iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Medicare Eligibility Age Increase Not Part Of Dems' Super Committee Presentation

Baucus Medicare

First Posted: 10/26/11 03:06 PM ET Updated: 10/26/11 07:54 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Democrats on the congressional super committee have produced a "presentation" that would include a roughly equal mix of spending cuts and revenue increases to achieve an estimated $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion in deficit reduction.

The early reviews among progressives is that the outlines, as introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on behalf of a number of Democrats on the Committee, contain a mix of good and bad policy. The good is the reliance on revenues and the decision to include between $200 billion and $300 billion in new economic stimulus in the presentation. The bad is that the plan calls for around $400 billion in Medicare savings, half of which would be drawn from reducing benefits to recipients. The confusion stems from the party's willingness to shoot far above the $1.5 trillion target that the super committee is supposed to aim for.

Sources tell The Huffington Post that the party has also staked out another position that the base will likely applaud. The presentation produced by Baucus and other Democrats does not call for a raising of the Medicare eligibility age. The idea of increasing that age from 65 to 67 had been a controversial component of talks that President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner had held in late August when negotiating legislation to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

Though the shift would have been done in increments over many years, health policy analysts noted that it would have disproportionately hurt blue collar workers -- who can't afford to spend additional time in their late years in the work force -- without saving much money: Medicare spending is far heavier during life's later years.

When the president submitted his own proposal to the super committee, he scrapped the idea of raising Medicare's eligibility age. Congressional Democrats have followed suit.

In addition to scrapping that specific policy provision, sources familiar with the Democratic proposal also argue that the party has minimized the amount of damage it is inflicting on the entitlement program. All cuts, said one source, were limited to those that Obama and Boehner had discussed and informally agreed to in their talks; though it should be noted, no specifics were offered as to what those cuts actually are.

The ratio of revenue raisers to spending cuts included in the Democratic Party's presentation is also something that lawmakers are hoping will go over well with the base. However, it's a bit unfair to call the presentation a 1:1 offer. When considering any proposal, the $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts already passed into law as part of the debt ceiling deal must be considered -- meaning Democrats would produce a roughly 1.5 to 2.5 revenues-to-cuts ratio.

It's also important to consider the presentation as the first salvo in what promises to be high-stakes negotiations. Medicare age eligibility may be off the table for the time being. But the president's willingness to embrace the idea in the past suggests that it will be a chip to be traded in for Republican votes in the future. The committee must present a plan around Thanksgiving. A vote is scheduled for the end of December.

A Democrat aide cautioned that Baucus-led presentation was not a formal proposal and that it was backed by only a "majority of Democrats."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Democrats on the congressional super committee have produced a "presentation" that would include a roughly equal mix of spending cuts and revenue increases to achieve an estimated $2.5 t...
WASHINGTON -- Democrats on the congressional super committee have produced a "presentation" that would include a roughly equal mix of spending cuts and revenue increases to achieve an estimated $2.5 t...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,371
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (48 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles Queen
I am a disabled nam vet
12:09 AM on 11/05/2011
No,but a lot of the cuts are still going to come out of medicare and we cannot allow this to happen at all.They have so many ways to get around this deficit problem and yet they choose to ignore them all.Legalize marijuana if not across the board then at least make it legal for medicinal use nationwide.The tax revenues from that alone would stop any cuts in our much needed social programs.The feds and the states would both benefit from the tax revenues in a major wayWhen they have perfectly sensible and logical ways to cover the costs of programs and have moeny left over for other things they seem to close their eyes and ears to them.Remeber this.They work for us,not the other way around.If we push hard enough with enough of us,they will relent in the end becausew they do not want to see an uprising of any kind which is exactly whats going to end up happening and soon unless they start listening to the people and taking their wants and needs into consideration instead of their own
11:39 PM on 10/31/2011
What can I say these Democratic pricks are just as bad as the Republicans and need to be taken out. We're spending 66% of our money on DOD and they're trying to suggest that Social Security and Medicare are the problems! These people are traitors to our country and the citizens.
08:48 PM on 10/29/2011
"The bad is that the plan calls for around $400 billion in Medicare savings, half of which would be drawn from reducing benefits to recipients."

WHERE ARE THE SPECIFICS?? Stop with the vague statements, please.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Secrist
those who forget are condemned to repeat
07:40 AM on 10/28/2011
I have a question for the "Super Committee". Wouldn't raising taxes on the richest citizens CREATE more money? It would force them to earn more to make up the difference. Since they are the only sector that seems to be able to earn more all the time, a bigger tax increase would result in a bigger income increase. You could call it "Trickle Up" economics.
photo
map1246
IT1579
10:22 AM on 10/28/2011
If you reduce incentives to work, why would you expect to generate more work?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:25 PM on 10/28/2011
Because even at a 35% tax rate, you keep 65% of any additional revenue. Like I (and my business partner) love to say: "A high tax bill is a good problem to have -- it means we're making bank!"
06:59 AM on 10/29/2011
[I did not suggest that you would willingly reduce your income. However, a higher marginal tax rate reduces the rewards to working, so on the marginal people will work less than they would if the marginal tax rate were not increased. This is not complicate­d or controvers­ial. ]

Yep, I am not willing to compromise my income level for the benefits available from EITC and Child Tax Credit.

I am not sure the increase in the maginal tax rates affects the drive of the higher income earners. It isn't in the same category as someone not wishing to work overtime, because the overtime hours eats into their time off.

Those who are in the very high income brackets are driven more by the game thant he actual dollars, so within reason, the extra taxes due because of the higher marginal tax rates won't deter the quest for earnings. There is an entirely different mindset in the ultra rich.
08:54 PM on 10/29/2011
Raise the taxes on unearned incomes and make them subject to the taxes that fund the social insurance programs.
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
07:34 AM on 10/30/2011
Exactly, the financial transaction tax would have the added advantage of taxing speculators such as those who cause gas prices to rise. At least it would cost them something to speculate and hopefully cut back on the number of people who do it.
MHT73
words matter
10:56 PM on 10/27/2011
The first year of Medicare is the most expensive year, other than the last year. People who don't have adequate health care coverage 'catch up' on exams, appointments, and procedures when they join Medicare.

Medicine is one area in which 'a stitch in time saves nine.' Raising the age won't make that 'first year' go away, it'll just postpone it until it's more expensive. The most cost-effective thing would be to DROP the age of eligibility. Medicare is less administratively expensive than private health insurance, and it's WAY more cost effective than sending 64 year olds to the ER for their care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justgrl03
04:29 PM on 10/28/2011
omg 64 is not old., My husband is 64 and in better health than his 43 yr old wife,
MHT73
words matter
06:19 PM on 10/28/2011
wait, I didn't say 64 was old, did I? I sure hope not.

Still, the first year is the most expensive. It isn't because you start falling apart at 60, it's because some come into the Medicare system having been without insurance for a while, and having postponed medical care they needed. Others postpone things they need because they figure they'll do that when they retire at 65. When you total up the bill for the 65 year olds who live to 66, and divide by the number of 65 year olds, it's higher than if you do the same thing for all 66 year olds.
08:58 PM on 10/29/2011
You nailed it, and sixty is old for some including my wife who put in thirty years of hard physical labor in highway construction working 14-16 hour days manually moving tons of heavy signs, sand bags, and barricades.
pamarmarie
and so it was
03:39 PM on 10/27/2011
The word SUPER is mis-leading. They are (12) average career politicans.Nothing super there. Mediocrity would best define the (12).
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
08:11 AM on 10/30/2011
Actually these politicians were carefully selected by both parties to be among the worst of our non-leaders. We will likely be better off if they can't agree on anything. At least that way SS and Medicare will not be forced to be cut. No thanks to Obama, they were kept out of the mix by Pelosi and Reid. The defense budget will have to be cut and that is a very good thing. We need to get Obama's drones out of his reach before he kills everybody he doesn't like.
photo
Star2000dancer
Pay it forward, the movie..
01:42 PM on 10/30/2011
This super Committee is about 10%. Congress has a 9% approval rating as of yesterday.

Are these the people that We the people" would choose to represent us if we had voted on this committee? I know they're not my choice. We seem to have no say in anything anymore...

Something's up. You can tell by what's playing on TV. It's been the "Rain Maker" a movie about Layers and Insurance companies and I whole day about Women in th Service.

Most likely those are the big stories. I just got on, so I'm going to loo for threads on these.
photo
map1246
IT1579
03:36 PM on 10/27/2011
Thomas Jefferson, a true liberal, was not a big fan of taxation. The left, which can't understand the difference between leftist and liberal, loves to take from others what it cannot earn.


"Direct taxation was to be avoided, this could be done by avoiding expense that are not necessary. when merely by avoiding false objects of expense we are able, without a direct tax, without internal taxes, and without borrowing to make large and effectual payments toward the discharge of our public debt and the emancipation of our posterity from that mortal canker, it is an encouragement, fellow citizens, of the highest order to proceed as we have begun in substituting economy for taxation, and in pursuing what is useful for a nation placed as we are, rather than what is practiced by others under different circumstances."

Thomas Jefferson
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Randolph Greer
I am a Poet .
04:54 PM on 10/27/2011
"The tax which will be paid for the purpose of education is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests, and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people to ignorance."------------------Thomas Jefferson
05:19 PM on 10/27/2011
We spend more on education in this country than most countries have and still the education that our kids are getting sucks. We get worse and worse every year. Obviously money in and of itself is not the solution to good education. We need to get rid of the tenure system and pay teachers on the basis of the performance of their students. We also need to get back to the basics and get the garbage courses out of the schools.
photo
map1246
IT1579
06:04 PM on 10/27/2011
He said education, not public schools. Nice try though. Public schools are a wealth transfer mechanism; money is transferred from the taxpayer to the teachers' unions and school employees
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:51 AM on 10/28/2011
The word "liberal" comes from the word "liberty." But it has been flipped over by crooked politicians who have stolen our liberty. In Jefferson's time, it truly meant liberty.
photo
map1246
IT1579
08:49 AM on 10/28/2011
The left has no grasp of the principles of the Founding. They have lurched towards totalitarian regimes while claiming to be advancing liberty.
photo
dkandycrown
semper fi
02:20 PM on 10/27/2011
Who else are they going to go after but the seniors? Somebody has to pay for the $135 million that Hillary promised Libya (an oil-rich country).
03:14 PM on 10/27/2011
Now that the baby boomers are hitting the retirement age things are going to get very interesting, especially since they were the ones that started the downfall of this country!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
tklinecrew
Life is hard. Get over it
03:59 PM on 10/27/2011
Baby bomers started the down fall????? Weren't they also the ones who helped build it up?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Vandervort
Born Free and Hoping To Die Free Too!
10:51 PM on 10/27/2011
You Sir are an Idiot and that's being kind to the level of stupity you've been afflicted with.
When you want to start pointing your finger to just who started the down fall look to your liberal Democrats who could not only spend all the money the government had through taxation but looked to move the funds held in trust for social security into the general slush funds so they could keep on with their reckless spending habits.
The theft of Social Security funds started under LBJ shortly after JFK was shot and being called a short time loan to offset their budget screw up's and the only thing wrong with the plan was that there never was or ever ment to be a plan to repay the funds taken.
As you choose to call people the Baby Boomers know this much they contributed to SSI through payroll deductions in good faith that these funds would be held and invested so the money would never run short. Grubby Liberal Thievery has always been our country's biggest problem!
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
05:15 PM on 10/27/2011
really? 2$TRILLION for the Iraq and Afghan war....and you complain about Clinton's $$$ to Libya after a success with no soldiers dying? wow
01:25 PM on 10/27/2011
The basics of any solution is cut spending, raise taxes and spend in a way that increases employment. Unfortnately, this logic is not on the table.
finallylegal
why,oh why, didn't I take the blue pill
01:44 PM on 10/27/2011
when talking about democrats, it rarely is!
03:16 PM on 10/27/2011
I'm no Democrat but both parties have had their hand in the cookie jar and their heads somewhere else, so there is plenty of blame to go around.
madame48
NO..it's a gop Cookbook !Tempus edax,homo edacior
05:18 PM on 10/27/2011
who ran up the 2trillion in war costs, Iraq & Afghan....who gave2 huge tax cuts mostly to the top 1% that drove up deficit? Who made it illegal for Medicare to negotiate drug prices with Pharma to keep costs down? hmmmmm?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OOOOOMY
01:10 PM on 10/27/2011
Let us be real here There is no way in the world that anything positive is going to happen until after the 2012 election. We are dealing with 2 very distinct ideologies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:34 PM on 10/28/2011
Those ideologies have persisted through the past 6 elections. What makes you think they're going to evaporate in 2012?
12:55 PM on 10/27/2011
Social Security and Medicare are NOT entitilments,we have paid into them!!!!!
01:06 PM on 10/27/2011
We have paid into those programs yes. We have paid FOR about 75 percent of Social Security on an accrual basis and less than HALF of Medicare. Whether we should cut them is one thing but let's be clear that we have not paid for them.
Views from the Middle
Politicians seem to only listen to the extremes
01:37 PM on 10/27/2011
References for your statements please. Your statements vary from what I have seen in the past. I would like to confirm them.
03:25 PM on 10/27/2011
There are a lot of people who are enjoying the benefits of these programs and paid nothing into them whatso ever. When 25 % of the working people are paying into the program but 50% of the population are using the program how can you expect it to stay solvent. Social Security had tons of excess money until congress passed it out like candyand can't afford to replace it. The bottom line is that if the goverment spotted a possible shortage of funds in either of these programs they should have increased the payroll taxes to cover it, just like they have always done. The goverment knew they screwed up and tried to cover up their wrong doing and blame it on someone else.I have my house insurance and taxes included in my house payment, its called escrow, if my taxes or house insurance go up my house payment goes up and that is pretty much the way Social Security and medicare works until now. One thing for sure is that if the tax collector tells me that my taxes haven't been paid on my house or the insurance hasn't been paid I and going to be at the bank the next day and they had better fix the problem, and this is how I feel about SS and medicare.
MHT73
words matter
09:53 PM on 10/27/2011
A better name is earned benefits.

Re costs and payments, though, you haven't paid in the full cost, it's subsidized by younger workers.
razaminaz
I am not politically correct. You've been warned.
12:50 PM on 10/27/2011
I thought this Super Congress was supposed to be bipartisan and come up with a plan, not a democrat and repbulican plan, just a plan! Is this an early indication that the super congress is going to be just a small version of the regular congress? If this is the case the only thing SUPER about this idea is its stupidity.
03:00 PM on 10/27/2011
I'm with you. . . if these Super 12 ar merely working within their own party, it'll be the same as its always been. . . this is NOT what I thought they were going to do. I thought this great SUPER 12 idea was that ALL 12 would come up with a plan, NOT each party coming up with their own. What a waste!!!
03:21 PM on 10/27/2011
The only thing super about this committee is the amount of lobbyists that will be knocking on their doors.
12:44 PM on 10/27/2011
What concerns me the most about this Super Congress is its evident lack of transparency to voters while simultaneously being heavily lobbied by the 1% in the Financial industry.
12:35 PM on 10/27/2011
The Supercommittee is getting all of the attention. Does anyone recall when the continuing resolution for 2012 appropriations expires and the government shuts down again? I think it is in the next 3 to 4 weeks. Is progress any better on that front?
03:00 PM on 10/27/2011
Mid November I believe. . . like Nov 18 perhaps.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kevmi16
SEENITBEFORE
12:18 PM on 10/27/2011
Tax increases with an unfair tax code is more smoke and mirrors. Throw the tax code out and start over.
12:45 PM on 10/27/2011
how simplistic
photo
johngary66
Accused of heresy and decided to go with that.
08:48 AM on 10/30/2011
There are a lot of teabaggers here instead of collecting tolls under the nations bridges. You have to expect that when their here in mass..
02:42 PM on 10/27/2011
Yes indeed! This tax code is very unfair. The corporations and the 1%ers pay no where near their fair share. And a good percentage of them should be behind bars, not out free and trying to dupe the 99% once again. Laissez faire is/was/always will be a complete failure for everyone except the insiders. Only the braindead conservatives refuse to see it.