Has the President, in the past, agreed to raise the Medicare eligibility age?

[cthulu2016]

Not today. A year ago.

Based on what we know about the failed 'grand bargain' of 2011, Obama agreed to it, for real. Not as a fanciful negotiating point as as art of a real deal. The deal went south only on Boehnner's resistance on taxes, not on Obama's resistance on entitlements.

So those who say there is no possible reason for anyone to have any apprehension about what a deficit reduction deal might look like, or any reason to voice their view that medicare benefit cuts are unacceptable, are either:

1) Cynically deceiving people, or
2) Staking their argument on claiming that the published information from the non-deal of 2011 is all made-up.

Factual serious non-conspiracy theory question:

Did the President previously sign off on raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, or not?

[still_one]

1. I don't know, but if the ACA become single payer it will be a moot issue

[cthulu2016]

2. That's true, but not very reliable for retirement-planning

[zipplewrath]

5. What decade?

Exactly when should any reasonable person expect ACA, an act designed to avoid single payer, expect it to BECOME single payer?

The single payer advocates, who were "locked out" of the process that brought us the ACA are just dying to know.

[brokechris]

18. I'm with you

I would much rather have single payer--but I seriously doubt I will ever see it in my lifetime.

I keep hearing a "wet-dream" scenario that the insurance companies fail and the government steps in. I bet if the insurance companies did fail--we would step in to bail them out instead of moving to single payer.

[woo me with science]

12. We absolutely know.

We knew last year. It was all over the press, detailed in multiple publications and confirmed by even Democrats who were there.

And now the actual proposal has been released: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021859513#post11


Of course he proposed a raise in the Medicare age of eligibility. He also proposed cuts in SS through a chained CPI, and other cuts for a total of over 600 BILLION in cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

[HiPointDem]

16. when will that happen, do you think?

[BlueCaliDem]

3. Don't push the panic button yet, cthulu. Your contention is WRONG.

From the Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc.,:

The Budget Preserves Medicare as a Community Program

The Administration "recognizes that Medicare is a sacred trust with America's seniors and supports policies that will strengthen the Medicare program and extend the life of the Medicare trust fund."[2] Fortunately, unlike some debt reduction proposals discussed over the last several months, this budget does not seek to alter Medicare's fundamental structure. Other proposals seek to turn Medicare into a confusing system of vouchers and coupons; an approach that would shift significant costs to families. The outcome of those proposals would be the decline or elimination of the traditional, community Medicare program in favor of private, commercial plans at higher cost to taxpayers.[3] The President's budget proposal also does not seek to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, as has also been proposed by some policymakers.

http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/2012/02/17/the-presidents-proposed-2013-budget-impact-on-medicare/

Hope that cleared that up for you, in a factual, non-conspiracy theory way.

Oh, and btw, they're not "entitlements". That's the Republicans word for it. They've always been known as earned benefits.

[woo me with science]

13. No, the OP's contention is TRUE. Do not attempt to change what the OP said.

The OP asked if the President had proposed a raise in the Medicare eligibility age. He absolutely did, just last year.

Of course, you already knew that. We all knew that, even last year, because it was widely detailed in the press and confirmed by both Republicans and DEMOCRATS who were there.

And now the actual proposal is available online to see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021859513#post11

[BlueCaliDem]

15. That's from Woodward, right? And according to Nancy Pelosi, it's bunk.

Woodward got his information from none other than Boehner. Bush-friend, beltway-boy Woodward claims to have double-checked this information with Pelosi, but she denies this ever happened. Pelosi claimed that Woodward had never called her office to verify.

Don't you think that if this were true, the GOP would have used this against President Obama during the election?

So . . . you're willing to believe Woodward and Boehner over Pelosi? Well, I'm not that gullible nor am I so quick to condemn this president based on drafts faxed from a Republican pol's office to a Republican-friendly beltway-boy. Sorry.

[HiPointDem]

17. "detailed in the press" at the time.

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Yeah, and "the press" has been oh so positive toward President Obama

since his election, right?

[woo me with science]

19. Link to where she said that a raise in Medicare age

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

was not in the bargain, please.

What transparent poo is flying through the air.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. She claimed the leaked and faxed memo was bunk

and she did NOT confirm it with Woodward as he had claimed in his book. That would include the highly publicized rumor that President Obama proposed raising the Medical eligibility age, which is also bunk.

I've given cthulu a link to a site for a pro-Medicare advocacy group, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Inc., where they debunked that, stating very clearly "The President's budget proposal also does not seek to raise the age of Medicare eligibility to 67, as has also been proposed by some policymakers.". Apparently, those "some policymakers" are both Republican AND Democrat.

But it's perfectly clear you'd rather believe beltway-boy, partisan Republican hack, Woodward, Republican Speaker of the House, Boehner, and corporate media because it fits in your narrative - you narrative being, you're against President Obama. Well, be honest about that rather than spread rumors on the president you, apparently, don't like.

[woo me with science]

22. Bwah!

Now that response would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Obviously you can't post a link to her denial of the raise in Medicare age, because she has *never* denied the contents of the Grand Bargain, nor has any Democrat who was close to the negotiations. Obama himself spoke very proudly about his attempts to cut over 600 billion dollars in these programs.

And the desperate attempt to mislead by linking to and bolding something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Grand Bargain of last year is the icing on the Third Way propaganda cake.

Thanks, BlueCaliDem, for that marvelous addition to the shameless gallery of Third Way attempts to rewrite history.

We have always been at war with Eastasia!
The chocolate ration has been increased!

And Obama never, EVER proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security!

[BlueCaliDem]

26. The Grand Bargain was part of the 2013 Budget negotiations. Surely, you knew that?

There was no link to her denial to raise the Medicare age because that's not what I was responding to. The topic by the OP asks if the PRESIDENT agreed to raise the Medicare eligibility age, based, in part on the "leaked memos". YOU tried to deflect with questions that don't answer that question at all.

Now you're response would've been hilarious had it not been so desperate to discredit the Democrats.

There's no desperate attempt by me - and you shouldn't project so much. It's unbecoming for a guy who wants to be "wooed with science" - but a serious attempt to debate. I'm sorry you'd rather act like a fifth grader or a TeaBagger. I'm not saying you're a TeaBagger, though.

And anyone with more than half a working brain would take a pro-Medicare advocacy group's conclusion over a beltway-boy's gossip OR a faceless DUer's opinion, any day. But I guess you made the conscious choice to want to be wooed with regurgitated rhetoric from a very unreliable source, instead of the truth.

[woo me with science]

28. LOL. And the Grand Bargain was rejected by Republicans.

But, then, you already knew that.

"There is no link to her denial...because that's not what I was responding to."

Of course you weren't responding to it. Because there never was a denial, and there won't be. What he offered was clearly outlined and discussed all over the media, was never denied on any single point, and has been on the record for over a year.

What a sad, sad exhibition.

[BlueCaliDem]

30. LOL. And that doesn't matter.

The OP wanted to know if President Obama agreed to raising the eligibility age for Medicare, and other than Boehner's fax to Woodward, and other politicians trying to negotiate, and corporate media spreading that narrative, there is NO PROOF that he had.

>>>Of course you weren't responding to it. Because there never was a denial, and there won't be. What he offered was clearly outlined and discussed all over the media, was never denied on any single point, and has been on the record for over a year. >>>

Rinse and repeat. You're beginning to sound like a scratched record. I've answered this twice already, but you appear incapable of understanding, so go on ahead and since that's basically all you can do regarding proof of your weak position.

However, you do know that makes you look a little, well, not so stable, don't you?

What a sad, sad exhibition of a low-informed individual.

[creeksneakers2]

4. I think what they were offering

would phase in over a 40 year period.

[lalalu]

6. I don't think that is unreasonable. We have more people living to 90 or older.

They could lessen some of the severe penalties for people who choose to retire a few years earlier. Or have more options such as allowing a person to be on Medicare at 62 but postpone collecting their social security for a few more years. Many people retire because they want the Medicare. A lack of universal healthcare plays a big part in decisions American workers are forced to make.

In return they should also remove the cap on what is taxed or at the very least double it to over $200,000.

[Fumesucker]

10. Life expectancy has actually been shortening for many Americans

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206708/Life-expectancy-poor-white-Americans-drops-sharply-increases-blacks-Latinos.html

[woo me with science]

14. Important post. Thank you. nt

[PETRUS]

29. Other things to remember

Fumesucker and Bluenorthwest both make important points.

When folks haul out the "people are living longer" argument, we should also note that "life expectancy" means life expectancy from birth. Most of the gains in life expectancy have come from reduced mortality among people under 65. A more meaningful statistic for this discussion would be life expectancy for those who reach age 65.

[lalalu]

31. Yes, the effects of poverty are now

being seen in the white population. I just know I am surrounded by elderly people living well into their nineties. They are like living history books. Many worked well into their seventies and eighties and only semi-retired to get the Medicare.

One of the issues in this report is health care. Again that is a major issue in this country along with personal choices. Did you see the PBS documentary 'Poor Kids"? I was struck by one scene in which the family spent $10 on 5 frozen pizzas which were selling 5/10. They complained they did not taste good and they looked awful.

For $10 they could have purchased food for a meal that would have been healthier, filling, and probably had leftovers. If they wanted to go Italian they could have purchased whole wheat pasta, gravy or sauce,and a frozen box of Spinach or broccoli to add to the pasta. If they wanted meat they could have purchased a small package of ground beef to cook and add to it. They could have made a large pan of pasta and even had enough left to make whole wheat garlic bread. Healthcare and education about nutrition are the keys.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. That's only true if by 'more people' you mean more affluent white women....

And it is only unreasonable if you don't mind the fact that for African American males the average life expectancy is actually under 70.
I agree about lifting the cap. If we did that, there would be no need to raise ages and cut benefits at all.

[lalalu]

32. The life expectancy for black Americans is increasing.

I know many black Americans living until they are in their nineties. My mother is ninety and my father lived until his late seventies. It was a miracle he lived that long because of the stress of racism, rheumatic fever which almost killed him as a child and weakened his organs, fighting in a war, decades of working 20 hour days, Sarcoidosis, and smoking Chesterfields. Yet, even he lived long enough to semi retire and collect some of his social security and pension and left the rest to my mother.

Not everyone is going to live to retirement age. I may not even though longevity exists in my family. The fact is that many Americans are living longer and that includes black people. We should look at societal reasons for those who don't.

[bluestate10]

7. I was listening to Blankfein the Goldman Sachs CEO. His prescription for SS is shit.

The solution for the system may be to study how long certain worker classes collect SS after retiring. I am certain that what will be seen is that higher paid workers with less demanding jobs collect longer. So if retirement age followed salary level, that would work out fairly. People that work demanding factory jobs will retire earlier because they are likely not to live as long, with some exceptions. Higher paid people retire later. Some compensation would have to be worked into the system for wage group changes, ie, a high paid worker getting laid off and falling to a lower paid group where work labor is more physically demanding.

[madrchsod]

8. maybe 67 in 10 or 15 years

i have no idea if he made any firm commitment to raise the age during his term

[Egalitarian Thug]

9. It was reported as a done deal by several "well respected" news organizations at the time. n/t

[woo me with science]

11. Of course he did, along with other devastating cuts to Medicaid and SS,

including a chained CPI, to the tune of over 600 BILLION dollars.

After months of hearing outrageous, ludicrous, brazen denials from our familiar group of corporate Dems around here (we all know who they are), denying the existence of this offer that was widely described in the press and confirmed even by Democrats, the actual proposal has finally been released.

It is a pathetic comment on the constant pollution of this board with right-wing apologism to the point of utter misrepresentation of reality that anyone even feels the need to ask the question that you just asked.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251246367
http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/11/15089281-white-house-grand-bargain-offer-to-speaker-boehner-obtained-by-bob-woodward

[BlueCaliDem]

27. Bwaaaahahaha! A fax from BOEHNER'S office to Bush-friend Woodward is your proof??

You're acting desperate in your attempt to discredit the Democrats and Pelosi. Talk about transparent poo . . .

[Honeycombe8]

24. Yes. Here ya go.

The blueprint for a deal to avoid a fiscal nightmare early next year may be found in the failed debt negotiations between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in mid-2011.

Part of their talks on a $4 trillion deficit-cutting plan included a gradual increase in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and an alternative yardstick for calculating inflation that would reduce annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustments.
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/grand-bargain-under-fiscal-cliff

But it's a different ballgame, now. I read somewhere that the Repubs are probably wishing they had taken that deal last year. They got cuts in entitlements and a lot of spending cuts, as well. They're not going to get that now.

Bwahahahaha.

[gravity]

25. He didn't sign off to anything except the fiscal cliff

I really see the grand bargain as a bluff from Obama.

Worst case if Boehner accepted the deal, the Democrats in Congress would block the unfavorable terms. This would give Obama bipartisan cred that will help him in his reelection.

Since Boehner rejected it, he can show the Republicans are unreasonable and would never compromise.

I am not saying that Obama wouldn't accept and age increase in Medicare, but the Democrats better get a lot in return for it. Since the Democrats have all the leverage in the fiscal cliff negotiations, I don't see that issue being on the table.