What's Obama's Plan to Save Medicare?

????

That's right; he doesn't have one.

All he has done is demonize the Ryan plan. Obama hasn't offerd his own plan.

That's how Obama governs; he is not a leader, he is a slacker.

Nobody can save Medicare.

It is like trying to save a 100 year old from dying.

Nobody wants to admit that we pay 120k into Medicare yet take out 300k.

That is a math problem.

Furthermore 60% of that 300k comes at the end of a persons life.

I have no problem telling grandma and grandpa that they are being selfish for taking out more than they put into the system just to stay alive a few more weeks/months but those greedy old fucs vote like crazy.

That is the problem.

That and folks like you not understanding the actual problem.

????

That's right; he doesn't have one.

All he has done is demonize the Ryan plan. Obama hasn't offerd his own plan.

That's how Obama governs; he is not a leader, he is a slacker. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Any plan is better than Ryan's plan- in fact do nothing would be better than the crap Ryan offered

Whirlaway i take it that your not happy with the Ryan plan for Medicare either?

Pragmatism (in the John Dewey sense) and incrementalism is the key to everything Obama does. (Not that I agree with that, by the way. In point of fact, I think that Pragmatism is generally a second-best solution. But that is neither here nor there for purposes of the question you pose.)

But the more I see of Obama the more I think that he's very influenced by the Heglian reformers of the late 19th Century like Dewey. Indeed, there was a big revival in Dewey in the U.S. philosophy community in the late 1970's shortly before Obama would have been in college. So it makes sense that he might well have been heavily exposed to Dewey and his 70's adherents like Richard Rorty at both at Occidental and Columbia.

But I think the strategy is very pragmatic and centered on process, not ideology. You do what you can to solve what you can. And to Obama's credit, that may well be all you can do now, with a deeply divided government. (I maintain that he could have done much more when he had 59 Democrats in the Senate, although I concede he could not have done both Medicare and health care reform in the same term.) But I think you would see thinks like continuing the trend to broader cost control measures aimed at curtailing health care costs in general. These generally enjoy bipartisan support, although the Republicans had strategically withheld support in the past two and a half years. Small decreases in benefits. Increases in copays, etc. You'll eventually seen means testing, which is not opposed by significant numbers of Democrats. Some increases in Medicare revenues, if possible, likely for trade offs on structural tax reform to gain Republican support.

None of this will "solve" Medicare problems. However, they will push the date at which problems become critical down the road 10 - 12 years. That is at once a problem and a benefits. Some, me included, would argue that creating a solution at one fell stroke would be more desirable. But that's likely not possible. Others would say, perhaps including the President, that neither is it desirable because to do so would presume we know too much about the future. That we're actually better off not making dramatic mid-course corrections.

But that philosophical debate is almost certainly irrelevant. No solution is at hand because the political class, and the American people, are deeply divided about what to do. And the public realization that benefits at current levels and taxation at current levels are incompatible, just isn't out there. So the hard choice of increased taxes, decreased benefits, or increased health care rationing can't be made yet. The "people" just aren't ready to make that choice.

(I maintain that he could have done much more when he had 59 Democrats in the Senate, although I concede he could not have done both Medicare and health care reform in the same term.) . Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Teddy Kenedy dying was a death blow to real reform. Sad.

I agree with almost all else posted.

Who is going to educate the people is my question? My guess is the market and even then it will be like Greece. That situtation could split the EU. I personally think you should have your own currency , subject to market forces.

TTG: I think you are agreeing with my statement that Obama isn't leading on this issue; because, as you analyze, he sees no political gain in articulating his policy and seeking solutions to the problem?

Pragmatism (in the John Dewey sense) and incrementalism is the key to everything Obama does. (Not that I agree with that, by the way. In point of fact, I think that Pragmatism is generally a second-best solution. But that is neither here nor there for purposes of the question you pose.)

But the more I see of Obama the more I think that he's very influenced by the Heglian reformers of the late 19th Century like Dewey. Indeed, there was a big revival in Dewey in the U.S. philosophy community in the late 1970's shortly before Obama would have been in college. So it makes sense that he might well have been heavily exposed to Dewey and his 70's adherents like Richard Rorty at both at Occidental and Columbia.

But I think the strategy is very pragmatic and centered on process, not ideology. You do what you can to solve what you can. And to Obama's credit, that may well be all you can do now, with a deeply divided government. (I maintain that he could have done much more when he had 59 Democrats in the Senate, although I concede he could not have done both Medicare and health care reform in the same term.) But I think you would see thinks like continuing the trend to broader cost control measures aimed at curtailing health care costs in general. These generally enjoy bipartisan support, although the Republicans had strategically withheld support in the past two and a half years. Small decreases in benefits. Increases in copays, etc. You'll eventually seen means testing, which is not opposed by significant numbers of Democrats. Some increases in Medicare revenues, if possible, likely for trade offs on structural tax reform to gain Republican support.

None of this will "solve" Medicare problems. However, they will push the date at which problems become critical down the road 10 - 12 years. That is at once a problem and a benefits. Some, me included, would argue that creating a solution at one fell stroke would be more desirable. But that's likely not possible. Others would say, perhaps including the President, that neither is it desirable because to do so would presume we know too much about the future. That we're actually better off not making dramatic mid-course corrections.

But that philosophical debate is almost certainly irrelevant. No solution is at hand because the political class, and the American people, are deeply divided about what to do. And the public realization that benefits at current levels and taxation at current levels are incompatible, just isn't out there. So the hard choice of increased taxes, decreased benefits, or increased health care rationing can't be made yet. The "people" just aren't ready to make that choice. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Nobody can save Medicare.

It is like trying to save a 100 year old from dying.

Nobody wants to admit that we pay 120k into Medicare yet take out 300k.

That is a math problem.

Furthermore 60% of that 300k comes at the end of a persons life.

I have no problem telling grandma and grandpa that they are being selfish for taking ... Originally Posted by WTF

Campaigning for a seat on the death panel WTF? You must love life insurance salesmen.

Although I don't disagree with the jist of your post, I'd like to see your references. But this isn't a new problem. Both the people in Social Security and Medicare have been "overdrawing" their deposits for a LONG time. Its just that now that the boomers have came due and the economy is in the dumper that this problem is getting attention before the 2024 date everyone was quoted.

But let it be noted that WTFs suggestion is "Let Grandma die" and has been for a while.

Any plan is better than Ryan's plan- in fact do nothing would be better than the crap Ryan offered Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Based on what?

TTG: I think you are agreeing with my statement that Obama isn't leading on this issue; because, as you analyze, he sees no political gain in articulating his policy and seeking solutions to the problem? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

In my view, he should lead and propose a real proposal. However, that is not the Deweyesque view. Everything to them is about process, not policy. If policy gets ahead of the process, that corrupts the outcome because not everyone has buy in, etc.

Also remember the environment in Washington. Like all places, they over-learn the lessons of the last war. And the last war, from the Democratic standpoint, was the Clinton health care debacle. The failure of that left deep and permanent scars on the Democratic staff culture in DC. The lead staffers now were top, younger mid-level talent then. And that was a searing and life altering event for them.

One of the huge problems with the Clinton debacle is that it was planned from the top with no Congressional buy in. As a result, the Obama "agenda" is all driven by a "let's not get out in front of our own troops" mantra. Probably correctly, they pin the blame on the failure of Clinton's health care initiative on the Whitehouse getting too far out in front of what Congress would actually do, and not "including Congress in the process." So now, they're afraid to take a shit without Congress being along for the ride. Second, the Democratic party of 2011 is far more moderate than the Democratic Party of 1993. And third, the Republicans of 2011 are downright reactionary versus the 1993 versions.

With these constraints, leading is almost certainly a loosing strategy now. They are not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

My complaint with Obama was that he failed to learn the correct lesson from 1993. What he should have learned is that time is your enemy and that power is fleeting. Especially 59 vote majorities. He should have been lining up votes from election night forward, rammed far more stuff through, made real reform instead of milquetoast pablum crap reform, and then figured that the next six years were just to be spend fighting off the assholes on the other side. I think he's actually delusional and things that he can somehow workout some sort of "compromise" with the Republicans that is (or should be) acceptable to the Democrats.

I have a deep and abiding belief that this strategy is a fool's game. Democratic leaning and Republican leaning Americans no longer share enough common values to compromise. We are almost a different species from one another. And while that may not be a permanent condition, it will take a hell of a lot greater crisis than this recession to make one side or the other reassess their moral basis. And frankly, I've admitted to friends that I'm very surprised the Obama isn't smart enough to see this. He sure ought to be smart enough from all the outside indicia.

Especially 59 vote majorities. He should have been lining up votes from election night forward, rammed far more stuff through, made real reform instead of milquetoast pablum crap reform, and then figured that the next six years were just to be spend fighting off the assholes on the other side. I think he's actually delusional and things that he can somehow workout some sort of "compromise" with the Republicans that is (or should be) acceptable to the Democrats.

. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

While I agree with you, I think you discount how tragic losing Kennedy was , not only that vote but his leadership.

The two worst things in the last 15 years for Dems was Kennedy dying when he did and Sandra Day O'Conner stepping down when she did. Why the fuc would she let Bush appoint a justice to her post?

Campaigning for a seat on the death panel WTF? You must love life insurance salesmen.

Although I don't disagree with the jist of your post, I'd like to see your references.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in..._medicare.html

But this isn't a new problem. Both the people in Social Security and Medicare have been "overdrawing" their deposits for a LONG time. Its just that now that the boomers have came due and the economy is in the dumper that this problem is getting attention before the 2024 date everyone was quoted.

But let it be noted that WTFs suggestion is "Let Grandma die" and has been for a while.

More like Danny Devito in "Throw Mama from the Train!" LOL
Originally Posted by gnadfly

Look, they have not paid in enough, yet the vast majority of old folks are Tea Folks that want to reduce the deficit and not touch their Medicare benifits. WTF!?

So we have a system set up by folks that expect the younger generation to pay for their healthcare because they were to greedy or stupid to do so themself!

So hell yea it it fuc granny. Granny probably didn't even work!

Look , they set up a flawed system. Why should we extend their life? I thought true conseratives pay for their own shit. This sounds like a bunch of commie crap to me and coming from Tea Party folks! Remember Sara Palin crying about Death Panels?

While I agree with you, I think you discount how tragic losing Kennedy was , not only that vote but his leadership.

The two worst things in the last 15 years for Dems was Kennedy dying when he did and Sandra Day O'Conner stepping down when she did. Why the fuc would she let Bush appoint a justice to her post? Originally Posted by WTF

Teddy's illness could have been used as the hammer to get the Senate (and to a lesser degree the House) to move their asses. No Democrat in the Senate, with the exception of a few worthless assholes, would have denied him that triumph. That's why Obama needed to push from 8 p.m. on election night with a plan and tell the motherfuckers they were going to vote for it or he was going to cut their nuts off.

The Speaker understood that, and she By God, bless her soul, enforced party discipline. Yes, the Senate is a different creature, but you have to push, push, push, and Teddy's cancer was the perfect cover to use to do it. Power if fleeting. It has a short expiration date. The Republicans understand that. Fuck, within two years, Bush had found an excuse to start a fuckin' useless, unprovoked, naked, war or aggression with Iraq, for God's sake. And had the media so fuckin' cowed, they pusillanimous right wing media shits didn't even ask any questions. That's audacity and understanding how fleeting power is. Entirely misdirected and counter productive , of course (unless you are the military industrial complex or Satan). But you get the point.

As for Sandra Day O'Connor, it's easy. She never made the jump that Souter did. What they did didn't sufficiently turn her stomach. In the end, she was still one of them.

Very similar thinking to another Obama influence - Saul Alinksy.......

In my view, he should lead and propose a real proposal. .... Everything to them is about process, not policy. If policy gets ahead of the process, that corrupts the outcome because not everyone has buy in, etc.
Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Teddy's illness could have been used as the hammer to get the Senate (and to a lesser degree the House) to move their asses. No Democrat in the Senate, with the exception of a few worthless assholes, would have denied him that triumph. That's why Obama needed to push from 8 p.m. on election night with a plan and tell the motherfuckers they were going to vote for it or he was going to cut their nuts off.

The Speaker understood that, and she By God, bless her soul, enforced party discipline. Yes, the Senate is a different creature, but you have to push, push, push, and Teddy's cancer was the perfect cover to use to do it. Power if fleeting. It has a short expiration date. The Republicans understand that. Fuck, within two years, Bush had found an excuse to start a fuckin' useless, unprovoked, naked, war or aggression with Iraq, for God's sake. And had the media so fuckin' cowed, they pusillanimous right wing media shits didn't even ask any questions. That's audacity and understanding how fleeting power is. Entirely misdirected and counter productive , of course (unless you are the military industrial complex or Satan). But you get the point.

As for Sandra Day O'Connor, it's easy. She never made the jump that Souter did. What they did didn't sufficiently turn her stomach. In the end, she was still one of them. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

While I do not completely agree with all of TexTushHog's posts I will give him credit, his expressed opinion seems to be well thought out as opposed to the product of extreme spin. We are all influenced by what we see and hear from the media and I do not doubt for a moment that TTH has a variety of sources and collectively filters the information. He then seems to formulate his own personal spin. Kudos to him, he seems to be a pretty bright guy!

The same can not be said of a few others who are heavily influenced by extreme right or left wing material that suits their personal political agenda. Even though such material oftentimes has little or no factual basis! My unsolicited advice to those mindless individuals: Consider your source prior to sharing your garbage with others!

Remember: You are oftentimes judged by the company you keep!

Remember: You are oftentimes judged by the company you keep! Originally Posted by bigtex

That is precisely why it is so hard to overlook Ayers, Dohrn and Wright.