Medicare CUTS Reportedly Part Of Framework For “FISCAL CLIFF” Deal

[Segami]

As the talks over a budget deal heat up, reports of an early framework to avoid the “fiscal cliff” show that cuts to entitlements could be a key part of the negotiations.


Politico reports on the early shape of the deal:

Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach. Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion — and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The two men had what one insider described as a short, curt conversation Wednesday night — but the private lines of communications remain very much open.

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/84364.html?hp=t1

“[Obama] is committed, every time he talks about this, to a balanced approach that includes both, you know, revenues, spending cuts and savings through entitlement reforms,” said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, according to the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/us/politics/president-obama-asks-congress-to-keep-tax-cuts-for-middle-class.html?_r=1&

Democrats like Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin have said that they will fight any attempts to cut Obama’s health care law or privatize Social Security and Medicare.

”Those conversations should not be a part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff,” Durbin said this week. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt, recently made a similar argument: “Do not cut Social Security, do not cut Medicare, do not cut Medicaid and do not provide more tax breaks to the top 2 percent, who are doing phenomenally well and, in many cases, have never had it so good.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/27/senator-richard-durbin-fiscal-cliff/1728713/

But Roll Call reports that some liberals are resigned to the fact that in order for a deal to be reached, some cuts to entitlements will have to be made:

Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said most Democrats will accept some changes in entitlement programs, provided Republicans go along with substantial revenue increases. “But it’s going to be a tricky balancing act,” he said.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/liberals_start_to_see_entitlement_trims_as_inevitable-219493-1.html

Today, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and senior White House aide Rob Nabors will meet with leadership of both the House and the Senate to further discuss a possible deal.



http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/medicare_cuts_reportedly_part_of_framework_for_fiscal_cliff_deal/

[leftstreet]

1. FFS! Has Obama negotiated ANYTHING for us in 4 yrs?

[HereSince1628]

2. It's another one of those times when identifying what is not said is critical.

Unfortunately, that probably leaves more room to worry about what's being wiggled away than what's actually being wiggled away.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. Let me get this in early ...

before Du goes all

Does anyone recall HOW President Obama said that Medicare would realize any cuts?

Oh yeah ... efficiency savings, paying for out-comes - not procedures, etc.

Okay ... Have at it, DU! Sorry to interrupt.

[sunwyn]

8. Thank you for the injection of sanity...

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. Unfortunately ...

I type very slowly ... Others got out first.

[Angry Dragon]

4. I will wait and see

it does not matter what Obama and boner agree on
Congress still will debate it

[librechik]

6. relax! this is the same half trillion that the Repubs claimed we were cutting out of Medicare

during the election. It's savings scraped out by restructuring payments to providers and so on. The Repubs have already agreed to cut that amount, the same way (altho they preferred to pretyend that only Obama was going to make the cuts.

Current beneficiaries will not be affected by the cuts. It's a good thing--Don't let them panic you.

[Segami]

7. I'm not panicking at all. Voters are watching closely and Dems will PAY dearly in 2014 & 2016

if they don't follow through with representing the wishes of the majority electorate who gave them four more years.


At the end of the day, the devil will be in the FINAL details.

[bullwinkle428]

13. 2014 could turn out to be a freaking bloodbath for Democrats depending on

the way things shake out in these negotiations.

[hogwyld]

9. Forgive my injection here

But could those saving be tied to allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharma? I don't recall where, but I read that Medicare could save hundreds of billions if they were permitted to do that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. Shhh ...

Your ruining the "They're gutting Medicare" vibe, with a CUT that doesn't GUT!

[cbayer]

16. Exactly. Taking a rigid stand on this is really self-defeating.

:

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. Politico makes pseudo-progressives do tricks by the ringing of a bell

Jump! Snarl! Pout!

Politico has them trained quite well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. LOL ...

Wouldn't it be far simplier for many of the usual suspects to go to the drudgereport; rather than having to sift through Politicos?

[Ikonoklast]

18. They get played harder than a dime-store banjo. Every. Single. Time.

Politico was funded and is run by Republicans, and the gullible take their propaganda as truth.

[cbayer]

15. There are places where cuts can be made to Medicare. That doesn't necessarily

mean that patient benefits will be cut.

It is a mistake to be too rigid about this, imo.

[forestpath]

17. SURPRISE!

[jtuck004]

19. "... said most Democrats will accept some changes in entitlement programs ..."

You got Tim Geithner involved? Was Trump not available to argue for our side? He's at least as strong an advocate, if not more so.

Just fyi: if you are cutting a current benefit to the most vulnerable in our population, as reported here, I will not stand with you on that.

Especially not while you are paying, and will continue paying, more than $40 billion a month to people who can afford $2 billion mortgage-backed security packages so they won't lose money. While we are throwing 700,000 people out of their homes this year. All so our money won't become worth less. Because that would drive up the price of our Walmart junk and we would have to create jobs here to satisfy the demand and pay people enough to live on. Because then they wouldn't have to depend on rich elected officials that turn their back on them when they can't defend themselves, only to to defend a rich friend's bank accounts.

I'll wait for details, but I signed up to fight against shit like that a long time ago, and that hasn't changed.