Tax cuts for the rich and cut Medicare for the elderly?

[INdemo]

Do you still believe President Obama is a Democrat??

[dkf]

1. Medicare costs are unsustainable.

When are we going to understand what is going on?

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. Then we go after those that set the cost.

The insurance companies.

[dkf]

5. That's not it.

It's our specialists, our excessive testing, our services driven profit model, our uninsured, our inefficiencies, etc.

Medicare and our healthcare system are unfixable. The only solution is single payer and rationing.

[Hannah Bell]

7. health care is already rationed. what are you talking about?

[dkf]

24. It's rationed by keeping some people out.

Do most countries spend half of a person's lifetime medical costs on the last 2 months of life?

My uncle underwent chemotherapy 3 weeks before he died and later they kept his body going so his kids could see him even though he was already pretty much gone. I guess those were humane options but I'm not sure they made sense.

[Bonhomme Richard]

11. Single payer...+1

[ejpoeta]

14. rationing? a big part of the problem is the focus on treating instead of prevention.

considering the burden is on the individual because of the high deductibles, then they don't go to the doctor at all unless absolutely necessary. this means that something that could have been caught at a point where a simple prescription might have fixed it now turns into all kinds of other tests and treatments or hospitalization. Or people ending up in the ER for something that could have been something a general doctor could have dealt with a lot cheaper weeks ago. it isn't 'specialist, excessive testing' so much as it is the desire for insurance companies to NOT have the tests done at all when they should be. sure pay per service model is a problem too, but I know that I have to fight with my doctor to get any tests done..... i have a family history of diabetes you wouldn't believe!! my dad had it, mom mom had it, my grandpa had it, several aunts and uncles..... yet it's like pulling teeth to get them to test my blood sugar!!

[Scuba]

13. No they're not. We just need more revenue. n/t

[newspeak]

29. hmm, Canadian health care

has lower costs. Maybe we need to look at a people model instead of a greed model. Also subsidizing medical school for those who really want to be in medicine to help people (like my friend) over making mega bucks. As shown in MM's film, the doctors in Great Britain are making decent wages-it helps if they don't have to pay student fees for half of their life.

[Curmudgeoness]

30. And what is your answer? What do we do?

Are we going to basically kill off all the old people, except of course the wealthiest who can pay for whatever they need? Exactly how do you expect older people to afford any kind of health insurance? Hell, people you are young and have "pre-existing conditions" like high blood pressure or high cholestrol can't afford the prices they are asked to pay, and they are still able to work.

You need to learn more about history before Medicare to understand that this is something necessary. Unless you just want everyone to die before they collect much Social Security. Then you solve all the problems.

[mmonk]

3. Well certainly not a Roosevelt Democrat.

He is a "New Democrat" it seems. I'm not one of those personally and I have decided if "New Democrats" are what the Democratic Party is, then I will leave it and remain progressive which I have always been.

[peacebird]

4. your link? Because that is not what the LA Times or AP is reporting

"President Obama will call for shrinking the nation's long-term deficits by raising taxes on wealthier Americans and requiring them to pay more into Social Security, drawing a barbed contrast with a Republican plan to save money by deeply slashing Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending.

Obama will offer some spending cuts, including trims to the Pentagon's budget, but his speech Wednesday is likely to provide Americans with a vivid choice between higher taxes or fewer benefits, issues that will color the national debate straight through the 2012 election."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-spending-20110412,0,2255928.story

[Warren Stupidity]

6. It is called shared sacrifice. nt.

[INdemo]

12. My point is ..he fought like hell to pass

the tax cut extension for the rich. Now, without a fight he is going to allow cuts in medicare,medicaid. It was Democats(not these type of Democrats) that fought for almost 50 years to protect Medicare,Medicaid and Social Security and now we have a Democratic President proposing to cut medicare,and other programs in favor of tax cuts for the rich.Now it has been mention by admin officials that a tax increase proposal is on the table?? But hey this is the same guy that preached tax increases for the wealthy for nearly two years of his campaign.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. It is called irony. nt

[daa]

23. Shared sacrafice is NOT MORE TAX CUTS for the rich period nt

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Sure it is.

They sacrifice their taxes we sacrifice our entitlements.

[BzaDem]

8. In reality, Obama's proposal is EXACTLY the opposite.

He is proposing not only to let all the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy expire -- he also wants to raise the SS payroll cap.

As far as Medicare, he is going after delivery reform (such as paying doctors based on quality, instead of quantity). There is a huge difference between delivery reform (which even the most liberal economists acknowledge we need) and Ryan-style benefit cuts (and gradual wholesale elimination) of benefits to actual Seniors.

[mmonk]

9. Why didn't he let it expire when he had the chance?

Words are cheap and I'm learning that lesson more every day.

[BzaDem]

10. You know exactly why.

Unlike some here, who are more than happy to see families at the poverty line have 2k per year taken from them, Obama felt it was important to NOT cause another recession by taking 330 billion per year of poor and middle class consumer demand out of the economy when unemployment is at 9% (violating his promise not to raise taxes on those below 250).

Good for him.

[mmonk]

15. You're talking to the wrong person. I'm not a supply sider.

If the tax cuts work so well, why have we been in the greatest recession since the great depression?

[BzaDem]

20. You apparently don't even know what supply side economics is.

Supply side economics is about the supposed incentive effects of lowering the top marginal rates.

It has NOTHING to do with progressive tax credits for the poor, like the earned income tax credit.

Do you think the earned income tax credit should be repealed? I would love to hear an answer to that one.

[piratefish08]

17. NOT cause another recession......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[progressoid]

19. If he couldn't rally the troops then, how's that going to work now?

In case you haven't noticed, we have even fewer in the House and Senate.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Nobody at the poverty line has 2,000 in tax liability. A marginal increase isn't 2k.

What a joke!

The whole deal is a resource funnel to the top 20%, that is where the lion's share of the benefit goes even if the rates for the top 2% actually went up.

Tax rates on upper incomes are too low to encourage investment and the economy cannot be repaired while the entire point to existence is to put money into a few peoples overstuffed pockets with no jobs created, no goods sold, and no services rendered.

[BzaDem]

28. The joke is on you. People at the poverty line get BACK money from the government, and without this

deal, families of 4 would have gotten back 2k less than they did before.

Denying reality doesn't change reality.

[TheKentuckian]

31. You don't have an increase greater than your liability.

The folks at the poverty line are cover for the reality that the lion's share is for the upper class and a distraction from the jacked up incentives not to invest which will kill job growth and inhibit income balance.

[KharmaTrain]

18. He Didn't Have A Chance...

He didn't have 60 votes in the Senate to end the booosh tax breaks to the rich. He extended the cuts (didn't make them permanent like some like to believe) in exchange for not raising taxes on the rest of us and to provide extended benefits. It's called a compromise. Now we can discuss how poor this President is at bargaining, but had he had the votes, the booosh cuts would have been history. But unfortunately there were Democrats who feared that evil "raise taxes" label and supported the GOTB. To say he kept the cuts is not true...he extended them in hopes to get other things passed in a dysfunctional legislature that is even more screwed up now.

[TheKentuckian]

25. Yes he did. He could have allowed them to expire which means the taxes really went up

then had targeted relief proposed which would have truly decoupled the brackets and prevented Republicans and Third Way fuckheads from hiding behind principle or going for the whole ball of wax.

We never cut off the line of retreat for them. We failed to force them to vote against "middle class" cuts because they could always argue they were opposing any tax increases for anyone. That option was never removed and they instead were asked if they'd be willing to vote for a package without breaks for the upper crusts and then how about we exclude millionaires?

They can politically afford to say no to those because they can still just be against all increases. To move them you had to risk them saying no to "middle class" relief and EVERYONE'S rate going up.

DINOcraps were straight up too stupid, weak, complicit, or whatever to say Bush's tax cuts expired as designed, we proposed relief for working and poor families, and these fuckhead toadies of the wealthy told hardworking Americans to go to hell, IF the pukes failed to vote for the bill.

We are risk adverse and likely complicit in a game.

Clean bills are hard to spin, especially in light of reality rather than a hypothetical.

[KharmaTrain]

26. Playing On The Wrong Side Of The Field...

I won't defend this administration's "ability" of letting the other sides frame the fight and then are stuck on their turf. It's maddening cause we've seen time again how the right wing will continue to move the goal posts and put this administration and the Democratic party on the defensive.

One can blame the beltway bubble where there's no real affect upon the lives of the chattering classes on their lives. They don't worry about where the next paycheck comes from or how to make the money last the month...or not having a steady income. All they see are the cartoons painted on the teevee and what their pollsters and aids tell them (which is generally what they want to hear). The disconnect gets worse by the day and with it so does the polarization that makes almost any legilsation a major fight...and generally with the Democrats caving to prove they are "the adults".

My point is by the time this administration attempted to stand up (which they always do with the initial statements before they retreat) for letting the boooosh cuts die the debate had already moved on...too many in the legislative had either gone on record or signaled that they didn't want the tax cuts to expire...by then it's too late. We saw it also on the budget and I fear we'll see it on the debt ceiling and 2012 budget.

I can't blame people for being real pisses...I have been for quite a while myself, but I see a bigger disconnect happening between the beltway and where most of us live.

Cheers...

[upi402]

22. No. He's not the only wolf in the chicken coup either. n/t

k/r