Charlie Bass' Strategy on Medicare: Generational Warfare

Adding: (4.00 / 4)

I think we need a "fact sheet" of our own to distribute to senior centers, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes, etc... to tell Bass' vote to destroy Medicare for what it is.

The seniors I know vote the way they do because they care about the future.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 17:58:15 PM UTC

yep (4.00 / 3)

Too bad for everyone else, so long as I get mine, is what he thinks your values are.

Charlie thinks everyone  shares his values.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 18:03:10 PM UTC

We would all like to think other people share our values. The problem with (4.00 / 3)

self-centered people, such as Bass, is that they do not know what sharing means.
That said, Bass is obviously mouthing talking points and "nobody older than 55 would be affected by the changes," is an interesting formulation.  Not only does the use of the subjunctive imply a condition that is not likely to be met ("will not" is a more definite commitment), but the specific age designation (55) is rendered unclear by leaving the when of that 55 unspecified.  In other words, a casual listener might conclude that revisions to Medicare only affect persons younger than 55 who, as far as most people understand, don't qualify anyway.  In other words, while some people have argued for opening Medicare up to all comers (which would make it compliant with the requirement for equal treatment), Bass seems to be telling his constituents that the change he supports is not headed in that direction.  Bass is not in favor of opening Medicare up to anyone who wants to sign up and pay the appropriate premium for earlier coverage, even though that's a change which would bring plenty of money into the system and preclude any shortfall.  Medicare-for-all is the public option by another name.  Bass and his cronies consider this potential as a constant threat and it's their fear of Medicare-for-all that's prompting the preemptive move to terminate the program entirely.  What they're aiming to avoid is expansion.  So, from their perspective, the logical thing is to threaten to cut it.  One way to keep from going forward is to push backwards.
Medicare-for-all is a threat because expanding an existing program that requires no additional federal subsidy can be accomplished with a simple majority vote. If insurance regulation is not satisfactory and Democrats get elected to a majority on a public option plank, it's a done deal.
Republicans hate the word "competition" because in their world it has taken on the meaning of "struggle to the death."  Nevertheless, I think Democrats should promote the public option as good for competition and a spur to private enterprise to do better.

---

by: hannah @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 20:20:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I resent (4.00 / 4)

the idea that I can be bribed to screw my children and grandchildren and all the rest of the next generations!  These congressmen of ours are just plain mean and nasty.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 20:00:44 PM UTC

Is it me, (4.00 / 6)

or have these people become brazen in their attempts to exploit economic vulnerabilities and pit neighbor against neighbor for meager resources?

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 20:16:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not you, (4.00 / 4)

and yes, they have.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 10:26:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The generations are united for Medicare because (4.00 / 6)

if the Republicans kill off Medicare for the 50-year old, that parent will become the ward of the 30-year-old children.

Some Republican leaders are too rich to understand this burden. And some are too selfish to understand it. But most people understand it very well.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 22:14:40 PM UTC

I think this is really important (4.00 / 4)

The 40-55 year olds spend their top paying years paying into a system that's abolished, and get screwed out of their money and their retirement. Todays 18-30 year olds in turn spend their most productive years tied to that house with the mother-in-law apartment, trying to make ends meet on stagnant pay -- and not able to put aside a dime.

Their children, BTW, will not be able to go to college b/c the money is going to Grandma and Grandpa.

Within 40 years we are back to 1930s style elderly poverty. Once you break the chain to pay off the tax break, the whole thing unravels, not because it's a Ponzi scheme, but because the ripples are far reaching.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 23:06:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Make Charlie Wish (4.00 / 4)

He lost the election.

Frank too,

Finally they have a voting record.  They can duck their way for a week or two or three---but not forever.

Dean is right. Wherever they distribute "fact sheets" we should be doing the same.

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Sat Apr 23, 2011 at 23:53:56 PM UTC

as a 54 year old (4.00 / 4)

I am finding these proposals quite personally stressful. I am sure others are as well.

---

by: beverlywoods @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 00:54:46 AM UTC

In an America where we have real public servants (4.00 / 2)

instead of functionaries of the richest, a response to the economic crisis would have entailed a temporary Medicare buy-in from ages 55-65, paid for by ending the Bush tax cuts.

This would have shrunk the labor participation rate and allowed an age demographic that has become unemployable in the Great Recession to take on types of work not dependent on benefits. This in turn would help free up labor opportunities for those under 55 and unemployed.  More jobs = more revenue = more deficit reduction, but more importantly, less suffering.

But instead we have Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta voting to steal the money a 54 year-old could have been contributing for OVER THREE DECADES and in return getting a "voucher".

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:10:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm 55 (4.00 / 4)

and not feeling even remotely secure.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 01:20:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The missing option (4.00 / 1)

in this whole proposal, which Bass and Guinta apparently support, is the right to euthanasia, which may become the only real CHOICE that some people have when all the money has run out.

---

by: mevansnh @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 09:31:17 AM UTC

Shudder... (4.00 / 2)

Not that I don't think that we should have a lot more choice in that regard, but the whole picture that comes into my head, of what the poor endure now in our country expanded to many, many more people who should be in the prime of their lives, while the fat cats sit in their gated communities praising themselves for being so deserving.  It gives one a sense of what provoked the American political cartoonists of the Gilded Age.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 10:32:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

With Liberty and Justice for ALL (4.00 / 2)

Charlie
THAT IS ALL-----WHAT PART OF ALL DON'T YOU GET???

---

by: tchair @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 12:31:46 PM UTC

The media bastardizes the term reform which gives Charlie some cover (4.00 / 2)

Nashua Telegraph has a great piece by Gary Vincent...here is an abridged version of his point:

Sometimes, as the old saying goes, you need to call a spade a shovel. But plain truth-telling has been in short supply in the media lately, especially on budget issues. Nowhere has this been more true than with the Medicare program.

... The Washington Post, said the budget plan by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin included a "sweeping overhaul" of Medicare and Medicaid.

... McClatchy-Tribune ...observed that it would "change how seniors and lower income people get health coverage."

Neither "sweeping overhaul" nor "change" comes anywhere close to the unvarnished truth: The Ryan budget would abolish Medicare.

Medicare is a single-payer system for Americans over 65. Americans over 65 go to the doctor or get treated at a hospital, and the doctor or hospital sends the bill to the government.

Ryan's budget would abolish that system and instead provide an unspecified amount to help seniors try to buy private health insurance....

To describe this plan as "reform" - as some reports do - is an even worse construction. Reform implies improvement; this is not a "reform." It is abolition, plain and simple. - Gary Vincent (Media not telling the truth on Ryan budget plan)

---

by: political chowder @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 16:49:24 PM UTC

what struck me as interesting... (4.00 / 1)

...about all this was that this was, for the most part, a friendly crowd, and a crowd who supports a number of bass' other positions (as an example, consider that portion of the evening devoted to raising the debt ceiling)--but it seemed clear they wanted nothing to do with this medicare "fix by slow death" idea, and they didn't want to stick it to the kids and grandkids, either.

and a quick note to frank luntz: "premium support"...not so much.

--we are making enemies faster than we can kill them

---

by: fake consultant @ Sun Apr 24, 2011 at 20:35:07 PM UTC

To borrow from Shakespeare and Rep David Campbell... (4.00 / 2)

...a voucher by any other name is still a voucher.  We heard the same BS when the NH house voted to exchange the word "fee" with the word "tuition",,,by any other name, it smells just as foul.
Canned responses to real voter concern, and fumbling when pressed.  Not impressed.

You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.  (John Morley, 1838-1923)

---

by: Marjorie Porter @ Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 01:30:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I asked the question about the tax cut and the "divide and conquer" strategy. (0.00 / 0)

I truly believe that the strategy is to cut the 54 and under crowd out (But, wait!  That doesn't save any Medicare dollars until 2021!)and then foment dissent and anger among younger voters against the older crowd...thus leading to a cut in Medicare for all.  What will be our defense if we let them do this to our children and grandchildren?  
The problem we need to solve is the escalating health care costs for EVERYONE.  Medicare, medicaid, and plenty of other entitlement problems would be solved if we did that.  
Pat

---

by: pmartin2894 @ Tue Apr 26, 2011 at 14:38:24 PM UTC