Tweet
President Obama signs the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
When it comes to properly judging a major piece of legislation such as the Affordable Care Act, it is important not just to examine what the law does, but also what else the law allows Congress and the President to do as a result. In this case, the passage of the ACA has made President Obama open to the idea of raising the Medicare eligibility age as part of a deficit deal. If Obama agrees to this it will very likely mean that the net effect of the passage of Obamacare will make you and most Americans personally worse off.
Raising the Medicare age from 65 to 67 was previously an unthinkable policy, but the administration now believes it is more acceptable since most of those seniors could still technically get access to some form of insurance under the ACA. This logic depends on the ACA actually working as intended and all states expanding Medicaid, both of which are very big ifs as this point.
Even if the ACA works as planned, the issue is that increasing the Medicare age is still a truly horrible policy. Medicare is significantly more cost effective than private insurance. Being forced to remain on private insurance for an extra two years would make most people pay more for health care in those two years of their life.
That is only the beginning of the problems. Old people tend to have higher medical costs. Forcing them to remain in the private insurance world would increase costs for the entire risk pool. That means if you are one of the tens of millions of adults who get insurance from work or through a union your premiums may increase thanks to older co-workers remaining on these plans. It would force some of these seniors into Medicaid at some additional expense to the state. States would likely need to increase taxes or divert funds away from other programs.
The ACA is at least meant to make a share of lower income Americans better off, but if Obamacare gives Obama an excuse to increase the Medicare age, that needed to be weighed against the damage its passage will end up doing to the vast majority of Americans. Obama’s signature law has struggled to gain popular support, this possible move definitely won’t help.
Official White House photo by Pete Souza.
101 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
So if a person has worked hard at manual labor all his life and retires at 65 bc his body can’t take it anymore, he gets to buy private insurance for two years. Is that about right ? Sounds cruel and just a tad immoral. But hey it’s the deficit you know.
I agree that there is no reason to trust Obama on this but;
is pretty absurd, especially in light of the fact that the post you linked to was just Ezra Klein speculating. He said “The White House” or “Administration”, in stead of names of people. And there were no quotes or even hints of quotes, just Klein typing out words. That post sounds more like Ezra Klein trying to sell his opinion to the White House than the reverse. Again, I have no reason to trust the Obama administration and I would be the last one to encourage others to do that but this post is just a house of speculative cards Jon. It’s beneath you.
I have been betting local progressives that Obama will cave, and this is one of those compromises we have come to expect. As we spend horrendous amounts of money on foreign wars, local excessive and frightening militarization, gifts to bankers and Wall Street, lavish subsidies on the most polluting and costly carbon based energy sources, and give billions to Big Pharma, Big Agribusiness, and Cayman Island tax havens, the poor and middle class will still have to pay and approve of the yachts and mansions of the greedy, avaricious, predatory 2% of the US and the rest of the world. Who ever thought that Obama and the Democrats represented Hope must now be hiding or cowering in some dark corner. If this can happen in a “democracy”, then we now know how hopeless and humiliating it must truly be to live under a tyrant.
I will happily hold on to that glimmer of hope you have But for whatever reason I recall this being said before. We will know for sure before too long.,
Raising the Medicare age 2 years in exchange for top tax rates going up 2%.
Or he could do nothing and get a 4% tax increase.
What a deal.
No, they’ll still be right out there, loud and visible, defending their god king. People generally put way too much trust in politicians–of any stripe. And give way too much deference.
Such a deal already.
I see no mention at all of the need for progressives to make the public case for hiking taxes, and making the case that anyone signing the Norquist pledge is vowing to violate the US Constitution in the first enumerated power of Congress to pay for the general welfare and debt.
Obama has been fighting publicly for year for tax hikes to pay for the kind of government progressives claim to want, but he stands virtually alone in fighting to get Congress to vote bipartisan for higher taxes.
Republicans are opposed to hiking taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
And while polling and Obama’s reelection indicate strong bipartisan support for hiking taxes on the wealthiest, voters continue to vote for Republicans who are pledged to never do what these voters believe is the right thing to do, because Republicans believe workers should not have Medicare at all so the rich pay little or no taxes.
So why you blame Obama for the Congress with Republican majority that is determined to end Medicare and got there by the votes of people who want no change to Medicare yet vote Republican to get tax cuts for everyone, which Republicans will pay for by ending Medicare.
What don’t you get?? Voters reward Republicans who attack Medicare and vow to kill it because they think they get lower taxes, and free Medicare. But that does not work.
If you are opposed to cuts in Medicare and Social Security, you need to make sure not a single Republican who signed the Norquist pledge ever gets elected.
It wasn’t Republicans who put Medicare and Social Security “on the table.”
Okay, so here is some experience that is far from speculation. Right now, I work for my own very small business. Currently, I make $ 70 too much to have access to any “help” or assistance from anyone in the state regarding health care.
However the state of California is one of the states that has an “exchange” that is up and running. So I visit the site, to find out that for both of us, as we are over 58, our monthly premiums for health insurance would be $ 1,117. Do the math. That is $ 13,404 per year, almost half of what we make.
But there’s more. Yes! behind Door Number Two is this – there are $ 5,000 annual deductibles required, per person per household. So there is the fact that I have to spend, in addition to the 13,404 bucks, another ten thousand dollars before I get a single penny spent on either of us from the “health insurance coverage” on the state run exchange program.
And behind Door Number Three – there are Co-Pays.
Tell me what is wrong with this picture.
I’m glad you want to pay higher taxes as well. I think everyone should be paying the higher taxes of the 90s because the Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts have only killed jobs, so hiking taxes on everyone should reverse the job killing aspects of the past 12 years of destructive tax cuts.
Raise Medicare eligibility to age 67? What’s not to like?
Lots.
Plus: All in all, the projection is that increasing the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would save the federal government some $5.4 billion, net, in 2014 and would result in increased costs for individuals, employers, and states of about $11.7 billion.
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/12/raise_medicare_eligibility_to.html
There are still a lot of people under the spell that don’t understand how he operates.
Obama campaigns on taxing the rich without specifying what will have to be given up.
Remember the public option and the beginning of campaigning for health care reform? Sounded like a real universal plan. Then he got donors money and broad based support and it’s discovered that not only will there be no public option, but anybody trying to talk about Medicare For All/Single Payer to the committees risked being thrown out on the street like dirt or jailed.
Apparently you and I see two entirely different Obama’s out there and running the nation. Your Obama has been fighting for years for hikes on those who can afford them. My Obama is the one who in Dec 2010 immediately decided that he had the negotiating skills such that he rather instantly extended the Bush era tax rate cuts – tax cuts that hiked the deficit some 2.1 trillions of dollars.
Furthermore, the knowledgeable and old school Democrat, Pete DeFazio, Congressman from Ore, tried to tell all of us last week that the President and Democratic Congress members best ploy would be to simply not engage in any discussion of the Fiscal Cliff, but instead wait until after Jan 20th, when the new Congress is in session. After all, on that date, Congress regains Democratic control of the Senate. And what would happen if nothing is done about the “Fiscal Cliff” until after Jan 20 2013? Why, the Bush era, Obama-extended tax cuts would expire on Dec 31st 2012, returning a great deal of the 2.1 trillions of dollars those tax rate cuts were costing us.
Yet for some reason, no one at the WH, or in Dem leadership positions is willing to do this – to simply back off, stall and wait.
Well,well Mr Walker, you were a fierce supporter of Omabalosicare law, the Affordable for insurers-government and Unaffordable for people law,why are
you whining about ?.
The Republican put Medicare and Social Security cuts on the table the day these programs were passed. It has only been the result of voters electing people who believe in taxing using the first enumerated power of Congress, mostly Democrats, that these programs have not been cut or eliminated.
When the voters elect Republicans, the voters put Medicare and Social Security on the table, and on the top of the pile, on top of any tax hikes, and Republicans are always trying to burn the paper that calls for higher taxes.
Obama is the president of the United States, not the president of the voters who voted Democratic, so Obama must deal with the voters who want Medicare and Social Security cuts because they put those cuts at the top of the list in the House.
Now, on Medicare, Obama is going after the entitlements that Republicans give the corporations and doctor to operate bloated inefficient paperwork focused medical industries seeking higher profits paid for by individuals. And not even Medicare for all does anything to cut the outrageously high US health care costs. Medicare plus Medicaid plus the medical related welfare and research is enough to provide Canadian levels of health care to every American, but Medicare for all would cost almost twice as much as Canada’s Medicare because the delivery system in the US is too bloated and inefficient. It is not the profits that make our health care too expensive, but an unwillingness to drive change, which means major cost savings.
If you want enormous waste in US health care, you need to go out and campaign for much higher taxes to pay for the waste you want.
There you go, if you don’t buy, pay the tax disguise as penalty.
Actually that would seem to be the best negotiating strategy. Take it away from them and make them come to you. Best thing he could do would be to take a long holiday vacation.
“Democratic control of the Senate” next year?
Discounting that it’s a slight majority and not control, why would it matter?
that’s simple NOT TRUE.Go back to school and do the math.
I don’t recall that.
Let’s see, Clinton ignored the lobbyists and money and got beat so bad on health reform that everything he set out to do was killed off.
Because voters which included lots of progressives voted in lots of Republicans, and then like in 1994, voted in even more even after Obama cut deals with the money, and you are bitching that Obama failed to go it all alone and do everything like he was dictator and there is no Congress.
What did you do to create a counter movement to the Tea Party? What did you do to increase the number of Democrats in Congress in 2010 as a signal to revisit health reform and financial regulation and do more?
We do not need to reduce Medicare in order to pay for it. That part is easy. Our government has no problem at all with that. The hard part is reducing the cost and inefficiencies of the system.
Run the numbers again separately. My husband and I qualified for nothing married, divorced we both got full assistance. Now that he’s got a new better paying job, we still have to get divorced because in order to add me to his plan at work, he’d pay $1000/month just for me and I’m a healthy 51 y/o.
No, he could have done what Democrats are supposed to do, and have historically done, and treated Medicare and Social Security as the “third rail” of politics and not to be part of any bargain.
It’s all very well to be critical of the Grover Norquist pledge, but please, can’t Democratic voters make some minimal demands on their own elected officials instead of excuse after excuse? Obama also the President of racists, homophobes, drug dealers, and people who litter, if they happen to also be voters. By your logic does he have to do their bidding as well?
Um, the Covered California Health Exchange isn’t up and running until January 2014.
At HBEX itself this very moment, there is no place to generate a quote for insurance, or enter information to qualify oneself.
Just saying…
I agree that a WH willingness to raise the age because of the ACA remains a matter of unsupported conjecture in Jon’s piece, Margaret. But did you read to the end?
“We’ve had conversations where [President Obama] told me he’ll go much further than anyone believes he’ll go to solve the entitlement problem if he can get the compromise,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) told me [Klein] back in May. “And I believe him. I believe he would.”
Mr. Obama’s willingness to sell us out WHATEVER the reason or pretext remains a far bigger issue, no? It baffles me that this looms as a powerful presidential “legacy” to these people. . .
You make good points. But I am holding out hope yet bc his destiny with history is now at stake. If he does anything really unpopular now with the democratic base, he may not have any chance of recovering. His legacy may be set forever.
Raising the Medicare eligibility age will:
1) Result in higher costs ultimately paid for by individuals way in excess of what the federal government “saves”
2) Keep some number, probably several hundred thousand, of older people in the work force because not working means not having insurance and they cannot afford COBRA, much less exchanges.
The best thing for the country with our half baked recovery going lamely would be for loads of older people to voluntarily retire, opening up positions for out of work individuals. Plus, increased job mobility may result. All good for a recovery.
Because the best thing for the country would be for lots of older people to retire and a decreased Medicare eligibility age would accomplish this, it is the height of dumbness to go the other direction and increase the Medicare eligibility age.
Dumb, cruel, maybe even immoral. And this one is “on the table” and only under consideration because Obama et all are willing to consider it.
Letting the fiscal cliff crumble is a much better solution. It also increases those taxes as mulp so desires.
The FACT remains that neither Obama nor anyone in his administration has suggested raising the eligibility age to qualify for medicare. If anybody can find a quote with a link, I’ll happily read it. Again, I don;t trust the guy one bit but I’m not going to borrow trouble.
I am never going to defend Obamanible Care, never, no way, not happening. But this post is about raising the eligibility age for medicare, something you never mention in your comment to me. Tell me, show me a link where anybody in this administration has said “Let’s raise the age for medicare” and I’ll stfu and go away.
Dude, that was Tom Global-warming-is-a-hoax Coburn. NOT an unimpeachable source of information about anything. One can’t deride Coburn’s buffoonery on one subject and then take his word as the gospel truth where it fits your opinion/speculation.
Raising the Medicare eligibility age will: 1) Result in higher costs ultimately paid for by individuals way in excess of what the federal government “saves” 2) Keep some number, probably several hundred thousand, of older people in the work force because not working means not having insurance and they cannot afford COBRA, much less exchanges. The best thing for the country with our half baked recovery going lamely would be for loads of older people to voluntarily retire, opening up positions for out of work individuals. Plus, increased job mobility may result. All good for a recovery. Because the best thing for the country would be for lots of older people to retire and a decreased Medicare eligibility age would accomplish this, it is the height of dumbness to go the other direction and increase the Medicare eligibility age. Dumb, cruel, maybe even immoral. And this one is “on the table” and only under consideration because Obama et all are willing to consider it. Letting the fiscal cliff crumble is a much better solution. It also increases those taxes as mulp so desires.
I think you are right. But Ezra and Chait suggested it. Now Ezra is talking about using age as a means test. I wonder if these are not trial balloons.
Since all this is being negotiated in secret, there’s no way to know for sure. But it’s reasonable to assume that when O talks about entitlement reform, he’s not talking about subsidies for Big Ag. Also, Robert Reight (sp?) has openly endorsed raising the age.
Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait are not members of the administration. They aren’t even properly toady media. I’ll be more than happy to help you guys slam Obama for this crime but I think I’m going to let him commit it, or at least publicly consider committing it, first.
Um, no if you’re talking about Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary, he has not taken that position in the least.
Is everyone operating in a fact free comment environment? Jeezus.
Here’s one link:
I know this happened a whole year ago, but Obama has put raising the Medicare eligibility age on the table before:
This is hilarious, in the words of a famous chinese diner ” you order shit you eat shit”. lol. Most progressives voted for a president who has been unfriendly to middle class and poor people since he got in the white house. O is for the rich and the powerful and your about to find this out the hard way. If he cuts ssi or raises medicare eligibility ages remember this, it cldve been worse it cldve been Romney making those cuts. Emanuel Rahm was so right.
I’m agreeing with you, Margaret.
Ha, it is more fun that way. But many believe that Obama is only an inch away from giving away the farm, like the public option. But he has yet to say anything. Also, Jon’s post leads one in that direction.
Now people could easily be putting words in Obama’s mouth. As I said, way up thread, I hope not.
I thot some of the points he makes about who may or not get coverage, the cost of two more years of private insurance (most won’t be able to afford it, ergo more premature deaths) to the elderly, rising costs from 65+ being in the risk pool, etc . . . were all good points that need to be addressed.
Far too many in this nation are far too much more un or mis informed than any of us are.
Ezra Klein sucks goat dicks, end of that story, not even mentioning that Jon clicked to him.
But hey, I guess we all disagree with something sometime. This is YOUR thing at THIS time . . . ya pull no punches, Maggie . . . lol.
Past action is an accurate predictor of present and future behavior. Single payer, public option, I give you Obama’s (Fowler’s) ACA legislation.
No Congressional resistance for the most part, either, they KNOW they’ll get ‘Kuciniched’ for a plane ride, each and every one of them.
I thought what Obama was fighting for was $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in new revenue. That’s not something I’ve ever claimed to want.
I’ll wait, but by dawg in hades I’ll give good odds raising the eligibility age is NOT the only cave, this deficit thing is too big (despite being a piece of fiction) and demands MORE sacrifices upon the backs of those who have paid INTO this shit all their working lives.
It’s a form of genocide, is what it is . . . .
No he doesn’t, he stands amid a kabuki filled scam full of smoke and mirrors. He stands FULLY for pHarma, insurance and the medical and hospital lobby’s.
Firmly, he stands. While he SAYS one thing he’s doing another in reality.
Easy to see. After 4 years, anyone should be able to spot it.
Walker’s diary above is an example of the simplicity involved in seeing the royal scam (apology to Steely Dan).
Bingo.
It’s a form of genocide, is what it is . .
I’ve been calling it immoral. Genocide is a little strong, but different strokes for different folks.
Yes but I’m talking about now. And that was closer to a year and a half ago.
Larue. You call it genocide. I’ve been calling it immoral. different strokes for different folks I suppose.
Phreakin beautiful, thank yu Elise, I bookmarked your comment, and pasted it into my FB posting of Mr. Walkers diary.
You get straight to the heart of the lie(s). As does Mr. Walker.
It only LOOKS like a good thing, if ya listen to the politicians and their paid analysts interpretation.
It falls fucking fully apart upon actual application, your case in point will likely apply to ANY one with or without a job.
NO ONE CAN AFFORD IT, who can’t afford insurance now. And those WITH insurance, will pay MORE for it, under ACA.
End of story.
Actually in my view it is not only that we paid into this. Perhaps more importantly the safety net comprises those things we owe each of our citizens. To deny it or to cut it is just wrong. full stop. If anything and especially now, we should be enhancing the safety net. If Obama does not understand that, it is a moral failing.
Sadly, MILLIONS would immediately soon lose their extended UI Benefit Payments, and those whose benefits expire in that time period also will lose payments.
In other words, you are killin income on millions of people who barely get by on a daily basis as it is. More lost homes, ASAP, immediate eviction notices, no food, cut of power supplies so no heat, on and on. In the middle of winter, nation wide.
So, ignoring this shit is still gonna damn millions of civilians. Because the DEM’S refused to fight dirty and for, we the people.
Yeah, I’m wondering the same thing. This is how conspiracy theories get started. A post goes up, speculating about what might happen, with a couple of unsupportable sentences that imply the decision has already been made. Then speculation becomes “certainty”, when somebody who none of us would normally trust to tell us what time it is says something that seems to support the idea and then it turns to outrage. Kinda like Obama’s a Kenyan or there’s a war on Christmas. Because I don’t see any difference. Everybody knows that I’m no party apparatchik but if we’re going to start operating by filling information voids with made up shit, then stop the ride, I’m getting off.
I call bs, sorry.
It’s a simple matter of usuary, the middlemen, the insurance companies.
Govt medicare for all? Single payer? You just lowered the cost of delivery by 1/3rd, easily. Those displaced will now reap the benefits of state sponsored employment, either for the state or the feds, as the government will have to staff up HUGE to meet the demands.
CA is on the brink of adding THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of jobs related to the ACA implementation. We also just got a super majority in both state houses, of Dems, and will be raising taxes FAR beyond any Obama urges to Congress, to generate immediate revenue, in addition to the revenue from taxes paid by the newly changed private to public sector employees, and the OTHERs who have been UNEMPLOYED who will now stand a chance of finding jobs with the state.
But the cost of our system lies in the rot of the usuary. The rest of the bloat is a simple matter to trim as we go. The AMA, pHarma and the hospital industry will be in for shocks, as will be the teaching colleges when salaries plummet for specialists, and rise for gen practicioners.
Works in countries in Europe, works in Canada, works in lots of places around the world.
End of story.
I just want a conversation that is based in reality, not speculation pretending to be reality. That’s not my thing, “this time”. That’s my thing, all the time. Somebody show me any White House official or any Democratic Senator or House member involved in this negotiation at this time saying that we should raise the age for medicare. I can come up with at least half a dozen who are unequivocally taking it off the table and nobody can show me one even hinting at putting it on.
And you would argue that divorce is good and simple solution?
I dunna, something sick about that, I know Mary Mc had to do it for the same reasons, but . . . I for one, would NOT advocate for it, support it, or think of it as a general work around panacea given all the shit we face.
However, for you and yours, and Mary and hers, I FULLY understand you HAD to do it.
And ACA is no solution to much of anything, as we will find out in the next few years to come. IF it lasts that long, before collapsing or being repealed.
Guess I’m not getting you here, Margaret. You’ve seen the memo they floated to the Republicans last year, right? They’ve been willing to give away the store for two years.
WTF?
Uh, raising medicare eligibility age is part of fiscal cliff clusterphucking, not of ACA clusterphucking.
At least that’s how I’ve seen it all along. Raising the age is part of the negotiations to raise taxes, on ANYone . . . that’s plain to see daily, and has been.
I disagree with your quote I lifted.
Right, People buying insurance on exchanges that DON’T EVEN EXIST YET, and putting words in Robert Reich’s mouth?
Stuff like that is just – well, I’ll call it what it is – utter lying bullshit, that I don’t need one more serving of when there’s plenty out there pushed around already.
I concur, other than the fiscal cliff thing will mean millions will lost UI payments, along with many OTHER people dependent on government checks being cut in a timely fashion. Waiting until the new Congress convenes means millions will definitely suffer.
That’s how I’ve seen and read about it, from a year ago or so.
Pups? Am I wrong on this one? Will Congress have the ability, and the balls, to pass provisional legislation to continue to fund essential services such as UI and SS checks?
I”m not gonna go quote hoppin just to appease you, but tell me, have we NOT heard from him that sacrifice and negotiations are necessary, while mouthing platitudes about $250K under won’t have taxes raised, as Bush Cuts expire? He’s been negotiating in the public and with Congress for MONTHS about letting Bush Cuts expire, and saying ‘shared sacrifice’ will ensue.
I don’t think I’m stupid for thinking these things, or factually challenged, as you imply.
;-)
Guess you won’t be getting me either Matthew since I’m insisting we ground our conversation in current reality while you want to talk about speculation, past history and statements from buffoons to support your position. As this conversation seems like a lost cause, I’ll let you have it to yourself.
My problem with Durbin taking it off the table, is that he did it in terms of wanting to make sure the exchanges were there first. He didn’t say it was a bad idea to move people from a great insurance program to something that, even in a best case scenario, is far less great. He just said we need to wait awhile.
That doesn’t seem to rule out a deal which makes it take effect in a few years. Also, there’s a question of whether or not Durbin is floating a balloon for Obama, or not. In one quote he said he’d talked about it to Obama “in passing.”
I agree it’s speculative, but with Chait/Klein floating the idea, Durbin pretty much in favor, and Obama having raised it in the past, it seems worthwhile to open the discussion of why it’s a bad idea. Just my opinion.
Yeah, if I wanted hackery, there are any number of places I could get it. I used to be able to get reality here. Guess that’s now ancient history.
Not true. and rude, to boot.
Who can quarrel with that?
But Jon’s post, even the title, is a hypothetical. He does not know for certain the age will be raised. He links to the WP. It invites speculation. I think most people watching this giant clusterfuck are fearful there could be severe cuts to the safety net, including medicare. Let’s all hope that’s just bullshit.
On insurance, I feel pretty sure there are stories out there about how people are regularly screwed. I could give you a tale about medicare and the billing system but WTF.
My problem marym is this sentence:
My bold.
That sentence is both unsupported and unsupportable. I have heard nothing, nothing to indicate that “the administration” now believes that raising the medicare eligibility age is “more acceptable”. Nothing, zero, zip, nada. And it took less than a dozen comments for that to go from speculative to accepted fact. Then I’m presented with a statement by Tom Coburn who we know is willing, even eager to lie when it suits him, as evidence that Obama is going to raise it. It’s just absurd and I’ll no longer have any part in this.
Yep, but I like to paint in vivid colours . . . reducing our aging population significantly is just one of those given things for me, that corporations across the board would embrace fully.
N I call that, a form of genocide. If ya don’t like the term, let’s call it wealth inequality population adjustments.
;-)
There are NO morals involved in all of this, this is class war, corporate fascism against we the people.
There are NO morals involved in this war, not if any of us want to live and leave, a better future for gens to come.
Good. Maybe we should work on it so that only those of us on the inside really understand it. That’s what the finance people do. :)
That’s fine for you, my system of reality is more open.
If they say there’s a wolf, I’m gonna be a worry wolf. If they say there’s a wolf, and there’s no wolf, I’m still gonna be a bit of a worry wolf.
Cus life has shown me, there are ALWAYS wolves, always. And history has taught me how and why things go wrong for we the people.
I’m a skeptic first, about ANYTHING regarding the needs of we the people being protected. Life says that’s just not fucking true.
You can factually moralize all you want Maggie . . . and call out people, for NOT using facts. But in fact, life and history shows us what’s possible, and I wanna discuss those things and worry about them. Just cuz you say there’s no QUOTE of someone saying YES, raise the age, does not make it true.
You and I both know, reality and life suggests it’s on the table, firmly and fully, along with a lot more things we don’t know for sure, for a fact.
But that’s how people are different. They disagree.
N that’s a fact!
*G*
What is sick is that people would have to divorce in order to qualify for assistance under ACA. No, it is not worth it to me to spend 12k a year in premiums and another 5k in deductibles in order to stay married. Because, as you well know, no one ever questions whether heterosexual couples are, in fact, married, even using different names. Have you ever been asked for your marriage license?
That said, the company my husband is working for has an older than average workforce, skewing the premiums to the high side. It is possible I could get insurance for less on the open market. I haven’t looked into it.
Do we know for sure that Elise lives somewhere without a website or program coming up, or partially in place?
Cuz if she does, well, Kelly, that’s gonna be embarassing.
Do you have proof Elise is in CA? And are there NO preliminary models to ACCESS for um, theory purposes?
I could give a rats ass about Reich, he’s a non part of any of this IMHO, so I don’t CARE if someone got something wrong.
I’ve been wrong, called on it, and said ‘my bad’ . . . any number of occasions. Shit happens, but calling out someone on Reich? Low hanging fruit hoss, yer better than that.
I like to work on it here at FDL/MyFDL, seems doing so is factually reprehensible to some.
*G*
I FULLY CONCUR with you, absolutely. Hetero or not, our system is screwing we the people, and if change FOR us does not come, the system itself will collapse of its own volition, like all empires and systems do, when humans on a mass scale are involved.
I’m starting to see that the real point of Obamacare is to get everybody on private insurance. They may not raise the Medicare eligibility age this time around, but they undoubtedly believe that “Wellpoint for All” will reduce cost-shifting by providers and help the government relieve itself of its healthcare obligations. It’s practically unprecedented that a major plan this huge, that a majority of the public doesn’t want, is being foisted on us anwyway. It’s definitely a turning point.
Have you lost the ability to read and comprehend links I put up?
’cause their Ain’t No ACA Exchange Up In California, not until 2014 in fact, as the commenter claimed she got a quote from.
Jeezus.
Margaret
Haven’t read further down (so excuse me if this has been said already) but Klein, when filling in for Maddow Friday night, made a pretty compelling tea leaf reading on this.
He showed statistically why it is terrible policy – costing other parts of the economy (including seniors paying higher premiums) way more than the Medicare savings.
Don’t think it is his policy preference.
Obama agreed to it as part of the deal boehner rejected in 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/obama-medicare-eligibility-age_n_894833.html
There is no doubt that at one point Obama agreed to raising the Medicare age and it is not unreasonable to suspect he would be willing to agreed to it again
Seems for four years now every time we’re heard about some gob-smacking idiotic unnecessary compromise or willingness to sign some awful piece of legislation from OBummer it has materialized.
Not looking for trouble – becoming habituated to looking for cover as the next assault on life, liberty and constitutional rights reigns down.
It’s such a deal my my tuchus hurts from all the chicanery. Time will tell.
Because the DIMS refused to fight AT ALL..
Yes, BUT. Did you see the CNN expose the other night about a multi-hundred million corporate Medicare fraud that the Justice department is not prosecuting?
I heartily agree that there should be no place for profit in the health care delivery system (insurance companies), it just adds a layer of cost.
But somebody makes money actually delivering the care and that is ripe for fraud. Not so hard to bust, but Justice would rather raid marijuana dispensaries than prosecute a case private lawyers are handing them on a platter.
Absolutely.
I hear ya. I didn’t vote for the asshole this time so my conscience is clear.
Obama showed us his hand the first term so any so-called progressives who voted for him and complain now are as einstein would say, insane.
You remember the Air Force one ride too huh :)
I’m sorry, I just have to comment : chickenfeed.
Denial and transference all over the place recently…
Sorry, but Obama was and is 100% Elite owned-and-operated.
And people were warned well in advance that this particular attack on the “lesser people” was exactly what he would do if he was reselected.
And as the D.C. kabuki plays out to its predetermined conclusion the best that you can do to try and live it down is… to blame your fellow victims?
Not very cricket, Sport.
And probably not very helpful either…
Don’t matter, our system is owned and operated top to bottom by the corporate fascists, including SCOTUS and DOJ, so I never expect any actions for any criminal doings.
But as to why our costs are so high, it’s the usuary, the actuary side of life.
Like I said, get rid of the insurance folks, and pHarma, AMA and Hospital Industry will be whipped into shape with a single payer system.
But the insane and now immoral cost is a result of the actuary. End of story.
Fine, and in other states? Where is Elise from? I put the q’s to it all plain as day hoss. This is the 3rd time I’ve asked the same two questions.
Other states?
Where’s she from?
And if she’s lying, the lie is quite likely a good model for what WILL go down, from all I’ve read.
Yer a harsh factualist, as is Maggie . . . very absolutist without regard for the human inclination to speculate and turn things over and murmur, raise voices and bark and bellow in the local taverns of life.
This is our watering hole, it’s what we do when we come here . . . take it all with a grain of salt and some tequila, and the facts will emerge when they will.
Until then, it would be irresponsible of me NOT to speculate . . . ;-)
Of course Coburn is awful. But Obama has repeatedly connived with awful people. A good night’s sleep for you, perhaps? I was being quite level and polite, I thought!
Obama is only happy when he’s at a secret meeting, giving our stuff away. That’s probably what he’s doing right now.
No, wait. I forgot–it’s Terrorist Tuesday, so Obama is picking out the people he wants killed.)
http://youtu.be/AlC0r-aH1qs
Yes, and the number 2 guy in the Senate now saying again and again that he’s ok with in a few years, an enabler-blogger here and there, a talking head or two, and this is how the conversation shifts. Soon ACA as an acceptable substitute for Medicare is part of the common propaganda, and we’re here wondering how once again we lost the framing of the issue. It’s good to see people at FDL and others fighting back.
See comment #1 in this thread:
http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2012/06/18/i%E2%80%99ve-been-vanjonesed-and-democratted-progressivecaucussed-and-neolibrulfatcatted-till-i%E2%80%99m-blind/
Lol.
Sure.
Trial balloons are exactly like birtherism.
lol.
I suspected this all along, especially once the public option was dead. After all, Ryan’s Medicare “reform” was pretty much Obamacare for seniors. Since the obvious way to reform healthcare, extending Medicare downward, was never seriously considered, it was only a matter of time that private insurance for all was extended upward.
Kudos to Jon; best headline and post since the false choice election.
Ain’t that the truth?
Indeed.
And if I’m not mistaken KC and Margaret are almost invariably pro-dem?
We can’t criticize before O does something, and, since most of the deals are cut behind closed doors, afterward are exorted to “trust” he knows what’s best for us and shut up about it already because itwouldbesomuchworseifaRethugwasincharge.