Growing signs Social Security, Medicare changes will be part of debt deal

Source: CBS News

Washington leaders gave more indication today that changes to Social Security and Medicare are likely to be part of a potential deal to reduce the deficit and raise the debt ceiling.

President Obama on Friday acknowledged for the first time that he was considering changes to the programs like raising the retirement age or applying means testing.

Additionally, an administration official tells CBS News political analyst John Dickerson that a deal based on Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's "back up plan" could include a binding commission charged with reviewing the entitlement programs.

The suggestion that changes to Social Security and Medicare are on the table has rankled defenders of the programs, including liberal activists and the nonpartisan senior group AARP. The fact that tinkering with those programs -- undeniably a politically risky move -- appears to be a central part of the debate illustrates the great challenge lawmakers have ahead of them, if they want to reach a deal by August 2.

more...

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079911-503544.html

...for people to choose someone else to govern.

:shrug:

sounds good to me

People with higher incomes already have their Social Security benefits taxed and they pay higher Medicare premiums. They are ALREADY means tested.

Why is the Whore Press NOT saying this?????

Social Security and Medicare are the only safety nets left for the elderly. They have already sold off the County poor farms. Social Security was a product of the depression and as far as a depression goes, we ain't seen nothing yet.

This time around, things are going to be a lot tougher. Playing computer games does not get the crops in or put food on the table.

1. Means testing will turn Social Security into a welfare program. That's specifically why FDR didn't set it up that way. It's an insurance program, not a welfare program. Means testing is the first step to the program's complete dismantling.

2. Raising the retirement age is completely unnecessary. The social security trust fund has over $2 trillion in it and can fully pay all benefits with the current retirement age for at least another 25 years, and probably much longer. Small adjustments made to it now can insure all benefits with the current retirement age in perpetuity.

3. A "binding commission" is just a charade to let unelected people (Obama likes to stack these things with people who despise whatever it is they're dealing with -- see The Cat Food Commission) do the dirty work while the politicians can say their "hands are tied." (See Base Closing Commissions.)

4. Social Security plays no role in the federal deficit. It has its own account and is doing just fine. However, Obama's bankster backers are salivating at getting their hands on those trillions when it gets "privatized." So here we are.

Obummer.

The requirement that you file a claim and have a loss, must be demonstrated.

"This is not an untried experiment. Lessons of experience are available from States, from industries and from many Nations of the civilized world. The various types of social insurance are interrelated; and I think it is difficult to attempt to solve them piecemeal. Hence, I am looking for a sound means which I can recommend to provide at once security against several of the great disturbing factors in life--especially those which relate to unemployment and old age. I believe there should be a maximum of cooperation between States and the Federal Government. I believe that the funds necessary to provide this insurance should be raised by contribution rather than by an increase in general taxation. Above all, I am convinced that social insurance should be national in scope, although the several States should meet at least a large portion of the cost of management, leaving to the Federal Government the responsibility of investing, maintaining and safeguarding the funds constituting the necessary insurance reserves. I have commenced to make, with the greatest of care, the necessary actuarial and other studies for the formulation of plans for the consideration of the 74th Congress.

These three great objectives the security of the home, the security of livelihood, and the security of social insurance--are, it seems to me, a minimum of the promise that we can offer to the American people. They constitute a right which belongs to every individual and every family willing to work. They are the essential fulfillment of measures already taken toward relief, recovery and reconstruction.

This seeking for a greater measure of welfare and happiness does not indicate a change in values. It is rather a return to values lost in the course of our economic development and expansion."

June 8, 1934

Not kidding. The goal of SS and the New Deal, was to provide for the needs of the vulnerable among us.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#exec

That said, I don't agree with raising the retirement age, so that we can keep the Bush tax cuts.

Where is that money currently sitting?

Hint: we can't pay seniors in bridges and roads.

Unless you fail to live long enough to receive your benefits, in which case you just don't make the cut.

Mark it well: Means testing is the beginning of "winding down" Democratic social programs of the 20th century. The next step will see the rich pull out of these taxation schemes, since -as they will passionately argue- they are no longer represented in them or benefiting by them. They will lobby for and win the privilege of doing whatever they want with their retirement and health care money (like Newt Gingrich's old plot of creating "health savings accounts", under the management of the financial advisers they already have). Then the middle class will want to follow suit, but will be forced to enroll in cut rate plans which occasionally fail completely after taking people's money for years. The cash strapped government will be obliged to rush in to bail out the collapsed funds from time to time, as in the Wall St bailout, regardless of the scale of fraud and mismanagement that brought them down, or else face thousands of beneficiaries being left without income or health care. The lower half of the middle class and the working class will be stranded left to fund their social programs while the rich move more of their capital (and jobs) abroad. For the bottom two thirds of income earners, it will be an unmitigated disaster. Right wing pundits will point to the smoking wreckage of Medicare and Social Security as final proof that Big Govt & social engineering does not work and was always nothing more than Marxist lunacy.

Let's move to a true liberal and humanist in the White House --

Someone like Alan Grayson -- or Sen. Bernie Sanders who can run on a Dem ticket --

Tons of democrats in the world who can run on the Dem ticket --

Someone from outside the party who hasn't been pre-bribed and pre-owned would be

the way to go --

We need two strong anti-war candidates --

True democrats to break up this corruption of government -- !!

So how is making "changes" to Social Security going to reduce the debt?

Changing the definition of benefits and/or who's eligible will be done to see that people don't get what they're entitled to.

Should be no problem.

And if they aren't working no payments get sent out.

Every month the SSA sends out $60 billion. If they're solvent enough to cover the benefit checks, meeting payroll is probably not going to be an issue. ;)

Anyway, apparently no one knows how to turn the check flow off. The computer system is a nightmare right out of the movie Brazil.

If they try to not send out the payments? The machines will probably half run and jam for a hundred million dollars in damages.

Being disabled, I receive Medicaid, so I am admittedly interested in how it will impact that program. However, a general explanation may be helpful to everyone.

the benefits are on a sliding scale ..

if you are desolate, you get 100% of the benefits, if you are middle of the road, a small cut whereas if you are a multimillionaire, no benefits.

a year their medicare cost is more. i think that's fair. even if it has to go up a few bucks it's a much better plan than raising the age. it could also involve higher co-payments for those who make more money.

--the intent is to knock $170K down to $60K or thereabouts? Raising premiums for the tiny, tiny percentage of elderly couples with more than $170K annual income will have almost no effect on the deficit. Many of those people don't even bother applying for Medicare. I just got my Medicare card for a start date of 11/1/2011 yesterday, and I was given the option of not enrolling. Many wealthy people don't because it's too much hassle.

is not that much money. some elderly people still have mortgages. even if they don't there's real estate tax, homeowners insurance, car insurance, etc.

i have a medicare part A card which i've had for years. i haven't enrolled in part B because hubby is still working and his health insurance is better.

where did you come up with $60,000 a year?

--unless he intended to drop the ceiling? Don't know what specific number he'd suggest, but dropping it at all is a step toward dropping it even more.

i'd rather that happen than raise the age.

Yes, raising the age would be worse, but dropping the upper income limit would be the stard of a really nasty process.

raising the age. my friend is 66. her husband is 63 and has pre-existing conditions. she's still working for the health care even though it costs her almost $700 a month. she doesn't make much. if she has to work another 4 years instead of 2 i think she'll have a nervous breakdown.

i'm almost 70 and hubby is almost 64. if he was forced to retire who's going to insure a 64 or 65 year old man who has a few pre-existing conditions?

i've heard if this happens it would take place in 2013 -- a year before the pre-existing law takes effect. i still don't understand why people have to wait till 2014 or go into an assigned risk pool to buy insurance.

i was really angry at obama most of the week. i actually turned the tv off when he was speaking the other day. hubby and i signed the petition.

i'm trying to stay calm until we know exactly what's going to happen.

My husband is almost 60. He has a good union job repairing phone lines and cables. He's got 38 years with the company, but his body is breaking down from all the physical labor. Osteo-arthritis in both knees, rotator cuff damage in one shoulder, now arthritis is starting in his hips. He's outside in the TX heat all day long--the only breaks are when he's in the AC at someone's home or business, or in his truck. Now the company has come out with a new edict--no truck idling while you're inputting ticket info on the laptop. WTF? He has to leave his truck locked up while he's at a job site, the cab is like a frickin oven when he gets back to it, now he gets to just roll the windows down while he sits in it for 10 minutes?

We know the company is just trying to force the older employees into early retirement, but our youngest is not quite 17. I haven't worked in years because I've been the unpaid caretaker of a mentally-disabled grandson. I'm 57, no way would I be able to find a job, even though employment opportunities are better here than a lot of places. And where does someone like my husband find a job for those last few years? He has zero clerical skills and he can't work retail because his knees can't take 8 hours of standing. I'm scared because I don't want to be a burden to my children--heck, two of them are still at home with me, and the other two barely make enough money to take care of themselves, much less anyone else.

The saddest thing is that I'm probably in better shape than most people, but now I'm worried that we'll spend the rest of our lives just barely hanging on.

there's a big difference between working outside like your husband does and sitting at a desk. i'm in phoenix and i feel so bad for those who have to work outside in the summer.

the bean counters have been after my husband for years, but they can't let him go because he has a skill that no one else has at least for now, but he's seen the older workers get forced out.

i haven't worked in 22 years. came down with chronic fatigue syndrome when we moved here. it was scary. we had always depended on my salary and now we had a mortgage. thankfully after fighting for my disability for a year and a half i got it. it turned into regular social security when i reached my full retirement age.

i worry because i'm so dependent on my husband to do things for me. i don't know what i'd do if something happened to him. we have no family here. my granddaughter is in south florida and i wouldn't want to move there. i'm terrified of hurricanes and flooding. my sister and nieces are in S.C.

i hope things get better for you and your family. my thoughts and prayers are with you.

My hunch is the wealthy collect what they can get. More wealth for them to pass on to their heirs that way.

If you're a retired army general with a business and you are getting $3k a month from SS and $8k a month from the military and your business is bringing in $5k a month. That's $16k a month, more than half of which come from government pension. Would said retired army general really be hurting to lose $1k a month or so? It makes little sense for someone who benefited for so long (who likely owns their house, who has a business) get such benefits.

Benefits are capped at $28.5K a year. And those benefits are fully taxable where the recipient has as much income from other sources as you suggest.

became disabled. because of hubby's income we pay tax on 85% of my benefit.

we estimate that our retirement income will be around $96,000 a year. told hubby we'll be paying a lot of tax. at least now, we put $21,000 into the 401k which is not taxed and another $5,100 into the medical savings plan.

i'm not complaining. we're probably one of the few people who realized the american dream. that's why i have a hard time understanding why the rich don't want to pay their fair share.

When I was working, I had no problem with paying tax on DH's SocSec.

have social security disability available when i got sick.

However, the top 1% could afford their own healthcare.

Means testing for Medicare will not affest you unless and until you become eligible for OASDI by a combination of:

(1) having enough calendar quarters worked, plus

(2)either (a)becoming disabled OR (b) reaching the eligibility age.

The age is currently 65, but Obama wants to raise it to 67.

If you need more info about Medicare, OASDI has a toll free number that you can find in the blue pages of your telephone book or by calling 1 800 555 1212.

If you need more info about Medicaid, you know what to do.

I hope that helps some. :D

I am only 26, and I am on SSI (as opposed to SSDI) because I did not have enough quarters worked prior to becoming disabled. So, it sounds like I will not be affected, as you said.

Previously, with respect to the Medicare and Social Security changes he would consider as part of a deficit reduction deal, Mr. Obama had refused to give any details.

But when asked at a press conference today whether he would consider means testing or raising the retirement age, Mr. Obama said, "We are willing to look at all those approaches."

The president said he views Social Security and Medicare "as the most important social safety nets that we have" and said current beneficiaries should not be affected by any changes. But future generations, he said, should possibly be subject to means testing.

Why?

Because at least the left would be united in fighting these cuts and they would be able to exert SOME political pressure on their own party to be an opposition to drastic cuts.

Of course we'd see a Paul Ryan plan but at this point the goal of dismantling social security and medicare is already underway and the Obama supporters feel obligated to him because he has a "D" on his helmet. No one likes this. But you have to support the team. That sort of rightwing mentality has infected this party. It's a fear that we'll get worse--when in truth both parties are taking us to the same place right now.

I am a democrat. I will NEVER vote for a Republican. But I can't vote against the things I believe in because I wear a certain team jersey.

All of these hard fought gains---the difficulty of establishing a solid middle class with fair safety nets are being ripped apart---by Obama.

You either care about these things or you don't. You don't care and get furious when an "R" is running the show but grind your teeth and just sigh with a full pledge of support when it's a "D".

You care or you don't.

And the Dems are somewhat split with the "team players" and the people who put ideals first. Team second.

That split is allowing this to happen. Obama isn't concerned about the 2012 election because it's him or the nutjob teabagger or used car salesman.

And he knows that the democrats are conditioned to vote the lesser of two evils.

The right doesn't think this way at all and the Republicans fear them. They have to be accountable to their party or else they pay a political price.

Obama has no such concern.

So yeah---maybe there can be some sort of fight to save this as a united opposition party.

That doesn't exist now.

And Obama knows it.

This party must be pushed back to the left--or we essentially have the same team but they wear a different jersey. And that's the only difference.

IMHO, it is never better to have the Republicans in power. Means testing is better than having the Republicans do away with the program entirely.

:kick:

And then slink back into the shadows like so much morning fog evaporating once the mission has been accomplished.

PB

I call it "giving it to the American people".

I listened to parts of his press conference today while I
was driving....he needs to STOP calling Social Security
Benefits "ENTITLEMENTS".

Jeebus, he should call them SERVICES.

Also, he made a Freudian Slip and said
"discretionary" cuts when he meant
"domestic" cuts. He corrected himself,
but WHAT A GIVE AWAY!

Mr. All Star Poker Player - have you EVER heard a poker player state he was bluffing? Talk a bout a Freudian slip.

But, I don't think he realized the illogic of what he had said.

In fairness, it sounds like the mistake of someone who was tired and stressed. Remember his 57 states during the campaign. Same kind of thing, I think.

of the Democratic party you don't get to call yourself a Democrat. Mr. President what are you calling yourself now?

president in the WH....what the hell who da thunk?? unthinkable
let us hope it is not true

Talk about bait and switch!

next term is D.O.A. Of course, if making your golf buddys happy is more important, go right ahead.

Social Sec HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEFICITS!!


Gutting revenue via TAX CUTS for the wealthiest, i.e. alot of money was cut off from the Gov.!


what a sham!

history as a one-term failure.

I assumed that is how the Democrats were planning to take back the Congress.

There must be quite a few Democrats in Congress who are quietly fuming right now.:mad:

Republican, but more likely he's just doing the bidding of the same corporate owners.

Democrat WON in a Republican district. Isn't there a lesson in that somewhere?

That jobs aren"t coming back for a long time to be able to fund it.

:cry:

I will campaign for a challenger to Obama if he does this. I feel pretty certain that a challenger will come forward.

to be determined to include SS and medicare so that he can stick the shiv into them while claiming that his hands were tied.

....president champion cuts in Social Security and Medicare and you will have candidate Bachmann become president Bachmann after she positions herself as the sole defender of Social Security....

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/125530493.html

That is now in the mix, thus making lesser cuts to social sec and medicare.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama's goal isn't to get to post-partisan America by destroying the Democratic Party.

how does that work again? I can't believe it, I just can't believe it, Obama's been talking out of both sides of his mouth dissing the Republican leadership on one and licking their shoes the other.

As in "I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, because, when it comes to marriage, God is in the mix." (Whatever the hell "in the mix" means.)

Giving hope to Rick Warren's congregation.

"But my views are evolving."

Giving hope to the human rights movement.



There are a number of similar examples, like the one you cited. Watching for them is fun.

Hope and change.

Why am I paying into these programs? I had a chance of reaching 62... but they are going to jack the age up to 70 or even higher, way past the average life expectancy of Americans.

I want the option to opt out of medicare and social security.

One final screwing for us all from the generation that brought us Reagan and W.

of any kind that reduced any benefit of either program means that I will actively work against and vote against everyone who worked to get it passed.

This is my single voting issue for 2012.

probably leaving DU also), as the Dem Party will no longer represent my or my class' interests.

Where will I go? I've already started looking into Democratic Socialist alternatives and will also start looking seriously at the Green Party. Also, in California, there's a party called "Peace and Freedom" which runs on a very progressive platform.

I will not willingly do without medication or food. I consider either one to be torture. Legalize assisted suicide or send me a euthanasia pill. I'll donate anything I have left in the SS Trust Fund to others. With a chronic debilitating disease, quality of life sucks. After this summer I am well conditioned for Hell.

If I were the cynical type, mind you.

The corporate fat cats and their puppets in Congress don't need SS and Medicare. They should take the first cuts and after that, we'll talk about the rest of the 98% of US.

and there won't be any next year either.

He's giving away SS & Medicare, has failed to weigh in on voter suppression in the states, has declared gay civil rights a "states' issue", has stayed away from the destruction of labor unions, and has applauded mass firings of teachers. He's a disgrace to the party of FDR, Truman, LBJ, the Kennedys, and Jimmy Carter. He's spat on every Dem president of the 20th century