President Obama Publicly Supports Means-Testing Medicare - requiring wealthier seniors to pay more

[jefferson_dem]

Hmmm...

President Obama Publicly Supports Means-Testing Medicare
July 15, 2011 12:12 PM

President Obama indicated today that he would be open to means-testing Medicare – requiring wealthier seniors to pay more -- as part of a compromise plan to reduce the deficit.

“I've said that means-testing on Medicare, meaning people like myself,…you can envision a situation where, for somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays or things like that would be appropriate,” the president said in response to a question from ABC News. “That could make a difference.”

The president said in any negotiation “we should make sure that current beneficiaries, as much as possible, are not affected, but we should look at what can we do in the out years so that, over time, some of these programs are more sustainable.”

He argued that he would not be willing to go so far as to change Medicare in any major way, as has been proposed by House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisc. “What we're not willing to do is to restructure the program in the ways that we've seen coming out of the House over the last several months, where we would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6,000 more.”

<SNIP>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/president-obama-publicly-supports-means-testing-medicare.html

[CakeGrrl]

1. Makes sense. As much as asking the very rich to return to their tax rates. -nt

[DURHAM D]

2. Someone needs to take Obama aside and explain some things.

Seniors already pay more if they make more at/after 65. Not saying it should not be tweaked but the policy is already in place.

Edit: From the article: The president also suggested that there could be deficit reduction through savings in pharmaceuticals. “Drug companies, for example, are still doing very well through the Medicare program, and although we have made drugs more available at a cheaper price to seniors who are in Medicare, through the Affordable Care Act, there's more work to potential be done there,” he said.

oh the irony...

[bornskeptic]

6. Higher income enrollees pay more in Part B premiums,

but not in copays or coinsurance, which is what the President was talking about.

[DURHAM D]

8. Sorry but he missed the basics -

"to pay a little bit more on premiums"

That is my point - they already are.

I don't think he has a grasp on the actual existing policy. Or, if he does, he went off message.

[Inuca]

12. You really think he

does not have "a grasp"? REALLY?

The president said he was ready to make tough decisions such as restructuring social programs so that very wealthy recipients would have to pay slightly more for medical benefits. He said he had stressed to Republicans that anything they looked at should not affect current beneficiaries, and he said providers such as drug companies could be targeted for cuts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43765362/ns/politics/

[DURHAM D]

14. I am basing my comments on actual quote from the President.

You are not.

[Inuca]

16. The quote being.... ? n/t

[DURHAM D]

18. Just read the article in the OP and watch for these: ".

[Inuca]

22. Oh! THAT kind of quote!

Being a smart ass does not make you right. Incidentaly, I DID read the article. And I will not reply further, because if that's the level of your conversation, I see no reason to continue.

[DURHAM D]

25. "I see no reason to continue"

I could not agree more.

You have been called out by another poster but you just keep at it.

Done

[Jakes Progress]

30. Good move. When you have nothing to add, best to stop trying.

[Jakes Progress]

20. Do you?

How does your "quote" prove that the president has a good grasp on how Medicare payments and the overall system works?

If that is what you look for for proof of competence, you lack intellectual rigor in your judgments.

Please examine your exchange with the poster again. You may very well be able to find some evidence somewhere, but a unattributed quote saying the president is ready to make tough decisions is not proof (or even germane) to the concept you tried to refute. Please try again.

[Inuca]

24. The quote does not prove good grasp

just a reminder of what he was talking about. The good grasp is "proven" (in quotes because it not the kind of thing that can be proven in proper sense of the word) by the way he talks about a multitude of topics and off the cuff in the years he hsa been in the public eye. He does not know "everything", nobody obviously does, but I think he has proven many times over taht, generally speaking, he has a "good grasp".

[Jakes Progress]

29. So your statement is just your general feeling?

That's okay. We all have general feelings. I tend to agree with the poster who questions the president's true grasp of how the system works. My "feeling" is based on statements that indicate that he doesn't understand the difference between premiums, co-pays, and patient expenses and a disturbing lack of knowledge that there is already a type of what might be called means testing already in place.

The president could clarify his understanding by giving more details other than just "supporting" means testing.

[virgdem]

3. Finally, some definitive language from Obama..

as to what his intentions are concerning Medicare. Means testing is the way to go - make those wealthier seniors pay more for receiving Medicare benefits but do not restructure so as to take away benefits from the poor and middle class. The fix for Social Security is much easier - simple raise the cap on the amount of income that goes to SS.

[DURHAM D]

4. The fix for Medicare is also very simple.

Just raise the contribution on earned wages from employers/employees. It has not been raised in 25 years. It is very low.

[Hawkowl]

13. Not on EARNED WAGES

Just simply apply the SS and Medicare taxes to ALL INCOME. In fact, keep the cap on wages, and let the tax rate apply to all income above $100k. For too long those who don't earn wages have gotten out of paying for SS and medicare.

[DURHAM D]

17. I totally agree with your comment -

"For too long those who don't earn wages have gotten out of paying for SS and medicare."

I can not even begin to think how that policy legislation (re: this is taxed vs. this is not taxed) would be fairly written, much less administered but someone needs to do the hard work and get started now.

[Logical]

5. So be punished for being frugal and saving! Brilliant Mr. President! n-t

[FrenchieCat]

9. Paying a bit more cause one can afford it IS being frugal....Doh!

Do you also believe that well to do Frugal people are Job creators? :eyes:

[Fire1]

23. I think that got lost in "their" translation. n/t

[Ignis]

27. That word...it does not mean what you think it means.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Are you one of those who believes the president should let the Bush tax cuts expire?

How is this different? We knew someone's ox would be goared, and why not let it be the top income earners? :shrug:
Other than just sheer Obama hate, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. A "frugal" millionaire? :rofl:

For people earning the kind of money that the president does, they can certainly afford to pay more. Warren Buffett & Rupert Murdoch don't need subsidized healthcare.

"Progressives" at some point, are gonna have to decide on a standardized set of talking points, and stick to 'em. We either want the rich to put more into the system, or we don't. Can't have it both ways forever.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

7. A similar measure was just passed in Italy

as part of its (our) austerity measures. People who are well-off can afford to pay more into the system and/or contribute out of their own pockets. I don't see why that's so hard in this country to do this. Italy did that with Berlusconi's coalition in power... Even they voted for this, with little to no debate.

[Hawkowl]

10. SS would not longer be egalitarian

The reason SS has lasted so long is it treats all workers equal. I'm all for TAXING the wealthier more. But cutting people's benefits because they have WORKED their entire lives and now have a nest egg to make retirement a bit bearable is not the way to go.

I'd rather that ALL income, not just wages, was taxed at the SS and medicare rates. Why is this never discussed? Because SS is for the "little" people, i.e; the workers. If you don't have to work for a living, and you get your income from investments, rentals, dividends, stock options, and hedge funds' capital gains, you don't have to pay ANY SS TAX!!!

It is times like these where you get to believe one of two things about Obama. He is either stupid (very unlikely) because he doesn't understand economics or policy or the way these programs work, or he is just flat out against working people, and in the hip pocket of the oligarchs who run this country.

[Inuca]

15. Putting aside the fact

that personally I could not care less whether SS is "egalitarian" or not (I will NEED my SS, a millionaire would be able to use to buy bird food, doea that make us "equals"?), where on earth in the OP quote or in the linked article or anywhere else did you see anything that could LOGICALLY lead to your conclusions?!?!?! The context was about rich people having to pay more for medicare benfits; does this put Obama in the oligarch's pockets? Amazing & sad.

[Hawkowl]

19. My bad

I was assuming that people actually had a bit of historical context as to why SS was constructed the way it was and why it has remained so for 80 years!

I'm saying that it is more income progressive and revenue positive to simply tax the rich more, greater than their comparitely miniscule benefits, to reform SS and Medicare. Rather than FUCKING WITH THE BASIC PREMISE OF SS WHICH HAS WORKED FOR 80 YEARS.

The reason Obama won't do this, even in the face of 80% of the public calling for increasing taxes on the rich, is his cowardice in biting the hand that feeds his re-election coffers.







(edited for good manners)

[Inuca]

26. I deifnitely agree on the

"tax the rich more" part, and I know (though not in detail, I am foreign born, so I did not grow up with this nor did I study it in school) about the equalitarian premise of SS. You said it yourself: "historical context", the context is different now, I think. And in any case, the comment was purely personal, I presonally could nto care less about this aspect of SS, if others do, that's fine. My criticism was about the Medicare part.

And incidentally, I can manage long words just fine, and I will never understand the need to demean somebody rather than just discussing an issue, in as passionate or even biased terms as one wants. What did you gain by putting in the "smaller words" part? Did it make your argument stronger?

[Vattel]

21. Does he still favor raising the eligibility age to 67?

Or was that part of some bluff? Maybe this is a bluff too? Who the fuck knows what is going on right now?

[Inuca]

28. IMHO, we'll probably never know

The way I see, rightly or wrongly, I have no idea, is that he thinks that if you want to have a chance, even a sliver of a chance, for the party you are bargaining with to be willing to accept something that they (in their be-nighted ignorance) keep claiming is completely unacceptable (and I am of courses refering to tax increases), you have to put in the proverbial table something that it is normally considered unacceptable by your side. Whether this is called bluffing or not, and what you do if your bluff is called, I have no idea, I am a TERRIBLE poker player.