OBAMA "He will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on..."

[kpete]

Obama Urges Higher Taxes To Curb Deficit By $3 Trillion
Alister Bull and Caren Bohan
Reuters US Online Report Top News

Sep 18, 2011 22:30 EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, in a rallying call to his Democratic base, will vow on Monday to veto any cuts in Medicare if Congress fails to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans to curb the deficit.

"He will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share," a senior administration official told reporters.

....................

In his remarks tomorrow, the president will make clear he is not going to support any plan that asks everything of some Americans, nothing of others," the official said.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2011/09/obama_urges_higher_taxes_to_curb_deficit_by_3_tril.php?ref=fpa

[dionysus]

1. i hope this thread doesnt get crickets

[sabrina 1]

21. Did you notice the word 'if' in there?

'he will veto any bill that takes one dime from senior IF Republicans refuse to raise taxes. But they will, because they have to and some of them have already being saying they are not against considering 'some taxes'.

So, once again, a program that has nothing at all to do with the mad spending of the Bush administration, the tax cuts that ran up a two trillion dollar bill, the wars for which we always seem to have money, or the Economic Meltdown caused by corporate fraud and corruption. What did Medicare have to do with any of the reasons for the economic situation we are in?

When I first read it, I thought finally, he's beginning to sound Candidate Obama. But then I saw the word 'IF' and realized, Medicare IS on the table, unless you don't know the meaning of the word 'IF'.

[Dragonfli]

24. So I am not the only one to notice the IF, don't worry, the tax increases will be small

and the "entitlement" cuts large, he will not disappoint his base (the money that brought him to the dance).

[mikekohr]

37. Raising the Social Security cap and means testing Medicare are possibilities the President raised

both acceptable to me and I think large majorities of Americans.

[dflprincess]

103. The problem being that any program the government "means tests"

has income limits set that bear no relation to what a person needs to survive on in the real world.

[LadyHawkAZ]

79. I thought the same

It's smoke and mirrors- he'll get a slight, slight increase with plenty of loopholes you could drive a truck through, and in return will give up Medicare and SS.

[slay]

83. I also noticed he said "benefits seniors rely on" - nothing about what future seniors would rely on

sucks that Obama is so tricky with his words - you have no idea how large the gap is between what he says and what he means.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[SharonAnn]

104. So, he'll accept a bill that takes $$$ from Medicare if "the wealthiest Americans

and the biggest corporations ... pay their fair share."

So, he's saying that if they'll agree to paying their fair share, then he'll agree to cutting Medicare.

[sabrina 1]

114. That's what it sounds like to me. But the sound bite makes it sound

like he drew a line in the sand, which he should have, at taking anything from seniors, especially their HC benefits.

You have to watch everything they say apparently. And why is Medicare the bargaining chip? How about taking away their bonuses if they don't pay their fair share of taxes? It's as if they can't think of anything else to bargain with other than the pittances of the most vulnerable Americans.

[Skittles]

107. why would it?

DUers respond when Obama behaves like a Democrat

[me b zola]

2. So as long as the wealthy put up a couple of bucks

...medicare is fair game? Thats how I read this.

[leftstreet]

4. Yes. If rich people will pony up $$ for lawyers to find new loopholes, Medicare is fair game

:-(

[INdemo]

31. You can say that if you are not paying medicare premiums.

Obama already cut medicare once..with the new healthcare bill..(referencces if you would like)..And now he is wanting to cut it again. This bill or proposed bill was put together pretty fast and with the advisers he has it was bound to take more from the middle class..All this BS about tax increases will not take affect until 2013 or 14 and by then we will probably have a Teabagger in the White House..This is political suicide..

[truedelphi]

94. + my household n/t

[spedtr90]

96. Medicare reforms do not reduce Medicare’s guaranteed benefits.

Saying Obama cut Medicare is pretty broad - cut what in Medicare? Not benefits.

From The Center for Medicare Advocacy:

The Affordable Care Act achieves savings in the Medicare program through a series of payment reforms, service delivery innovations, and increased efforts to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.

The law specifically states that the guaranteed benefits in Medicare Part A and Part B will not be reduced or eliminated as a result of changes to the Medicare program.

http://www.medicareadvocacy.org/2010/10/health-care-reform-does-not-cut-medicare-benefits/

[kath]

12. Yep - me too. Put a teensy-weensy tax increase for the rich on there, then feel free to screw the

elderly and the poor.

[trueblue2007]

20. BULL CRAP. YOU DIDN'T READ IT

Under fire from Democrats to defend Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs as he seeks to galvanize supporters ahead of the election next year, Obama will demand that all Americans share the burden of controlling the budget.

"He will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share," a senior administration official told reporters.


******"In his remarks tomorrow, the president will make clear he is not going to support any plan that asks everything of some Americans, nothing of others," the official said.

The plan will include a "Buffett Rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, that would set a minimum tax rate for anyone making more than $1 million a year.

A clearly populist step, the tax would only apply to a tiny minority of the millions of Americans who file tax returns every year. But White House aides said it would set a standard of fairness that would yield more revenue if it became law.

[INdemo]

51. Yes but there is this problem Medicare is not a part of the US

Budget. It is self funded which goes into a trust fund for medicare..Now when they,the President or whom ever asks us to buy this bullshit story its just that..We need the jobs bill with the infrastructure jobs in place....They have no plan to tax..What they want to do is rob, yes steal more from the fund and they want us and Seniors to pay more into the till so they can steal that too.
What Obama needs to do is fire all them damn Republicans in his administration replace them with real professional Democrats..Geithner should be the first to go,Robert Gibbs the professional Republican should go and Axelrod has outwore his welcome and all those other Wall street sympathizers.
He has all those Repukes giving him advice and then of course he looks down the list of his Wall Street contributors and know full well that when wont be taxing the rich..If he does get something through..welll he wont..Medicare tamping is political suicide.


Read this
http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

[rhett o rick]

56. The way I read it, it says that he wont reduce benefits w/o "asking".....

Which actually means that he will or may cut benefits after "asking"..... Or possibly he will only cut benefits if the rich are taxed. But looks like benefits will be cut.

[tblue]

89. That's what it says.

[Shandris]

60. Yeah...I'm sorry True, but -you- didn't read it.

Or if you did, you're projecting words that are not there on it.

First, it has nothing to do with future cuts -only-. It has to do with CURRENT cuts (else he would not have mentioned '(that) seniors rely on'. That's present tense, and it's coupled with 'without'. It's opposite would be 'Will not veto any bill that takes one dime from benefits...while asking the wealthiest'.

It's a green light to go ahead and make a proposal, ANY proposal, that increases taxes on the wealthiest, knowing the Republicans won't do it. Of course, they'll just play their class warfare schtick again and again, and eventually - if history is an indicator - he'll cave on it, calling it a 'needed compromise' and 'the hard work no one else wanted to do'.

[Butch350]

65. I think number 12 was merely stating his opinion...

There is nothing to read. All americans should do their fair share to help the economy.

So it makes it ok. As long as you tax the rich (who can afford it - even maybe YOU)- so now
it's ok now to ask americans who can't afford it to get screwed.

I read it and I'm reading you.

[truedelphi]

95. He's been in office three and half years,

And the excuses those loyalists put up for him are no longer credible.

His appointments were the richest and most corrupt of individuals.

A President who has GE's Immelt on his committee about economics and jobs is not a friend of mine.

And most of his advisers are even worse!

[Bluebear]

23. Certainly

[AllyCat]

101. That's how I read it too. They'll pay a few dollars more in tax over the next 10 years

and we will take it in the teeth NOW.

[JDPriestly]

3. We shall see.

[SugarShack]

5. Kabuki Theater. Taxes will be raised. But still why cut Medicare?

What is his thinking? You don't say Medicare should not be cut and I'll veto it...unless you ask rich to pay fair share. Then what? More money for more wars....and Medicare will get cut...cuz taxes were raised. Ohhhhhh what a plan! Even if rich pay their fair share, Medicare should NOT be cut.

[NorthCarolina]

32. Because that is the real goal here, cuts to Medicare.

But first they must play up the "rich won't pay another dime" angle in the media and on the stump. After that is sufficiently implanted in the psyche of the neanderthal public brain, then they can proceed with cuts to Medicare in a package that includes a modest hike to the wealthy that will simultaneously be offset in some way as to be MORE beneficial to them anyway. It's Kabuki theater without a doubt...almost moronically obvious, and yet they will push it through and then belittle those smart enough to say "Hey, wait a minute here" as Liberal fringe crybabies who didn't get their pony.

[woo me with science]

53. [phone]

[woo me with science]

54. Unbelievable. Seek credit for saving Medicare while targeting Medicare.

What fucking gall.

[tblue]

90. Too happy too soon, huh?

[KoKo]

105. +!!!

[phleshdef]

40. Because unlike social security, Medicare really is in danger of becoming unsubstainable.

[mmonk]

43. What is unstainable are the rises in private health insurance costs

and the underlying cost rises by the Pharmaceutical and hospital industries. Unless I start a new business soon that is successful which is hard in this climate, I probably won't be able to afford to be protected in the future as I turn 55 next month.

[phleshdef]

44. In other words, the cost of medical care... which Medicare is responsible for paying for...

Medicare's substainability is and always will be, directly tied to the costs of medical care across the board. When/if those costs become too high, then Medicare becomes too high.

[sad sally]

81. The Trustee's 2011 Report summarizes what you're saying:

The drawdown of Social Security and HI (Part A) trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI (Part B) will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that projected non-dedicated sources of revenues -- primarily general revenues -- will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. That threshold was in fact breached for the first time in fiscal 2010. A Presidential proposal is required by law in response to the latest warning.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html?du

[tblue]

6. Nope. No deal. No, sir.

"veto any cuts in Medicare if Congress fails to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans to curb the deficit."

Veto any cuts anyway. Also Medicaid cuts are in there, too.

[FarLeftFist]

7. I'm open for cuts if they are waste, fraud, and abuse.

[DrunkenBoat]

22. Um -- if they're waste, fraud & abuse, why aren't they being prosecuted *now*?

How will cuts get rid of waste, fraud & abuse?

Is there some portion of medicare that consists solely of waste fraud & abuse & is in need of cutting? The "WASTE, FRAUD & ABUSE" benefit or something?

[NorthCarolina]

39. Perhaps the cuts are intended to offset the waste, fraud & abuse. nt

[FarLeftFist]

52. Are you saying there is no waste, fraud, abuse in the medicare system?! It's one of the costliest.

Maybe they could find it and put an end to it, therefore saving hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

[DrunkenBoat]

66. If they wanted to find it & end it they'd be doing so now. Program cuts don't end

waste, fraud & abuse, oversight & enforcement do.

[FarLeftFist]

72. But how do we know that oversight & enforcement aren't part of what they consider cuts?

And why would they be doing it by now? It's been going on forever. Maybe now they want to enforce it. Makes sense to do so.

[DrunkenBoat]

73. Because added oversight & enforcement = added spending, & because

fraud prevention isn't normally billed as a "cut" to programs. For starters, it's incredibly bad PR.

[FarLeftFist]

74. But we already have that oversight committee in place.

Surely they have already gone after abusers, the salary of their paychecks do not even close to exceed the amount that would be saved. Therefore it is still a reduction in costs.

[DrunkenBoat]

77. I don't understand your post. Some kind of grammar or syntax problem. Who is "they" in

the first two sentences?


At any rate, the fraud has *not* been halted & likely won't be until the larger issues are addressed:


Can We Talk About Drug Patents Please? (Dean Baker)

The Washington Post ran a fascinating article (researched by ProPublica). The article examined 15 instances in which pharmaceutical or medical supply companies reached settlements in connection with kickback schemes where they paid doctors to use their drugs or medical equipment. The study found that none of the 75 doctors paid any fine or suffered any professional sanction.

While this is an amazing situation, since it implies that these doctors suffered no consequence even after being caught in actions that could have endangered the health and the life of their patients, it is even more remarkable that patent protection, the underlying cause of the problem, was never mentioned. Government granted patent monopolies allow drug companies to charge prices that several hundred or even several thousand percent above the free market price.

In a free market, most drugs would be sold at just $5-$8 per prescription, as is the case with hundreds of generic drugs. However, patent monopolies allow drug companies to sell these drugs for hundreds or even thousands of dollars per prescription. This enormous gap between the patent monopoly price and free market price is the basis for the kickbacks. In the absence of patent protection, the profit margins would not be sufficient to allow drug or medical supply companies to pay kickbacks.



...The scope of patent protection & "intellectual property" protection was greatly expanded post-reagan. It's the primary basis for the increasingly rentier-oriented economy we now live under.

[FarLeftFist]

91. "THEY", the Govt. Or the DOJ who prosecuted someone last week for $205MILLION in fraud

And another one for $80MILLION in fraud. That money could add up QUICKLY.

[truedelphi]

69. Did you know that in the NYC area, they don't bother with known cases of fraud

Unless it amounts to over twenty thousand bucks!

[DrunkenBoat]

70. Yes, I've heard similar stories. So if true, why aren't they prosecuting such

fraud NOW?

Lack of enforcement money? Then how will cuts help?

Lack of will (because the people doing most of the fraud are their buddies in the healthcare industry)? Then the only way to stop such fraud is to defund everything.

[truedelphi]

82. It told me a great deal about Obama when he offered up some twenty

Billions of dollars to help hospitals "computerize" their records.

I can't write about it this second, but will PM you tonight.

If ever there was an area of out and out being on the take, this computerization stuff is it.

[sabrina 1]

115. Nowhere near as much as there is in the Pentagon Budget.

Yet we never hear about any attempt to get that under control. Billions of waste and corruption in that budget, mostly going to the wealthiest.

How about he threatens additional 'cuts' to offset the waste in the Pentagon budget then, if it's waste we're worried about, and deal with any abuse in the Medicare system which should be a lot easier, without putting Medicare on the table?

[truedelphi]

68. Thanks for an insightful reply.

There are plenty oflaws on the books to cover the waste, and the fraud and the abuse.

If the government wanted to go after those elements, they could do it now. Without any further haggling over MediCare provisions.

[NorthCarolina]

33. Yeah, like those damn Seniors attempting to defraud the system by claiming benefits at 65

instead of 67 or later, when they should. :sarcasm:

[tropicanarose]

99. Exactly.....we need to crack down on fraud and abuse of benefits but not the benefits

[EFerrari]

8. So now not cutting Medicare is contingent on the Teabagger Congress?

Right.

[tpsbmam]

9. Cuts.to providers count....

Cuts to providers results in cut services, including fewer providers willing to accept Medicare patients. No cuts to Medicare period! And as others have pointed out, there shouldn't be any cuts even if taxes aren't raised. How about cuts to that fucking Iraq embassy they're now going to plow more money into, military cuts, etc etc. Bloody well leave Medicare alone period. And all of other poverty programs they're talking about cutting into, like LIHEAP!!!

[gkhouston]

10. Would that it were so. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

11. Ahhhh, nobody believes ya Obama, go back to the White House or go play some golf

And practice on your putting because you're not going to have to make big swings next year to get re-elected.

Seriously, it's all going to be about the short game now.
With Oprah off of the air, you're going to have to go back on Dave's show and read us the "Top Ten Reasons You Should Vote To Re-elect President Obama."

That'll get the kids on your side; works every time.
The kids love Dave.

[Fumesucker]

25. Dave's not here man.. n/t

[dkf]

13. You forgot the all important second part...

"if Congress fails to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy Americans to curb the deficit."

[Lugnut]

14. K & f'n R! n/t

[Fridays Child]

15. I wish it were "He will veto any cuts to Medicare. Period."

My son finally received a Social Security disability award. At the age of 28, he was completely disabled by ankylosing spondylitis, a progressive and incurable rheumatoid disorder. And, now that he has the award, his income disqualifies him for Medicaid. Never mind that Enbrel, the medication he must take to slow the progression of the disease, costs more than twice the amount of his Social Security check. Add to that the cost of his pain therapy and his medications, alone, come to about $3000 per month. It just doesn't make any sense.

He'll be eligible for Medicare, next April, and I only hope the manufacturer will provide him with his Enbrel for free, until then--he's applied to their foundation for assistance. In the mean time, Social Security has rejected his application for their "Ticket to Work" program because his prognosis makes him such a poor candidate, and the city is no longer accepting applications for Section 8 housing. I don't know how his income can cover even his most basic needs. If Washington cuts Social Security and/or Medicare, I can't even imagine what will happen.

Like so many of you, this isn't just an academic exercise for me. My family and I are seriously imperiled each time Republicans open their mouths. Unfortunately, I'm not confident that Obama and the Democrats have the backbone, or even the desire, to stand up to them. And I find myself wondering just exactly what the teabaggers think will happen when their candidates are in office.

I deal with Medicaid recipients, every single day, and I wouldn't be shocked if it turned out that as many as a third of my clients and their families were straight up welfare chiselers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that they could work, if they wanted to, or that they are working and simply declining to report their incomes. They come roaring up to the clinic in Lincoln Navigators or other late model cars; I often meet with them in their tasteful and well-appointed homes; they take their children on Disneyland vacations; and they buy clothes and shoes that I can't even afford.

But here's the thing that's just bizarre to me: so many of them, whether they're chiselers or they're truly in need, regularly berate Obama and the Democrats, channeling the talking points of fear, hatred, and bigotry that they're spoon fed by the Republicans and their media operatives. So, when the axe falls on Medicaid, Medicare, housing subsidies, Social Security, and every other safety net program, do they think that, somehow, they will be exempt from the cuts? Do they think that their cases will be given special consideration? Do they think they'll receive waivers? Do they think? At all? It's sheer lunacy, and I have no idea how to account for it.

[secondwind]

16. My husband owned a medical supply business...... he says there is a lot of waste and abuse

that can be cut to Medicare/Medicaid, without affecting benefits.

Wheelchairs/scooters are given to qualified patients, the patients die 2 months later, the State doesn't reclaim its equipment. For starters.

Procedure codes that are "padded" with unnecessary work that was never done..... in order to get a higher return from Medicare.... another form of abuse.

The system is riddled with abuse.

[EFerrari]

19. When you give someone a wheel chair or anythng else

it's not yours any more.

And padding is an ethics matter, not a reason to make cuts in an already stressed system.

[Shandris]

63. Exactly my thoughts.

That's on the doctors and office people making the claims, not on the program itself.

[Enrique]

35. cutting waste is not controversial

what people are concerned about is cuts to benefits.

[quakerboy]

64. Medical supply corps are a big part of the problem

Most pad their prices pretty well. And the rental market they provide should be a crime.

Ive seen the government pay $100 a month (for over a year) to rent a piece of equipment that could be bought from them for $500. And could be bought directly from the manufacturer, if the government stopped paying for a private middleman, for $300.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

17. He'll stand firmly by his words up to the very moment he caves.

As usual.

:shrug:

[cali]

26. it doesn't matter. If no agreement is reached, on December 23rd

there will be automatic cuts across the board so it's immaterial as to what he vetoes.

[COLGATE4]

45. +1

[rhett o rick]

58. His statement leaves room for wiggle. See post # 57. nm

[pam4water]

18. Now if I only believed him.

[NorthCarolina]

36. Oh, you can believe him. I have zero doubt he will usher in cuts to Medicare/Medicaid,

so if that's what you're after, rest assured you will be appeased.

[INdemo]

38. So here we have a Democrat that gave away..gave away

the election of 2012 to the crazies...What should have been a landslide sweep will be a landslide sweep

[Scurrilous]

27. K & R

:thumbsup:

[truth2power]

28. As others have noted, there's a difference between the subject line

and the entire quote in the body of the text.

It's the "if" as others have said. More bafflegab for those whose reading comprehension is marginal.

There's always a hook.

[eridani]

29. But if we ask the wealthy to pay their share it's OK to cut Medicare too? n/t

[INdemo]

34. The problem is the wealthy have not paid their fair share for 12

years now...Obama may have won easily in 2008 but an increase in medicare and I don't care if it doesn't take affect until 2017(thats what the article read)the fact is Seniors only know "he is raising my medicare" His advisers are no thinking very clear with this proposed legislation but when he has people like Axelrod and the professional left Gibbs what do we expect..These people are not Democrats..they are Republicans and found a gravy train they could ride for a few years..Hey ..Obama is going to lose because of this stupid "make it look like the rich are paying the bill legislation"...The reich have not paid their fair share for 12 years..they are responsible for this economic depression we are in..We gave them billions in bail out money..They got millions in bonuses and now medicare recipients will pay..Political suicide....

[JDPriestly]

111. They supposedly just cut Medicare costs with the health insurance

reform bill. What is going on?

[INdemo]

30. It doesn't matter about the increased taxes for the wealthy

It does not matter that he said he will veto any bill that does not contain tax increases..The facts are all across the country this morning, at coffee shops Seniors are saying "he is going to cut my Medicare" and that just gave the 2012 election to Perry or Romney..because now, and yes we know they will lie, sure they will, but all they have to say is I will not cut your medicare and just like that another Senior vote on their ballot.

[Change Happens]

41. Way to go.....nt

[WI_DEM]

42. No doubt about it, the president has to keep this up. We need to get the base more excited.

[NorthCarolina]

46. How pray tell is this news supposed to excite the base?

Unless you are talking about the GOP base that is. Cuts to Medicare/Medicaid are not something likely to excite the Dem base from my perspective.

[William769]

47. So if by chance Congress raise taxes on companies and the wealthy.

What cuts will be done to Medicare?

[Marr]

48. That leaves room for cuts to the benefits of future beneficiaries without tax hikes on the wealthy.

[INdemo]

49. Ever notice your withholdings statement on your check. See link

the medicare deduction..Now maybe that doesn't seem like a whole lot but a bit of FDR economics here...Put people back to work and there will more paychecks out there to deduct these withholding from and wahla..more money going to the fund..same with Social Security..The United States Government does not fund medicare..it if funded by these payroll deductions and other taxes directly taken form income tax on SS benefits..It is not a part of the U S budget..So anytime Obama or anyone else is telling us it is a crippling our budget it is bullshit..Now so we get the infrastructure jobs in place and directly and indirect jobs this would mean millions if not billions back into the fund

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf


The tax on the wealthy is not gonna happen and if Obama wants to cut meidcare then we lose as Seniors and we lose as Democrats in 2012 plain and simple.

[jefferson_dem]

76. Taxes will increase on the top bracket by the end of next year.

Care to wager? Donations to DU...

[julian09]

92. didn't seniors vote for Gop in 2010

now finish the job in 2012 and live with what you get. Obama has more than 30 million seniors to worry about; more like 300 million more americans. Medicare is in trouble.

[INdemo]

112. The point is Medicare is not funded by our budget..

it is funded by payroll deduction,medicare premiums,tax on SS earnings when income exceeds the limit..And the U S government has raided the fund to pay for other budgeted items.In a round about way Social Security and medicare funds that was borrowed but never repaid paid for the Bush tax cuts..leave medicare alone..
Bringing medicare and Social Security into budget talks is a Republican issue. Republicans think that no taxes and budget cuts will bring about a balanced budget..A warped line of thinking only to favor the rich Repukes.*Maybe Seniors voted for Repukes in 2010 but even more will vote for them in 2012 because all they hear is "hes gonna cut my medicare"..And all Romney or Perry will need is what they already have..The statement that President Obama has made about cutting medicare..Go set in a local coffee shop and just listen..Seniors will be saying this
It is political suicide for Obama to touch medicare when it is not necessay..What he should be announcing is the fact that the government will be paying Medicare back for the funds that were stolen.

http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

*Democrats just didn't show up to vote.

[no limit]

50. Very misleading thread title.

there is a very big "IF" in there.

[woo me with science]

55. Unbelievable. Seek credit for saving Medicare while targeting Medicare.

What fucking gall.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

And the health care ration has been increased.

[rhett o rick]

57. With respect, your subject line is misleading.

Out of context, it says as you state, "He will veto any bill that takes one dime from the Medicare benefits seniors rely on...". That sounds wonderful. But in context it says that he will veto any bill that takes one dime.....without asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share.

So to be real nitpicky, reading thru the rhetoric, all he has to do is "ask" and he is released from his promise. I doubt he means that, but even if he gets the wealthy to pay their fair share, he may allow cuts. Looks to me like "cuts" are on the table.

Looks to me like he is willing to give up cuts for taxes on the wealthy.

[KoKo]

106. It's also a quote from a "senior administration official" it's not quote from his speech today.

:-(

[Butch350]

59. So he's saying if you tax the rich - you can have medicare changes???

[William769]

61. Thats how I read it.

Plus changes to Medicaid.

[leftstreet]

71. If he's taxing the rich, why would we need Medicare changes?

This makes no sense

[Arkana]

88. No, he's saying that if you agree to tax increases on the rich he will consider discussing it.

[julian09]

93. Medicare changes will be to providers, hospitals, insurance

providers, doctors etc, not benefits.

[EFerrari]

102. You can't make cuts to those without cutting the program

and without making de facto cuts to benefits.

[GOTV]

62. Sounds like "Any bill I sign must..."

[truedelphi]

67. From the man who said he'd end NAFTA, and then appointed the

NAFTA insider Rahm Emanuel to be his chief of staff.

Well, good for him if he does hold to one of his promises. I just hope he makes good on this before the election, because if it is something that is orchestrated to happen after 2012, it probably will not happen.

[jefferson_dem]

75. Bunches of exploding heads... Cognitive dissonance.... Does not compute...

It's ok, friends whose initial reaction is always to bash POTUS. It's ok to support him this one time...

Watch it and be proud: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x617601

[SHRED]

78. So if taxes are raised slightly on the wealthy...

...get ready for cuts!

[Myrina]

80. Yeah, yeah and he wasn't gonna extend the Bush Tax cuts, either...

Yawn.

[obxhead]

84. It's what he doesn't say....

He did not say he would veto any bill that cuts medicare for FUTURE seniors without the tax increase on the wealthy.

All they have to do is cut medicare beginning sometime in the short future and it's signed.

[tinrobot]

85. This means Medicare cuts are still on the table.

I read this as : "If Congress wants to cut Medicare they can, but they also have to raise taxes."

I'd much rather read : "No cuts to Medicare, PERIOD. Oh, and let's raise taxes on the rich, anyways"

[Arkana]

87. Without even reading the replies I know people are parsing his words

to make it sound as though he's going to ninja-slash Medicare and SS when no one is looking.

[tropicanarose]

97. I want to be happy about this, but I don't want them to touch Medicare under ANY circumstances rop

Of course the super rich need to be paying their fair share of the taxes, but don't make social security and medicare part of that equation unless it is to have the super rich be ineligible for Medicare coverage and for SS......now that would be a good idea.

[w0nderer]

98. k&r n/t

[AllyCat]

100. Reading between the lines (as we have to do once the fog of the speech clears)

Once the rich give up a fraction of a per cent on income they will earn in some decade in the future, then we can cut from everyone else, INCLUDING seniors. Make 'em poor enough, they won't vote and will probably be too sick to get to the polls anyway, so who cares about them?

[KoKo]

108. We're getting good at "reading between the lines" along with the Kabuki Dance...

Believe it when I see it is the best way to go with rhetoric in the speeches.

[BenzoDia]

109. Specific aspects of his proposal can be found at whitehouse.gov

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf

I've only skimmed through the Medicare and Medicaid stuff, but it didn't seem too alarming at first glance.

[Scurrilous]

110. Kick

:kick:

[bvar22]

113. The REALLY Bad News is...

....THIS is his Pre-Compromise position.
Whatever happens after this will only move further to the RIGHT.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------