Renditions continue.

Wars continue.

Warrantless wiretapping continues.

The expansion of the security state continues.

The abuse of the state secrets doctrine not only continues but has been expanded.

Torture continues. (Now we just get others to do it for us.)

Indefinite detention without charge or trial is official policy.

Austerity is official policy.

"Targeted killings" (read "murders and assassinations") of people continue with absolutely no due process or oversight. Even citizens are not immune.

The Bush tax cuts? Meddling with the foundations of Social Security through "temporary" (yeah, right) reductions in the payroll tax? Adopting Republican memes on taxes and economics? The atrocious health care "reform" which cements the utterly broken private, for-profit system into place and makes us all mandatory premium payers to inefficient health insurers who by law get to skim at least 20 percent off the top?

Shall I go on?

And words, or actions, about deficit reduction do little for me under any conditions.  

It's a false issue.

And I flatly don't believe him about medicare.

Past is prologue.  We know that Obama will do whatever the bankers, insurance companies or defense contractors want him to do.  And we know he has no compunction about breaking campaign promises.

A post above details his horrific foreign, war and national security state policies which remain unchanged.

Wow.  Sorry to say that I think I've seen this play before.

I can't tell you how or what to think, but I do have a suggestion: it might not be a bad idea to spend a little time looking at the big picture, you know, just to see if there might not be some kind of strategy going on that has to do with improving Obama's political fortune, not improving the lives of those he purports to want to govern.  We've seen that show before, too.

It appears to me that Obama's getting the breathing room he needs to say what he's saying because there are members of Congress who are taking up the cause.  And given Obama's propensity to say one thing and do another, how could it possibly be that easy to fall under his spell again?  I guess what I don't understand is, why are you so willing to believe him?  What about Obama's track record would lead you to trust that the words of the campaign will translate to action consistent with those words, once he has what he wants?

But, I digress...

Keep in mind that there are other ways to affect benefit levels than just raising the age.  The way benefits are calculated, for one.  Shifting costs, for antother.  What good does it do seniors to come off private insurance at 65 if the "cost-sharing" Medicare requires of them is  burdensome?  

Jeralyn, you say this is a Democratic site.  Fine, I get that.  It's your blog and it can be whatever you want or need it to be.  But, a note of caution, or food for thought, or something: I don't know how we ever get better candidates, nor do I know how we hold incumbents accountable, if we keep blindly supporting Democrats who only have to meet the very low standard of saying what we want to hear.  Especially when those we have favored with our votes have shown us time and again they don't feel obligated to follow through with action that is consistent with their words.

It is the ONE issue that will make me vote against a Democrat.

The proposal is phrased in terms of cost savings, but it would actually raise costs for 65-66 year olds and leave millions without health insurance. Many would die.

It is a cold-blooded proposal that says lives of older citizens (and poorer, including children if you include Medicaid) are less important than the deficit or the "pain" inflicted by a modest tax increase on the extremely wealthy.

Yet, the costs of war are always framed in terms of protection of Americans. As are costs of defense system, contractors, etc.

No one is saying, "Let's cut military spending so that we can protect more Americans by covering their health insurance and medical costs."

The premise of the dire straits of Medicare should be addressed taking into account both costs and hostile ideologies. As with Social Security where we are told that an emergency exits, although it is solvent for the next 75-years, with the first 27 being able to pay 100 percent of benefits and about 80 percent thereafter, so, too, is the need to look at the Medicare urgency.

All of the "reforms" are rolled out over time, from change in eligibility-age to other blatant or more subtle cuts in benefits/co-pays. Even Paul Ryan's coupon plan would not kick-in for ll years from enactment. Now, we are told that we must act at this time, a time of economic/jobless crisis,  so that we can plan ahead- but just how realistic is such planning, and would we just be doing to Medicare what we have done to Social Security--over pay now so that we will have money in a disappearing sock later?  

It has been argued that, in part, Medicare's cost effectiveness arises from the fact that it does not need to expend funds on marketing and sales-functions that are obligatory for the success of competitive, private-sector health plans. Moreover, some argue that the competitive model for health insurance has not been successful. In a market-driven economy, the healthy can and will change health plans for savings of only a few dollars a month, while the sick must remain in their existing plan in order to retain their physicians. Such behaviors lead to asymmetric risk pools and cost inequities.

This was all sobering news to a market-driven entrepreneur such as yours truly. However, given the perverse incentives that frequently drive behavior in health care, my take-home lesson is that there are examples in the success of Medicare we can apply to other sectors of our population.

Secondly, and most important, the problem is not just that Medicare costs need to be cut.  The problem is far more complex than what will fit on a bumper sticker, though that simplicity level seems to be popular with politicians and their underlings.  A lot of the problems might be solved if we went to a medicare for all approach.  Perhaps the closest thing to bumper sticker level simplicity is this nugget from Krugman and Wells (link):

(T)he available evidence suggests that if the United States were to replace its current complex mix of health insurance systems with standardized, universal coverage, the savings would be so large that we could cover all those currently uninsured, yet end up spending less overall.

One of the most informative studies is from the McKenzie Global Institute. ( full report pdf link, synthesis pdf link)

MGI found that the overriding cause of high U.S. health care costs is the failure of the intermediation system -- payors, employers, and government -- to provide sufficient incentives to patients and consumers to be value-conscious in their demand decisions, and to regulate the necessary incentives to promote rational use by providers and suppliers.

Status: Done

Request: Obama should not touch SS or medicare age eligibility

Status: Done

Request: Obama should make serious speeches and stump to sell a serious stimulus

Status: Done

Request: Obama should draw a line in the sand and say that he'd veto changes that don't include revenue increases

Status: Done

Request: Make every part of Obama's proposal pass without amendment or change by the GOP.

Status: Don . . . hey wait a second, that's impossible.

Request: Do the impossible.

The plan does shift some additional costs to beneficiaries, but those changes would not start until 2017, and administration officials made clear as well that Obama would veto any Medicare cuts that aren't paired with tax increases on upper-income people.

The president's plan also called for cuts of $72 billion over ten years from Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for low-income people and the severely disabled. States, hospitals and advocates for the poor are expected to resist those.

My MIL contracted endometrial cancer.  About halfway thru her treatment she signed up for Medicare...her doctor dropped her.  She had to find another one.

I get that a lot of people don't trust Obama, and you have your reasons.