President's budget: Excellent proposals that Congress should support.

[ProSense]

Reposting in one place.

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers

Posted by Sarah Kliff

Brad wrote earlier this week about how pharmaceutical companies were one of the biggest losers in President Obama’s budget. This BGov graph shows how much, exactly, they’re losing by — a lot.



The Obama budget cuts for pharmaceuticals work out to $164 billion, just under half the total health-care budget cuts the president is seeking.

Most of this grows out of the White House proposal to change the way Medicare pays for drugs to make it look more like the Medicaid program...Medicaid gets a great deal on drugs: Pharmaceutical companies must sell prescriptions to the entitlement program at the very best price they offer private insurance plans, or 23.1 percent lower than the average price...The Office of the Inspector General at Health and Human Services estimates that the provision has reduced Medicaid spending on drugs by 45 percent.

Medicare Part D, which covers prescriptions for seniors, does have the power to negotiate with drug companies. But that same OIG report found that that tends to lead to smaller discounts: 19 percent vs. the 45 percent reduction that Medicaid receives.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/12/obama-budget-is-a-disaster-for-drugmakers/

President Obama's Tax Proposals in his Fiscal 2014 Budget Plan

<...>

Here are the percentage changes in federal taxes that Obama proposes over the upcoming decade by type of tax:

■ Personal income taxes, mostly on the wealthy, would go up by 4 percent.

■ Corporate taxes would increase by 1 percent.

■ Excise taxes would increase by 10 percent.

■ Estate and gift taxes would go up by 40 percent.

In total, federal revenues would increase by 2.8 percent over 10 years.

Except for the excise tax increases (mainly almost a $1 per pack tax hike on cigarettes), most of the President’s proposed net tax increases would fall on the very well off.

- more -

http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2013/04/president_obamas_tax_proposals_in_his_fiscal_2014_budget_plan.php

http://ctj.org/images/2013/obamafy2014budget.pdf

Obama budget adds domestic same-sex partners to Obamacare

Posted by
CNN White House Producer Adam Aigner-Treworgy

Washington (CNN) – Buried deep inside President Obama's 2014 budget released on Wednesday is a new proposal to expand federal health insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners.

Framed as a measure to reduce the deficit, the proposal would amend the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program beginning in 2015 to add a "self plus one" enrollment option in addition to the "self" and "family" options. Like the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act that the administration has endorsed in prior budgets, this new FEHB formulation would work within the current legal constraints of the Defense of Marriage Act by adding a new classification for additional enrollees beyond family.

<...>

According to language in the budget, the proposed changes would allow the OPM to contract with "modern types of health plans rather than being limited to the current four statutorily-defined plans reflective of the 1950s insurance market."

"The health insurance marketplace has changed significantly since the FEHBP was enacted in 1959, and the current governing statute leaves little flexibility for the program to evolve with the changing market," the budget reads.

- more -

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/10/obama-budget-adds-domestic-same-sex-partners-to-obamacare/

Support Federal Employee Domestic Partner Benefits. The Budget proposes a change to the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) program that would create a new “self plus one” option for FEHB coverage for Federal employees. Same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees would be among those eligible to receive coverage under this new option. This proposal would align the FEHB program with best practices in the private sector as larger employers competing for talent are increasingly offering domestic partner benefits. The Administration also continues to support the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, which provides the same benefits to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees as those provided to married heterosexual partners of Federal employees, including not only health insurance, but also survivor annuities, compensation for work-related injuries, travel and relocation benefits, life insurance, and vision and dental benefits. In addition, the Administration has also, to the extent permissible by current law, expanded benefits for same-sex partners of Federal employees.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/factsheet/strengthening-the-economy-for-the-lgbt-community

A Budget Focus on Inequality

By ANNIE LOWREY

The great economic focus of the White House, the financial crisis and recession aside, has been inequality...The Obama budget proposal released Wednesday, like other White House budgets before it, also emphasizes the problem of inequality and the failure of the American economy to promote a thriving middle class.

<...>

The budget includes several proposals to tackle inequality and wage stagnation.

• Increasing the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour from its current rate of $7.25, and indexing it to inflation. The White House asserts that this would lift the wages of about 15 million low-wage workers.
  
  
• Creating a “Preschool for All” initiative to provide early childhood education to 4-year-olds from low- and middle-income families. The big idea is that this might improve economic mobility in the future.
  
  
• Increased taxes on wealthy Americans, including taxing carried interest as ordinary income. Hedge-fund managers and the like use the carried interest loophole to pay preferential rates on their earnings.
  
  
• Increased support for manufacturing, which the White House argues might be an important source of middle-class jobs.
  
  
• Making permanent the expansion of the earned income tax credit and child credit, which were due to expire in 2017. The proposal also makes permanent the American Opportunity Tax Credit, which helps families with students pay for college.

So far, the Obama administration has tackled the issue of inequality in two major ways. It has raised taxes on the wealthy, and it has expanded programs to aid lower-income Americans.

You might not think that the Affordable Care Act had much to do with inequality – it is a health care bill, after all – but it did. Rising insurance costs have eaten away at workers’ wages; the law has a number of provisions to try to bend the cost curve. Medical bills are a primary driver of bankruptcy for middle-class families; the law removes the lifetime benefit limit, ends denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions and contains other rules that might help reduce the number of bankruptcies.

Moreover, the law provides free or low-cost access to health coverage to tens of millions of Americans, financed by the government. That might not address the problem of income inequality. But it does address the problem of consumption inequality and perhaps even economic mobility.

- more -

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/a-budget-focus-on-inequality/

[Cha]

1. But, Congress won't. Unless Until we get a new Congress in

2015.

thanks for all the information, ProSense

[ProSense]

3. They usually

"But, Congress won't. Unless Until we get a new Congress in 2015."

...take the President's budget and use it as a basis for the spending bill. Something has to pass this year.

2012 United States federal budget

The 2012 United States federal budget was the budget to fund government operations for the fiscal year 2012, which is October 2011–September 2012. The original spending request was issued by President Barack Obama in February 2011. That April, the Republican-held House of Representatives announced a competing plan, The Path to Prosperity, emboldened by a major victory in the 2010 Congressional elections associated with the Tea Party movement. The budget plans were both intended to focus on deficit reduction, but differed in their changes to taxation, entitlement programs, defense spending, and research funding.[2][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget

2011 United States federal budget

<...>

President Barack Obama proposed his 2011 budget during February 2010. He has indicated that jobs, health care, clean energy, education, and infrastructure will be priorities. Total requested spending is $3.83 trillion and the federal deficit is forecast to be $1.56 trillion in 2010 and $1.27 trillion in 2011. Total debt is budgeted to increase from $11.9 trillion in FY2009, to $13.8 trillion in FY2010, and $15.1 trillion in FY2011.[6][7]

It was widely anticipated that a government shutdown on April 8, 2011 was possible if a budget resolution or a seventh continuing resolution was not passed by the expiration of the sixth continuing resolution on April 8, 2011,[8] which would have caused the furlough of 800,000 out of 2 million civilian federal employees.[9][10] However, a deal was reached with just hours remaining before the deadline, averting the shutdown. The deal included $38.5 billion in cuts from what had been budgeted for 2010, in addition to another $10 billion in cuts that had been imposed in some of the continuing resolutions.[11][12] However, the April 13 Congressional Budget Office estimate showed that, compared with then-current spending rates, the spending bill would cut federal outlays from non-war accounts by just $352 million through Sept. 30. About $8 billion in immediate cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid were offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget#History

[Cha]

4. Ah yes, thank you

for that reminder.

So, Let's hope they do.. 'cause they are Excellent.

[ProSense]

10. You're welcome. n/t

[freshwest]

45. As always, you sort through hard facts. I've been trying to arrange about 50 links. Thanks.

[Hoyt]

2. We'll see how many give Obama credit due.

[ProSense]

5. I don't think

"We'll see how many give Obama credit due."

...ignoring them makes them go away. They're in the budget, being covered by the media/other blogs and Congress will address them.

That would be like Republicans pretending that Obama didn't reduce the deficit, but the deficit is going down.

[patrice]

6. K&R

[ProSense]

12. Another. n/t

[patrice]

13. Proof positive that there's something seriously fucked-up about DU, only 3 recs on this GOOD TRUTH.

I'm considering cross-posting to GD with that observation about your post, but it'll only get locked for being "meta-ish" BECAUSE it's positive information about Barack Obama.

I have seen DU bad, I don't believe I have ever seen it this bad.

[FLyellowdog]

7. Can't Congress take the budget proposal apart

to keep the good and delete the bad? Maybe that's the President's plan.

Thanks for your info. I'm not even as smart as the average bear, so every little bit helps.

[ProSense]

11. Yes, and

I hope they do because Obama needs to redeem himself for destroying every federal agency and the country since 2009.

Something good needs to happen.

[patrice]

8. Other cuts: I have heard that post-acute care is evolving away from hospitals & into other settings.

Looks like that trend is becoming policy. That's the other big cut, but do note how Home Health & Nursing Homes aren't getting cut much at all, so that's where the post-acute care is going to come from, so in a way, that's not a cut in services, since Home Health & Nursing Homes (including Long-Term Care) would be adding those services to the care that they are providing anyway.

The American Health Care Association appears to support this expectation:

http://www.ahcancal.org/advocacy/statelongtermpostacute/Pages/default.aspx

Over the course of the last decade, the integration of post-acute care services in America’s skilled nursing and rehabilitation facilities has changed the healthcare delivery system. Without a doubt, the state of post-acute care in nursing facilities is evolving as facilities continue to treat more short-stay patients and provide intensive medical care for patients requiring a greater variety of complex care services.

Unlike nursing homes of the past that served primarily as long term care settings, the 21st century nursing home provides patients with a myriad of services including medical, rehabilitative and therapeutic care. In previous years, patients would have to remain in the hospital following life-saving surgery, medical complications or a serious accident. Today, patients are turning to free-standing nursing and rehabilitation facilities to provide the multifaceted post-acute care they require.

[ProSense]

9. Medicaid

Long before this Supreme Court decision, through the Affordable Care Act, seniors began to see positive changes in their prescription drug costs, access to preventive health care, and more. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision the following provisions will continue to be provided to seniors:

Medicare Improvements

The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.

1) Closing the donut hole

a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.

b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.

c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services

a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.

b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.

c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.

d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.

<...>

Medicaid Long Term Services and Supports Improvements
Several provisions in the ACA will make it easier for seniors to get long‐term services and supports at home and in the community. Medicaid provides funding for long‐term care services in institutions, such as nursing homes and in the community. Seniors prefer to receive care in their homes, and it is generally less expensive, however, most states spend their Medicaid primarily on institutional care. The ACA includes incentives to encourage states to shift Medicaid spending from institutions to the community, so that individuals who require long‐term care services may receive care in least‐restrictive environment. These incentives are not directly impacted by the Court’s decision to limit the Medicaid expansion. Elements of the ACA that enhance home and community long‐term care include:

1) Community First Choice Option (CFCO) provides participating states with a six percentage point increase in federal Medicaid matching funds for providing community‐based attendant services and supports to individuals who would otherwise be confined to a nursing home or other institution.

2) Balancing Incentive Payment Program targets increased federal matching funds to states that spend less than half of their Medicaid long‐term care expenditures on community‐based care. This spring, six states received grants to improve their community‐based care.

3) Extending Medicaid’s spousal impoverishment protection provisions to spouses of individuals who seek long‐term care in the community. This rule goes into effect in 2014.

- more -

http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf

[patrice]

14. YOUR very own VOICE in how the details of health care reform will happen, right here:

http://www.pcori.org/

[patrice]

15. For those who don't pick up on it-PCORI is going to be one of the tools by means of which acute-care

costs can be changed and shifted to OTHER PROVIDERS.

PCORI is a research based tool, so whatever chances there are for expanded "health" "care" insurance coverage, which we will see implemented in the federally designed exchanges coming in 2014, which might include new and alternative services that prove themselves through research, that chance is going to come through PCORI.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. K&R and now is the time to get a new governor in PA

and take the legislature in 2014 so that we can get this state back on track with the Medicaid expansion.

[JDPriestly]

17. And the chained CPI which will kill off seniors and thus save a lot of money.

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

No, thanks. Back to the drawing board on Obama's budget. We do not want chained CPI.

Obama otherwise has a decent budget. If he is saving all that money on pharmaceuticals, he should not need the chained CPI.

That chained CPI has nothing to do with cutting the budget and nothing to do with saving Social Security. It also is not part of some big chess move. It looks more like repayment to the Pete Peterson Simpson-Bowles-Clinton-Ryan axis for some sort of political debt.

Some of the sensible pro-Obama types on this board appear to be getting paid to post here. I don't trust them. There are a couple of them, and their posts always have a certain similar style and appearance and veneer.

[treestar]

19. Kill?

[Control-Z]

27. Kill of(f)!

Chained CPI will kill off seniors!! All of them. No need for death panels!! Yay!

I swear it feels like FR sometimes around here!

[Whisp]

29. they will be dropping like flies...

then Evil Obama is going to send out his corporate friends with their heavy equipment bulldozers to scrape the dead off the streets and mill them into fine biscuits for the 1%ers!

yep, FR doesn't even get this good at time.

[Control-Z]

35. Oh, crap. Biscuits!!

I didn't even think about the biscuits!! I bet that IS exactly what he's planning. And I voted for him. Twice. He really did trick us all, didn't he?



I'd do it again in a heartbeat!!

[JDPriestly]

31. Yes. The chained CPI is a death sentence for some seniors.

How much do you think seniors get from Social Security on average?

Clue: less than the federal minimum wage. Do the research or

read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

Seniors many, many if not most of whom rely on Social Security for most or all of their income are not living off the fat.

The average Social Security recipient receives less than the federally mandated minimum wage for a 40 hour week.

[madamesilverspurs]

47. And yet, oddly,

here I am, a senior and disabled, whose only income is a monthly SS check that is under $800, and I am not panicked by this. Of course, I have been informed that my personal experience means nothing, so I'll just keep reading all the stuff that is apparently intended to whip me into some kind of frenzy. Whatever.

[JDPriestly]

52. Maybe it's your medication that keeps you from being worried?

I'm joking.

But you should be very worried.

Check this out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

If you are now receiving food stamps or subsidized housing or Medicaid, as I understand this proposal, you could instead be given just enough of a benefit to bring you to the poverty level. Sounds great, but there is a catch. (Of course.)

That money which is now paid to you out of the general fund for those food stamps and that rent subsidy, as I understand it (and I could be wrong but no one has challenged me on this) will come out of Social Security tax money -- payroll tax money -- under Obama's proposal. The reason that the proposal will help balance the budget is that Obama would transfer the costs of your extra subsidies for housing and food and medical costs from the general fund to Social Security. (You might end up with less because you might not qualify for as much in Social Security as you get in value with the extras that help you survive now.)

If you look at my post above, you will see that the chained CPI will have a disastrous effect on the average senior who is not doing all that well in terms of income right now. The effect on widows and widowers or on single seniors who rely primarily on Social Security for their income could be disastrous within a few years.

Do you understand what a COLA is? (I don't mean to insult you, but many people do not.) Do you understand that trimming just a bit from the COLA rate each year will mean that seniors, so many of whom are already poor, will have it that much harder trying to keep up with inflation.

And if the past is any guide, it is very likely that as we pull out of this recession (if we ever do), we will see high inflation.

After the oil crises of 1973-74 and the late 1970s, we had terrible inflation plus a recession (during the early Reagan years). That could happen again. The chained CPI would be a calamity if it does. It is too much of a risk for seniors to be unworried at this time.

[madamesilverspurs]

54. Well,

I have only relied on SS for 22 years, but I do have some familiarity with COLA and other considerations. All of which factors into my not being panicked.

[L0oniX]

30. Shhhh! Church is in session in here.

You are interfering with the sacrifice of poor old people.

[JDPriestly]

32. Yes. And so is President Obama.

I did not claim that the chained CPI will kill all seniors, or as you call us "old people," but it will kill some of us, and in increasing numbers.

Check my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

The numbers tell the story.

Some seniors will have Medicare, but if will not be able to pay for the extended co-pay for hospital or hospice stays they need. That will happen. And then the doctors and hospitals will not be paid. That is the reality.

[L0oniX]

40. Well that's your reality. Mine is a $47000 bill ...and I ended up curing my own wife...

because they the g0ds of medicine would not perform a Epley maneuver.

ps: I am one of those "old" people.

[Control-Z]

41. Kill off would be most, if not all.

From free online dictionary:

kill (someone or an animal) off
to kill all of a group of people or creatures.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

kill off
transitive verb
Definition of KILL OFF: to destroy in large numbers or totally

Or did you really mean kill of?

"And the chained CPI which will kill of seniors and thus save a lot of money."

[JDPriestly]

49. Thanks. kill off is what I meant.

I type really fast and sloppily. If you think my writing is bad when I type, you should see my handwriting. Even I can't read it.

[Control-Z]

55. So, you meant kill off?

Which would mean you were stating that chained CPI would kill most, if not all, seniors, when you said: "And the chained CPI which will kill of seniors and thus save a lot of money."

You can refer again to my post #41 for the definition of kill off: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2672899

But then you wrote: "I did not claim that the chained CPI will kill all seniors, or as you call us "old people," but it will kill some of us, and in increasing numbers."

So which is it?

You see, it is not that I like the chained CPI proposal or that is doesn't deserve discussion. It is all this over the top "sky-is-falling" Obama hatred and name calling I find offensive.

[JDPriestly]

57. If they say they are going to kill off the deer, they do not mean all the

deer, they just mean the deer that they view as excess population.

Killing off the weeds does not mean you kill all weeds. It just means you kill the weeds in a particular place -- a small portion of the weeds of the world.

If you kill off the mosquitoes, again you don't mean you are going to get rid of all mosquitoes in the world.

You have to understand what even slight cuts to Social Security will mean for people. A few hundred dollars less can mean having to move from a home in which you have lived for many years because the property taxes are too much. It can mean doing without dental care or waiting another year to get a new pair of glasses or not having a hearing aid checked. It can mean that a senior eats less. And when that senior and other seniors eat less, that means that the chained CPI becomes even more of an abusive program.

Someone posted in response to my post that along with the chained CPI, they plan to cut Section 8 subsidies and subsidized meals such as meals on wheels for seniors. Those cuts will be felt by many of the neediest seniors. Increasing their benefits just a tad will not make up for their losses.

The chained CPI is a catastrophe in the making.

[Control-Z]

60. Fail.

You can't just make up your own meaning. Seriously. You know what kill off means.

It would be more honest to admit you're so passionate about the subject(s) that you felt the need to post hysterical comments so people would pay attention - and then you got carried away. I would at least understand that since most of us get that way about an issue from time to time.

[JDPriestly]

62. It may be a question of regional usage.

This is from Indiana:

A drought-related virus is killing off deer at an alarming rate, and officials are concerned that it could become an epidemic.

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/drought-related-disease-killing-deer

Maybe not just regional:

Some like it cold: A cold snap will kill off pests and diseases,
as well as working wonders for your soil

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/gardening/article-1333273/Some-like-cold-A-cold-snap-kill-pests-diseases-working-wonders-soil.html

It would be a gardener's dream to get rid of the pests and diseases forever, to kill them off as you use the term.

[Control-Z]

64. Why don't you just admit

you exaggerated. You could even qualify your ridiculous statement by saying that you meant to type "poorer" seniors. But comparing seniors to pests and weeds makes you sound a bit nutso. (And when I'm trying to kill off weeds, I'm trying to kill them all. Just sayin'.)

Let it go, man. We all make mistakes.

[JDPriestly]

67. It won't just be poorer seniors who die thanks to these cuts.

[Control-Z]

69. You would make a good

republican, digging in your heels the way you are, about something that doesn't even exist and never will under this president.

I'm done with you. I thought I had remembered you as one of DUs more thoughtful posters. I guess you're really just one of the mind police. Sad.

Good night.

[JDPriestly]

70. Here is a video that might make my reaction understandable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111963

And here is another one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017111942

My reaction is thoughtful. I have carefully looked at the evidence: what Obama proposed in his budget, the Clinton remarks in his conversation with Paul Ryan that was posted on DU the other day, the two videos above and my knowledge of the world and how things work.

I am waiting for someone to provide evidence that I am wrong.

I think we are seeing the final stages of a concerted effort to destroy Social Security that at least started under Reagan and maybe under Nixon with the passage of ERISA.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. And the proposed brutal cuts to social security suck ass!

[treestar]

20. God forbid we should consider

any other part of that budget!

[Warren Stupidity]

21. What we should not do is paper over the abomination of a Democratic President

proposing to balance the budget by gutting social security benefits with feel good bullshit about how great the rest of the budget is.

[treestar]

23. It's just feel good stuff?

What if some of those proposals would help the same people? The poor people who aren't even going to be subject to this anyway?

So anything liberal in the budget is just feel good stuff? Really? A liberal would not say that.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. No. Posts here attempting to ignore the Abomination of Social Security Cuts

are crap.

Oh and:

What if some of those proposals would help the same people? The poor people who aren't even going to be subject to this anyway?

Is nonsense.

3) We can enact Chained-CPI still protect veterans and the most vulnerable

The White House says that it will insist on protections for the most vulnerable and for veterans under any Chained-CPI plan. (This is, by the way, already a tacit admission that Chained-CPI isn’t truly more accurate—if it was, and all it was doing was removing an unnecessary windfall to beneficiaries, why does anyone need protection?)

The administration proposes the aforementioned “birthday bump,” which as we noted still doesn’t make up for the benefit cut. They also advocate protecting lowest-income seniors and people with disabilities by exempting Supplemental Security Income from Chained-CPI.

But here’s the problem: SSI is already too small, and doesn’t reach enough poverty-stricken seniors. In fact, there are 9.4 million poor or near-poor people who receive Social Security, but not SSI—so they still get hit. In addition, there are 2.8 million “dual-eligibles”—people who are on SSI but also receive some Social Security benefits. They’d be hit as well.

While the administration laudably wants to protect various veteran’s benefits programs from Chained-CPI, 9.3 million veterans are on Social Security, which is one in five Social Security beneficiaries. So they still won’t be totally insulated from the Chained-CPI cuts either.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/173786/top-5-myths-about-chained-cpi-debunked#

Please either do the research and stop repeating misinformation or admit that you are engaged in dishonest shilling.

[treestar]

25. It is not.

You are the one with misinformation and dishonesty.

Abomination? You are being almost superstitious, like social security it the Most Sacred Thing ever.

Why can't we consider the rest of the budget? Why it is just feel good stuff?

[Warren Stupidity]

33. " like social security it the Most Sacred Thing ever"

Once upon a time it was sacred to the Democratic Party.

[ProSense]

26. There are some

"No. Posts here attempting to ignore the Abomination of Social Security Cuts"

...interesting proposals in the budget. The also deserve exposure. Acknowledging these proposals are not going to interrupt or prevent the chained CPI debate.

Statements On Obama Budget From NRDC, CAP, & SEIA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022671045

President's budget: Enhances Reentry and Recidivism Initiatives (expands Second Chance Act)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022671221

[JDPriestly]

36. I got some of the numbers here that show that many people do not

understand how poor those millions of us who primarily or entirely rely on Social Security for our income really are in terms of monthly income. We have savings, but our income is strictly Social Security.

And we only have savings because we live extremely frugally, virtually never eat out, rarely, almost never go to movies, drive very old cars, etc. That's the way you live on Social Security.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. The fact that alleged Democrats are supporting this crap is maddening.

[JDPriestly]

39. +10,000.

[ProSense]

44. This OP isn't supporting it.

It's possible to talk about other things.

[JDPriestly]

34. Do you consider people earning minium wage to be poor?

If so, you should consider the average Social Security recipient to be poor.

I've got the numbers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

[L0oniX]

42. Yea ...tell us everything will be ok ...now go to sleep ...sleep ...poppies

Ya know ...I'd try to have a decent conversation with you if I actually thought you gave a damn about poor elderly people but I don't see a shred of that. Instead we are supposed to trust rich people to have our backs ...and trust the government that lied us into a war ...and continues to lie ...and lets war criminals go unpunished ...and banksters run wild on our economy. What's not to trust? No real Democrat would go along with or agree to CPI ...or anything that even smells of hurting poor old people. I know where you stand now.

[Whisp]

28. what an evil and heartless corporate stooge...

do I need a sarcy?

better yeh.



some really great stuff there.

[JDPriestly]

37. Check this out while you are at it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

[L0oniX]

43. +1

[ProSense]

46. The health care law and Medicaid are

going to hell a lot of seniors. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2670334

[JDPriestly]

48. Most seniors need help.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

[ProSense]

50. Millions will be helped. n/t

[JDPriestly]

56. But more millions will be hurt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022672737

And I don't think it is going to help anybody other than Pete Peterson and his friends in the long run. And all it will mean to those folks is a boost to their feeling of being powerful. What a mean bunch!

Where is the money going to come from to help the hypothetical millions that you say will be helped, most of whom RECEIVE LOW BENEFITS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PAY ENOUGH TO RECEIVE MORE FROM SOCIAL SECURITY DURING THEIR WORKING LIVES.

It is going to come from Social Security and from reductions via the chained CPI in benefits now paid out to those Social Security beneficiaries who PAID INTO THE SYSTEM DURING THEIR WORKING LIVES.

While helping the poorest sounds wonderful, it would completely change the philosophy and basis and equity in the Social Security system. And it really is not necessary.

Why do I say that? Let me explain and ask a few questions that I will answer.

Are the millions of Social Security recipients who receive sub-poverty-level benefits now really so much poorer than the recipients of full benefits who get less than minimum wage?

Usually not. Most of them qualify for food stamps, maybe a housing subsidy or supplemental Medicaid to go with their Medicare.

What will happen if they no longer have a sub-poverty-level income? Do you think they will continue to qualify for those extra programs?

I don't think they will. You have to have a certain minimum income to qualify for those programs.

So many of the poorest seniors will be no better off receiving a slightly higher Social Security benefit that raises them just barely above the poverty rate than they are now. Not financially anyway. Some may be worse off, especially if they now receive a housing subsidy and Medicaid based on their low income.

And where will the money come from to pay higher benefits to those Social Security recipients now receiving sub-poverty-level benefits?

Social Security tax revenue of course.

Not only is this a complete revision in the Social Security system from a benefits-based-on-contributions to a benefits-based-on-needs system, a questionable revision and, arguably, from a right-wing point of view, a move toward "socialism," but it will put more of a burden on the Social Security system.

If you pay for the supplemental benefits of the poorest people on Social Security from the Social Security Trust Fund, you will place MORE STRESS ON THE FUND, not save it. Why would Obama do that?

We have to think for ourselves, not just copy-type the Obama propaganda we have been given to post on DU.

So, why is this chained CPI measure being proposed in the context of cutting the budget and reducing the debt?

Because it will increase the Social Security Trust Fund's problems but IT MIGHT DECREASE THE GENERAL FUND OBLIGATIONS and therefore might decrease the general fund's problems.

This proposal is not intended to save Social Security or help the poorest of the poor on Social Security. It is intended to shift costs from the general fund to the Social Security fund.

It is intended to reduce the obligation of the general fund without cutting into wasteful defense expenditures and the tax benefits given to major corporations.

It is intended, for example, to make it possible to allow tax cheats to repatriate their money from overseas without having to pay penalties and taxes on it.

It is intended to change the character and justness of the Social Security system and make it a less successful, less popular system. It is intended to destroy the Social Security system.

That, Pro Sense is why I oppose it. That is why I am, yes, emotional about it.

I know what Social Security has meant to my elderly mother and many of her widow and widower friends. I want to see Social Security strengthened.

The way to do that is to tax imports and create jobs with the new tax revenue. I believe that Alexander Hamilton proposed import taxes as the main source of revenue for our country. It used to be great to have income taxes as that primary source because we were a nation that exported more than we imported and therefore had lots of jobs and industry. We have changed, and we need to change our tax code from one that is virtually entirely dependent on income taxes to one that gets some revenue from our trade with other countries which puts us in a deficit not only money-wise but jobs-wise. So that is a structural change in our tax system that we need to and will probably eventually have to make or go under.

You see, if you look at the post I linked to above, you will understand that couples on Social Security are generally OK especially if they have saved a little. But once one of them dies and the other one is left with the expenses of two people, sometimes property taxes or other costs that do not go down in a one-person household, then the remaining spouse or partner is truly in trouble. That is why you cannot cut the chained CPI for Social Security and why the increases to the lowest paid recipients will cause more problems than they will solve.

I am certain that the chained CPI will destroy Social Security.

If that's what Obama wants to do, let him admit it out loud, in public to everybody. But there are alternatives to fixing our debt. Pete Peterson is, in my opinion, not all that smart.

[ProSense]

58. No,

"But more millions will be hurt."

...the chained CPI has no chance of passing because House Republicans don't want to own that vote (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701) and it has no chance in the Senate.

The provisions in the health care Medicaid provisions are already law.

[JDPriestly]

59. And Obama will forever be associated with it if not blamed for the idea.

A bridge has been crossed into the no-man's land of permitting Democrats to attack Social Security and suggest ways of cutting it.

That will never be undone.

Huge mistake.

As is Obama's campaign for charter schools.

[ProSense]

63. Maybe so,

"And Obama will forever be associated with it if not blamed for the idea."

...but a proposal that's rejected isn't going to resonate when there are strong positives like the upcoming implementation of the health care law expanding Medicaid.

[JDPriestly]

68. As I said, the ACA would have given Obama more credit for something good,

if it had been implemented more quickly.

Also, I'm hoping that with the ACA, the medical system will become linked by computer information about each patient.

I have a friend whose daughter has mental health issues. Every time she has an episode, she seems to end up in a different hospital. And each hospital puts her on a new regime of medications. It is a mess. Her mother is beside herself. I know that Obama wanted to get a system that would computerize medical records nationwide, but I have not heard whether that is included in the ACA or whether there is plan to realize the network.

The ACA should already be up and running. It's been tough on a lot of families that they had to wait.

[ProSense]

71. Well,

"As I said, the ACA would have given Obama more credit for something good, if it had been implemented more quickly...The ACA should already be up and running. It's been tough on a lot of families that they had to wait. "

...Republican efforts to repeal it have failed miserably. It survived a SCOTUS challenge and Democrats, including the President, ran and won on it in 2012. Now it's months away from full implementation.

Howard Dean on the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022560359

[customerserviceguy]

51. It's laughable

to think that Big Pharma is just going to take this. The only question is, who are they going to pass it off on to? My guess is that patients under the exchanges are going to get gouged, Big Pharma will take some out of employer-provided health plans, and the uninsured are going to shoulder a goodly part of the burden.

Many people here think "Medicare for all" is workable, the only reason it still exists is because those who provide for Medicare patients have enough other business to third-party the cost off to. We can't all fit in the safety net, there will be nobody to hold it up off the ground.

[silverweb]

53. Bookmarked, saved, and shared!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Thank you, as always, ProSense.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

61. K&R n/t

[Number23]

65. K&R Matthew Yglesias, a liberal economics writer for Slate, says that the proposed cuts

are the "largest shift of economic resources to the lower half of the income distribution in generations." Very much in line with the NY Times article that you linked to.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/04/obama_s_2014_budget_obama_wants_to_soak_the_rich_to_help_the_poor_republicans.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11028797

[ProSense]

66. Congress should

reject chained CPI (it has no support http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2671482) and pass the excellent proposals in the budget.

[ProSense]

72. Kick! n/t