William Pitt - Looming Betrayal

[Doctor_J]

Pitt stuck with the prez longer than I did, but is now confronting reality with his usual eloquence

Exactly what the hell is going on around here?

On Thursday, headlines on both the Washington Post and the New York Times announced that President Obama had put both Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block, as part of some "grand bargain" with House Speaker Boehner and the GOP to cut the deficit and avoid blowing the August 2 debt limit deadline. The deal, as reported, would also include as much as $1 trillion in "new revenue" to be raised by closing off and eliminating loopholes in the tax code. No tax increases of any kind were on the table.

The Post put it this way:

The White House meeting, which began shortly after 11 a.m., came as Obama pressed lawmakers to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.

The remarks ahead of Thursday's meeting indicated that GOP opposition to tax increases in the debt-limit discussions has not softened - despite a statement by Cantor on Wednesday that Republicans would consider closing some tax loopholes if such a move were offset by tax cuts elsewhere, as well as a new willingness on the part of the White House to consider major changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of a far-reaching deficit deal. House Republicans on Thursday reiterated their support for reform of such entitlement programs.

....

And now here is a Democratic president, after all those years of struggle to defend and protect the social contract created by these policies, offering them up for destruction because he can't seem to stop himself from agreeing with Republicans. Here is a Democratic president who happily accepts the premise of their devious arguments, and who appears unwilling to summon enough spine to rebuff the debt-ceiling-default tactic being deployed by the GOP in an act of national hostage-taking. Instead, hey, why not, let's rip these programs to shreds and fulfill the deepest, darkest fantasies of the far right.

http://www.truth-out.org/looming-betrayal/1310137478

[MADem]

1. I remember him.

He used to take his ball and go home regularly. Sometimes he'd get really angry/upset and go off the page at the site owners. He'd quit, or get tombstoned, and then come back.

Is he here nowadays? I seem to recall some sort of dustup with that Truthout website--something that maybe wasn't entirely true? My memory fails...

[KoKo]

3. It's maybe not the time...

to shoot the messenger, though. What's past is past and Will has done some good work at Truthout and in other areas.

He has been very supportive of our President. That he is concerned is important. He's not the only one who writes on the Democratic side now getting concerned about Obama's direction going forward.

[patrice]

5. He needs to learn a little more about what is actually going on with Medicare. nt

[KoKo]

26. So WHAT would you TELL HIM...he needs to learn to get up to speed?

What is it that YOU KNOW...that HE needs to learn?

[MADem]

21. Who's shooting anyone? I just remembered the name and some sort

of issue with Truthout, and was curious if he was still/once again around/back.

[KoKo]

27. It was minor and Will (for all his faults/flaws) has always been a voice for truth as he can

find it...and to report it. And...believe me...I've had major "Dust Ups" with him...but he's not fake....he just sometimes gets "off track" in his personal life.

Aren't all of us like that? From time to time? We are none of us perfect and riddled with flaws..It's what makes us HUMAN as opposed to Cheney/Rumsfeld and others.

[MADem]

45. I wasn't "judging"--I was simply inquiring.

No agendas.

I swear, we need more emoticons or something. I haven't been around much; the last time I saw the guy, that was the "issue at hand" as I remember.

[Beartracks]

44. "Obama's direction going backward" Fixed! n/t

[grasswire]

19. He is here regularly. n/t

[patrice]

20. Notice that with about 330 Views, the "Doctor" here apparently doesn't have anyone to rec this.

Now, I wonder why THAT would be.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. In kindergarten and grade school they try to teach you to share, Boehner was probably

napping... and for the rest of the whole sharing thing... some are innately selfish, others not so much. We need to have lawmakers who tend towards the latter. Well, on second thought they share, they share your money with the MIC and the corps that own them.

[patrice]

4. Is it just me, or has Pitt et al become a subject-matter-expert on Medicare? Why is it

that this faction is ignoring their own leader du jour's statements this week in which Senator Bernie Sanders avowed his antipathy for a deal that has ONLY Medicare cuts, rather than saying something like that against a deal with ANY Medicare cuts.

It is crazy over-statements like Pitt's last sentence that make it possible for both sides to cop-out on the negotiations. If he and his get their way, Medicare's UNJUST inefficiencies will be perpetuated. People will continue to die, for lack of appropriate care, at a higher rate because of our economic disaster, until Medicare goes bankrupt. And the door to Medicare for All will disappear. But, hey, what the heck William Pitt et al will have huge buddy lists here on the DU.

[Doctor_J]

7. Do you disagree that the far right want to eliminate Medicare and SS,

and that Obama's horrific weakness, dissembling, and need to give in to the people who want to destroy him are helping the fascists with this goal? The president has now, finally, after months of half-truths and half-denials, admitted that he wants to cut Medicare and SS benefits. Why does your blind obedience to the president cause you to believe and regurgitate the fight-wing lie that Medicare (one of the greatest American achievements EVER, and a staple of every other industrialized country "has to be fixed"? In a way, those on your side of this debate are a lot like the Limbeciles - whatever hate radio tells them regardless of how bizarre it sounds or how much it conflicts with reality, becomes their deeply-held belief.

Edit: Then there is also the fact that the GOP has stated firmly that they will not budge on anything, period, and the president's response - as on every other issue - is to give them more and more.

[patrice]

10. Blind? Don't make any assumptions about me and I won't make any about you.

No I do not disagree.

Tell us all about your Medicare expertise, please.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[patrice]

12. Please answer my question about Senator Sanders. nt

[patrice]

16. Hello? hello? . . . ? nt

[Doctor_J]

38. Sanders is in panic mode about the president's capitulation (again)

He was disappointed after all of the wars got renewed, mortified when the Bush tax cuts were extended, but I think he believed that even this president would draw a line at Medicare & SS cuts. The fact that the WH never talks to the Dems, and that they have to learn by watching Fox News about the most recent giveaways, concerns Sanders who, along with many leftists and Dems, thought that they would finally get some leadership on their side. In answer to your question, or whatever it was, sanders is cclear, concise, and consistent as being opposed to any benefit cuts. That puts him in conflict with the WH, who are now making jokes about "Cutting, but not slashing" benefits. that performance by Carney yesterday was a travesty, and anyone who cares about SS and Medicare should be disgusted.

[gateley]

6. I'd like to hear just WHAT, exactly, is on that "chopping block".

We assume the worst, it COULD be legit (Dean mentioned drug costs??).

Obama needs to TELL us instead of letting us speculate and project.

[KoKo]

8. What has many worried is that he isn't telling us what he proposes ...what

exactly he will bargain for. And, his statements in the past haven't always jived with his later actions.

Also, if it's just making Medicare more efficient by cracking down on waste or abuse...then why wouldn't he just give the SS Administration more manpower? Why would he have to bargain with Repugs over what he can do on his own? So...tells me there's something more afoot.

[patrice]

14. Provisions for professional stake holders to review Medicare were part of the ACA. nt

[patrice]

18. Maybe THEY are going to let the professionals tell us some stuff first. nt

[KoKo]

22. Something about "letting Professionals tell us some stuff first"...bothers me...

Are you saying it shouldn't bother me? WHY DOES IT BOTHER ME? After 8 years of George Bush, THE CHIMP...you need to ask? and "I" need to ask "WHY THIS BOTHERS ME?" :eyes:

Sorry...I'm skating on thin ice here.....;-(

[patrice]

29. You're against the people providing the care telling us about their problems in doing so? nt

[gateley]

33. Yeah. I do agree it's worrisome. Sheesh. nt

[Doctor_J]

9. Since it took him months to admit that Medicare and SS would be chopped AT ALL,

it will likely be awhile before we are notified of the extent of the damage. Look at it this way - if it were something to be proud of, we'd have already heard about it.

[patrice]

13. Faulty logic: I didn't see/hear it, ergo it did not happen. nt

[KoKo]

23. Okay...then you don't read all the discussion on what's still "left" of Left Media Sites...and

like Repugs you don't read the WaPo or NYT and you get all your info from Faux News? :shrug:

Are you kidding Me?

You don't know anything about what this DISCUSSION or POST IS ABOUT...and you are on here putting your views OUT?

:wtf:

[patrice]

39. I was summarizing Doctor J's logic in his post #9. I worked in an independent

LTC standards organization, coordinating with state omnbudsmen, for 3 years.

Senator Sanders was talking about Medicare reform being a means to Medicare for All as an end in itself, on Thom Hartmann's radio show right after passage of the ACA. Some people like that approach, because it's possible that it'll be a rules change instead of new legislation, but Sanders DID make the point that there are efficiencies to be created in Medicare first, in order to make it survive economically for future generations, hence my reference above to his recent quote in which he did **NOT** say he was averse to a deal from Obama with ANY Medicare "cuts", but said instead that he was averse to such a deal with ONLY Medicare "cuts". THIS from THE MOST INDEPENDENT SENATOR IN THE SENATE!

Numerous groups have been looking at this situation for some time now. (I'm just grabbing these but ...) here's 2 of the big ones which you can search their websites:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0711_care_reform.aspx
http://www.rwjf.org/coverage/product.jsp?id=63708

There ARE others. I've seen regional ones and national ones focusing, some of them, not as much on Medicare as on the standards of good care itself, especially in LTC, which is where a LOT of Medicare money goes. AND the ability to deliver good quality care is a HUGE deal to Nurses.

There are 3 nurses in my family. I have worked around nurses professionally; one of the things they like best about Medicare, its flexibility, also works against them under certain kinds of "health" "care" administrators, under a catch-all referred to as "Risk Management". Nurses have HIGH concerns about this, because it is agony for them to not be able to do what they need to do for those in their care and also because of endemic staffing shortages in their field and amongst their first tier of support, CNAs.

I personally have seen someone die (my MIL), whom the system had decided that her time was up, processes were followed, check boxes all filled in, reports made on time, call lights answered etc., all legal, but ugly as hell, and I was too ignorant at the time to understand what was going on, until it was too late. I have also seen someone else die of exactly the same thing as my MIL, but ON HER OWN TIME (my mother), same age, same condition, similar in numerous ways, except for the standards of care, and my Mom made it to about 10 years older than my MIL did and my sisters could tell you some major horror stories about their dealings with hc resources for mom's care. Medicare paid for both Mom & Dorothy.

Talk to nurses who work around the elderly and they will tell you: the smallest things you can imagine sometimes make huge differences in how well elders do IF someone is there to discover what is needed and provide it. Risk Managers (BIG consulting business, btw) affect that situation; they affect who, exactly is there and what they are doing. And, then, it is not uncommon for anyone who rocks the boat on this stuff to find themselves looking for another job. With staffing shortages, they almost always get employed again quickly anyway. CNAs with no felonies can work practically anywhere in the country tomorrow. That fact is preventing much if anything ever being done about the problems. Nurses don't want higher pay and better benefits, they want to be able to do the right things for those in their care (so they can sleep at night), but they have to FIGHT the systems to get that done. Medicare either pays directly or supports the resources, and administrators, indirectly in which the problems manifest themselves.

It'd be funny, if the consequences weren't so dire, to see all of these people on this board with their hair on fire over Medicare "cuts". The definition of the word "cut" should be determined by hc professionals, not a bunch of politics obsessed people on the internet.

[KoKo]

28. Good points...along what I was asking above...

..."It will likely be awhile before we are notified of the extent of the damage." UGH!

[gateley]

34. I'm afraid you nailed it. :-( nt

[patrice]

15. Professionals in the field have been studying this for years.I have 1st hand knowledge of that fact.

About 7 years that I know of.

[KoKo]

24. That's very cool that you know about all of this...How about giving LINKS or Discussion?

Something READERS of this post can grip onto and get in a dialogue about.

WHERE ARE YOUR LINKS or ANYTHING to POSIT YOUR POSITION?

:shrug:

[KoKo]

30. Doy you mean "Third Way, DLC, Center for American Progress & Democratic Lobbyists?"

Drug Companies, Special Interests, Big Pharma, Lobbyists for the aforementioned, and Petersen Foundation, and Political Interest that Obama appointed to his "Deficit Commission," etc...etc...etc...

:shrug:

[patrice]

32. Not everything is about politics. I am referring to the standards of care identified by the

professionals who provide it, who btw, in my experience tend to be kind of a-political, because their main priorities are all about the people they care for, i.e. what Medicare enables and which the systems in which they work often impedes in a variety of ways.

[gateley]

35. I'm not following -- studying what, exactly? Educate me, too!

:7

And...what have they determined?

Thanks!

[patrice]

36. You can search Physicians for a National Health Program on this topic, but here's the first

thing I pulled up: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2011/may/the-push-to-enact-medicare-reform

[gateley]

37. Thanks -- I was just unsure WHAT the professionals were

studying.

I honestly think every study shows that it's the best way for everyone and the country. Except the insurance companies (the Death Panels).

:hi:

[patrice]

40. Medicare doesn't have the kinds of gate-keepers private insurance has, those whom we

refer to as "Death Panels", but it encounters a co-relate for that function in Risk Managers. You should have seen how drastically my MIL's care changed when she was first diagnosed with Dementia. HC professionals are fighting this stuff, but they have to go against so much of the provider systems to do that.

[patrice]

41. Also my post #39 above.

:hi: back at you :hi:

[patrice]

17. Perhaps this post should be Subject lined: Looming Betrayal - William Pitt nt

[KoKo]

25. Will Pitt did an EXCELLENT POST in WHAT YOU LINK! EOM

[patrice]

31. ? I didn't link anything. nt

[KoKo]

42. Odie DU'er....posts about CAUTION... Nice Read. n/t

[Kurmudgeon]

43. "No tax increases of any kind were on the table" Wasn't that why Boehner walked?

That's not what that says right below. Is wsj.com lying? I don't think so.

"So the fondest Washington hopes for a grand debt-limit deal have broken down over taxes. House Speaker John Boehner said late Saturday that he couldn't move ahead with a $4 trillion deal because President Obama was insisting on a $1 trillion tax increase, and the White House quickly denounced House Republicans for scuttling debt reduction and preventing "the very wealthiest and special interests from paying their fair share." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576438130028027412.html