotiating.

We haven't seen too much of the Obama that outmaneuvers Rethugs. Or seems to want to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 01:47 AM
Response to Original message
223. This helps people get medical coverage how?
Oh, wait, that was so 2010.

The first time I saw Obama speak (at the Democratic convention in 2004), I told my husband he would be President one day. Today, I predict he will be a one term President. Too bad. He had such potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
284. Social Security doesn't affect the debt. Why is it on the table?
Is it because the wealthy won't give up one thin dime unless the masses are made to suffer?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
292. "Grand Debt Deal?" As in Great Depression and jumbo shrimp?
Time to put the 14th amendment issue back on the table, Mr. President. Should be plenty of room for it, once you remove all your concessions, as the Republicans are putting nothing on the table. Zip, zilch, nada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-12-11 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
306. This sucks big time!! WTF is wrong with him??
He sucks as a negotiator, I wouldn't dare take him with me to buy a used car. I am just sick of this shit with these professional politicians.

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
somone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
311. Vile. And unnecessary.
But then, no surprise here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-11 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
313. I will not let this leave the main page. Politicians continue to screw us like our lives
Edited on Wed Jul-13-11 02:27 PM by sarcasmo
mean nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC