NCPSSM on CSPAN
NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO, Max Richtman, spent this morning in the CSPAN studios talking about everything from Social Security and Medicare to deficit reduction talks. He also took some interesting calls from viewers. If you missed it this morning, here’s the video of today’s segment.
Happy Birthday Medicare
Each July we celebrate Medicare?s passage in 1965 and its undeniable success in keeping millions of American seniors from poverty each year. Unfortunately, far too many others in Washington will continue to spend this Medicare milestone month searching for ways to dismantle the program in the name of ?deficit reduction?. Washington?s fiscal hawks continue to see this economic crisis as the perfect opportunity to attack programs they have never supported in the first place. Remember Paul Ryan?s ?This is not a budget. It?s a cause? clarion call?There has been a lot written recently about the ongoing Washington budget talks and the campaign to slash Medicare benefits, while also preserving tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In celebration of the Medicare success story, we?ll highlight some of our must-read recommendations for those of you who share our view that Medicare should not be sacrificed at the altar of Washington?s debt reduction idols. We simply can?t continue to ignore Medicare?s role in the fiscal and physical health of middle class Americans and these articles help illustrate why:
Medicine has changed, but the need for Medicare has not. Senate floor statement by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
?Today, virtually every American over 65 has access to health care. And the number of seniors that live below the poverty line has dropped by 75 percent. That?s no accident. Medicare provides 47 million Americans with the access to care and the protection from poverty that Truman envisioned more than 65 years ago.And Medicare and Medicaid don?t only protect seniors from poverty ? they also protect those seniors? children. Forty-six years ago, middle-class families often spent themselves into the poor house honoring their commitment to their fathers and mothers. Today seniors and their children have the security that Medicare and Medicaid will be there to honor that commitment ? providing health care and nursing home care when they need it.?
Big Medicare cuts to reduce deficit unpopular. Reuters coverage of new Kaiser Foundation Poll.
?Few Americans would support major cuts to Medicare to reduce the federal deficit, but many would be okay with minor savings in the popular healthcare program, a survey released on Thursday said. The latest tracking survey on healthcare issues by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the public is more willing to accept Medicare spending cuts if done to shore up the elderly healthcare program rather than for deficit reduction or avoiding tax increases. The survey’s findings are important because the future of Medicare is at the heart of high level discussions over the $1.4 trillion annual deficit and $14.3 trillion U.S. debt.?
Medicare Proposal Could Stress Strapped Seniors. NPR coverage of Coburn/Lieberman Medicare legislation.
?Half of seniors had income lower than $22,000 in 2010; 25 percent had income lower than $13,000. Only five percent had incomes above $85,000. And while 91 percent of today’s Medicare beneficiaries have savings, in most cases those nest eggs aren’t nearly enough to pay substantial medical bills. Half of seniors have savings less than $50,000; a quarter have less than $8,400 money set aside. Ten percent had more than half a million dollars, half of those people had a million dollars or more. Yet even with today’s Medicare coverage, health spending accounted for an average of nearly 15 percent of the average Medicare household’s budget in 2009, according to another Kaiser study. That’s three times the health care spending for those not on Medicare.?
Here is something fun we urge you to share with your friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever your favorite form of online communication. Download the Picture or just forward the link to help spread the word that gutting Medicare is not a ?cause? you or the vast majority of Americans support.
Coburn/Lieberman Medicare Plan: Make Seniors Wait Even Longer for Coverage and Then Charge Them More
The ongoing quest to balance the budget on the backs of America?s seniors continues with the latest Medicare plan offered by Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Tom Coburn (who left the Gang of 6 negotiations because that bipartisan group wouldn?t slash seniors? programs enough).Rather than reigning in the skyrocketing costs of healthcare system wide (not just in Medicare), increasing efficiencies or even rooting out inefficiencies this plan puts the burden of a nationwide healthcare crisis directly on America?s seniors:?Most of the plan’s savings would come from some form of benefit reductions or cost-shifting to seniors ? a stark contrast to the Medicare cuts believed to be on the table in talks over the debt ceiling. Negotiators there are looking at cuts to healthcare industries after Democrats drew a line in the sand over benefit cuts.But Lieberman and Coburn’s proposal includes several politically risky benefit changes, such as making seniors pay more for their prescription drugs. It also would raise the eligibility age for Medicare. The proposal would cap seniors’ out-of-pocket costs depending on their income. The maximum would be set at $7,500 for people making less than $85,000 per year. Seniors with twice as much income would pay three times more in out-of-pocket Medicare costs.Seniors also would pay more for their prescription drugs. Premiums only cover about 11 percent of the total costs for Medicare Part D, the senators said. They would require seniors to pay the full cost of their drug coverage. They said the change would free up between $5 billion and $10 billion in tax money.The plan also would increase premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers drugs that are administered by a doctor. Part B premiums are more than $400 per year, and taxes currently cover only about a quarter of that cost. High-income seniors would have to pay the full cost of their Part B premiums under the Lieberman plan.? The HillNot so surprisingly, this proposal is all pain for seniors with absolutely no attempt to raise revenues.?Lieberman gave up an income tax hike that he previously said would be part of his proposal. ?The sooner you take the strong medicine, the sooner you will get healthy again,? [he] said.?In other words, America?s seniors must continue to take Washington?s version of ?strong medicine? so the nation?s largest corporations and wealthiest citizens can continue to stay healthy.
Some in Washington think a Zero COLA is too Generous
For the millions of seniors who rely on Social Security, the cost of living adjustments aren?t used to purchase cruise vacations on the Caribbean or extra cable shows. Social Security’s Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) is designed to help beneficiaries keep up with the constantly rising cost of living during retirement.COLAs help seniors purchase food, medicine and pay their heating and utility bills.The current CPI-W COLA formula, while helpful, does not come close to staying in line with the skyrocketing cost of health care which eats up a significant portion of every retiree’s benefit. Yet, despite the fact that the average senior spends 27% of his or her benefit on Medicare Parts B & D out-of-pocket costs alone, some in Congress are proposing cutting the COLA beginning January 2012 by moving to a chained-CPI formula.As a result of the recession, the past two years have yielded a zero COLA for the first time in the history of the automatic system. And although the Trustees are predicting a small COLA for 2012, for most beneficiaries the additional money will almost entirely go to cover the increase in their Medicare premiums.It?s not clear to us at the National Committee how a zero COLA has been overly ?generous.? Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), recently released new analysis which provides some startling numbers to this chained-CPI proposal.
“Switching to a chained-CPI will permanently cut COLAs for generations of retirees and the disabled – making it harder and harder for them to make ends meet. For the first time, the new analysis released by Rep. Becerra puts a number behind the policy – over time the annual benefit cut will total almost $1,400. We at the National Committee agree it is critical that the COLA be calculated based on an accurate formula. But if accuracy is really the goal, Congress should change the COLA formula to factor in the large health care expenses most seniors face.” Max Richtman , Executive Vice President/Acting CEO
In deficit reduction talks, many in Congress claim cuts they?re considering won?t affect current seniors. That couldn?t be further from the truth.
“Proponents of cutting Social Security have repeatedly pledged that current retirees would not be affected by any of the changes they are considering. Yet their chained-CPI formula, which we hear is still ‘on the table’ in deficit reduction costs, will cut benefits for every single Social Security beneficiary beginning next January.” Max Richtman
The National Committee supports calculating the COLA by using the CPI-E, an index reflecting greater accuracy of retiree’s spending priorities that has been undergoing testing by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for decades.
Let’s Make a Deal: AARP Style
Today?s Wall Street Journal coverage of AARP?s support of Social Security benefit cuts certainly got everyone?s attention. While AARP spent most of the morning trying to ?clarify? its position, with tweets every minute for most of the morning, and eventually a follow-up statement from its CEO, it?s clear AARP has once again chosen to offer up vital safety net programs to the altar of insider Washington politics.In short, AARP says Social Security should not be a part of the budget conversation. So we ask?Why suggest benefit cuts now?during one of the most intense budget debates of our lifetime? They say they?ll also hold town hall meetings to ?educate? Americans about AARP?s vision for Social Security. Again, if benefit cuts should not be a part of the budget debate (and they shouldn?t) then why is AARP working so hard to try and sell these benefit cuts to an unsupportive membership now?AARP?s John Rother says:
?I?m sure there will be some who will not be happy, but others will be eager to see the program put on a stronger footing financial for the long-term.?
But benefit cuts are not the only way to put Social Security on stronger footing. Perhaps, most disconcerting is how closely AARP?s language mirrors the anti-Social Security approach promoted by the Cato institute after the last reforms in 1983 and perpetuated by President Bush in his campaign for private accounts. That strategy says policymakers should ensure current seniors know the cuts won?t affect them to garner their support:
?It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.? AARP CEO, Barry Rand
Advocates representing millions of American seniors nationwide, including the National Committee, joined together this morning in a news conference call to remind reporters that AARP does not represent the views of most Americans.Here is Max Richtman, NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO?s full statement:
?While AARP is among the nation?s largest lobbyists?it clearly does not speak for all of America?s seniors. Seniors of all political persuasions, and even voters across all age groups, do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Poll after poll, (including AARP?s own polling) show that seniors know Social Security didn?t cause this fiscal crisis, shouldn?t be included in the current budget debate and that there are other ways to resolve our economic woes without cutting benefits to millions of Americans. Suggesting now, given the current anti-Social Security environment in Washington, that seniors? benefits should be cut is not a view shared by any other major seniors? organization because it?s just not good policy. We don?t need to be squishy on this issue or equivocate, flip-flop or try to have it all ways?let me say clearly?we at the National Committee do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Timing is everything in politics and no one in Washington now is really talking about providing long-term solvency issues for Social Security?they?re looking at ways to avoid paying back what?s owed to the trust fund and ways to cut spending. Addressing Social Security as part of a budget deal has absolutely nothing to do with long-term solvency. The National Committee has always said we need to find long-term solvency solutions to preserve Social Security for future generations?and those solutions aren?t really a surprise to anyone. The need to make adjustments before the year 2036 isn?t news or position unique to AARP. We all know, modest and manageable changes will bring Social Security where it needs to be for 75 more years; however, THAT is not what is being debated now. Not a single seniors? group, contrary to claims by Washington?s fiscal hawks, have ever argued that we should do ?nothing? or ?ignore? the fiscal facts; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current budget debate engulfing Washington. Offering up Social Security benefit cuts, to gain access to closed door discussions, where Let?s Make a Deal politics has become the norm is not the way to address strengthening a program which touches the lives of virtually every American family. AARP clearly hopes to continue to position itself as the representative of Americans seniors in Washington. They say they want to captain the ship in this Social Security debate. The problem is their policy ship is the Titanic and America?s seniors shouldn?t be forced to go down with it?with AARP at the wheel. The National Committee takes our position as a membership organization very seriously?we will always advocate for positions that best serve the programs we fight to preserve and strengthen because they are literally lifelines for millions of Americans. The debate about preserving Social Security over the long-term has absolutely nothing to do with the budget debate?period. ?
NCPSSM on CSPAN
NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO, Max Richtman, spent this morning in the CSPAN studios talking about everything from Social Security and Medicare to deficit reduction talks. He also took some interesting calls from viewers. If you missed it this morning, here’s the video of today’s segment.
Happy Birthday Medicare
Each July we celebrate Medicare?s passage in 1965 and its undeniable success in keeping millions of American seniors from poverty each year. Unfortunately, far too many others in Washington will continue to spend this Medicare milestone month searching for ways to dismantle the program in the name of ?deficit reduction?. Washington?s fiscal hawks continue to see this economic crisis as the perfect opportunity to attack programs they have never supported in the first place. Remember Paul Ryan?s ?This is not a budget. It?s a cause? clarion call?There has been a lot written recently about the ongoing Washington budget talks and the campaign to slash Medicare benefits, while also preserving tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In celebration of the Medicare success story, we?ll highlight some of our must-read recommendations for those of you who share our view that Medicare should not be sacrificed at the altar of Washington?s debt reduction idols. We simply can?t continue to ignore Medicare?s role in the fiscal and physical health of middle class Americans and these articles help illustrate why:
Medicine has changed, but the need for Medicare has not. Senate floor statement by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
?Today, virtually every American over 65 has access to health care. And the number of seniors that live below the poverty line has dropped by 75 percent. That?s no accident. Medicare provides 47 million Americans with the access to care and the protection from poverty that Truman envisioned more than 65 years ago.And Medicare and Medicaid don?t only protect seniors from poverty ? they also protect those seniors? children. Forty-six years ago, middle-class families often spent themselves into the poor house honoring their commitment to their fathers and mothers. Today seniors and their children have the security that Medicare and Medicaid will be there to honor that commitment ? providing health care and nursing home care when they need it.?
Big Medicare cuts to reduce deficit unpopular. Reuters coverage of new Kaiser Foundation Poll.
?Few Americans would support major cuts to Medicare to reduce the federal deficit, but many would be okay with minor savings in the popular healthcare program, a survey released on Thursday said. The latest tracking survey on healthcare issues by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the public is more willing to accept Medicare spending cuts if done to shore up the elderly healthcare program rather than for deficit reduction or avoiding tax increases. The survey’s findings are important because the future of Medicare is at the heart of high level discussions over the $1.4 trillion annual deficit and $14.3 trillion U.S. debt.?
Medicare Proposal Could Stress Strapped Seniors. NPR coverage of Coburn/Lieberman Medicare legislation.
?Half of seniors had income lower than $22,000 in 2010; 25 percent had income lower than $13,000. Only five percent had incomes above $85,000. And while 91 percent of today’s Medicare beneficiaries have savings, in most cases those nest eggs aren’t nearly enough to pay substantial medical bills. Half of seniors have savings less than $50,000; a quarter have less than $8,400 money set aside. Ten percent had more than half a million dollars, half of those people had a million dollars or more. Yet even with today’s Medicare coverage, health spending accounted for an average of nearly 15 percent of the average Medicare household’s budget in 2009, according to another Kaiser study. That’s three times the health care spending for those not on Medicare.?
Here is something fun we urge you to share with your friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever your favorite form of online communication. Download the Picture or just forward the link to help spread the word that gutting Medicare is not a ?cause? you or the vast majority of Americans support.
Coburn/Lieberman Medicare Plan: Make Seniors Wait Even Longer for Coverage and Then Charge Them More
The ongoing quest to balance the budget on the backs of America?s seniors continues with the latest Medicare plan offered by Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator Tom Coburn (who left the Gang of 6 negotiations because that bipartisan group wouldn?t slash seniors? programs enough).Rather than reigning in the skyrocketing costs of healthcare system wide (not just in Medicare), increasing efficiencies or even rooting out inefficiencies this plan puts the burden of a nationwide healthcare crisis directly on America?s seniors:?Most of the plan’s savings would come from some form of benefit reductions or cost-shifting to seniors ? a stark contrast to the Medicare cuts believed to be on the table in talks over the debt ceiling. Negotiators there are looking at cuts to healthcare industries after Democrats drew a line in the sand over benefit cuts.But Lieberman and Coburn’s proposal includes several politically risky benefit changes, such as making seniors pay more for their prescription drugs. It also would raise the eligibility age for Medicare. The proposal would cap seniors’ out-of-pocket costs depending on their income. The maximum would be set at $7,500 for people making less than $85,000 per year. Seniors with twice as much income would pay three times more in out-of-pocket Medicare costs.Seniors also would pay more for their prescription drugs. Premiums only cover about 11 percent of the total costs for Medicare Part D, the senators said. They would require seniors to pay the full cost of their drug coverage. They said the change would free up between $5 billion and $10 billion in tax money.The plan also would increase premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers drugs that are administered by a doctor. Part B premiums are more than $400 per year, and taxes currently cover only about a quarter of that cost. High-income seniors would have to pay the full cost of their Part B premiums under the Lieberman plan.? The HillNot so surprisingly, this proposal is all pain for seniors with absolutely no attempt to raise revenues.?Lieberman gave up an income tax hike that he previously said would be part of his proposal. ?The sooner you take the strong medicine, the sooner you will get healthy again,? [he] said.?In other words, America?s seniors must continue to take Washington?s version of ?strong medicine? so the nation?s largest corporations and wealthiest citizens can continue to stay healthy.
Some in Washington think a Zero COLA is too Generous
For the millions of seniors who rely on Social Security, the cost of living adjustments aren?t used to purchase cruise vacations on the Caribbean or extra cable shows. Social Security’s Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) is designed to help beneficiaries keep up with the constantly rising cost of living during retirement.COLAs help seniors purchase food, medicine and pay their heating and utility bills.The current CPI-W COLA formula, while helpful, does not come close to staying in line with the skyrocketing cost of health care which eats up a significant portion of every retiree’s benefit. Yet, despite the fact that the average senior spends 27% of his or her benefit on Medicare Parts B & D out-of-pocket costs alone, some in Congress are proposing cutting the COLA beginning January 2012 by moving to a chained-CPI formula.As a result of the recession, the past two years have yielded a zero COLA for the first time in the history of the automatic system. And although the Trustees are predicting a small COLA for 2012, for most beneficiaries the additional money will almost entirely go to cover the increase in their Medicare premiums.It?s not clear to us at the National Committee how a zero COLA has been overly ?generous.? Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), recently released new analysis which provides some startling numbers to this chained-CPI proposal.
“Switching to a chained-CPI will permanently cut COLAs for generations of retirees and the disabled – making it harder and harder for them to make ends meet. For the first time, the new analysis released by Rep. Becerra puts a number behind the policy – over time the annual benefit cut will total almost $1,400. We at the National Committee agree it is critical that the COLA be calculated based on an accurate formula. But if accuracy is really the goal, Congress should change the COLA formula to factor in the large health care expenses most seniors face.” Max Richtman , Executive Vice President/Acting CEO
In deficit reduction talks, many in Congress claim cuts they?re considering won?t affect current seniors. That couldn?t be further from the truth.
“Proponents of cutting Social Security have repeatedly pledged that current retirees would not be affected by any of the changes they are considering. Yet their chained-CPI formula, which we hear is still ‘on the table’ in deficit reduction costs, will cut benefits for every single Social Security beneficiary beginning next January.” Max Richtman
The National Committee supports calculating the COLA by using the CPI-E, an index reflecting greater accuracy of retiree’s spending priorities that has been undergoing testing by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for decades.
Let’s Make a Deal: AARP Style
Today?s Wall Street Journal coverage of AARP?s support of Social Security benefit cuts certainly got everyone?s attention. While AARP spent most of the morning trying to ?clarify? its position, with tweets every minute for most of the morning, and eventually a follow-up statement from its CEO, it?s clear AARP has once again chosen to offer up vital safety net programs to the altar of insider Washington politics.In short, AARP says Social Security should not be a part of the budget conversation. So we ask?Why suggest benefit cuts now?during one of the most intense budget debates of our lifetime? They say they?ll also hold town hall meetings to ?educate? Americans about AARP?s vision for Social Security. Again, if benefit cuts should not be a part of the budget debate (and they shouldn?t) then why is AARP working so hard to try and sell these benefit cuts to an unsupportive membership now?AARP?s John Rother says:
?I?m sure there will be some who will not be happy, but others will be eager to see the program put on a stronger footing financial for the long-term.?
But benefit cuts are not the only way to put Social Security on stronger footing. Perhaps, most disconcerting is how closely AARP?s language mirrors the anti-Social Security approach promoted by the Cato institute after the last reforms in 1983 and perpetuated by President Bush in his campaign for private accounts. That strategy says policymakers should ensure current seniors know the cuts won?t affect them to garner their support:
?It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries.? AARP CEO, Barry Rand
Advocates representing millions of American seniors nationwide, including the National Committee, joined together this morning in a news conference call to remind reporters that AARP does not represent the views of most Americans.Here is Max Richtman, NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO?s full statement:
?While AARP is among the nation?s largest lobbyists?it clearly does not speak for all of America?s seniors. Seniors of all political persuasions, and even voters across all age groups, do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Poll after poll, (including AARP?s own polling) show that seniors know Social Security didn?t cause this fiscal crisis, shouldn?t be included in the current budget debate and that there are other ways to resolve our economic woes without cutting benefits to millions of Americans. Suggesting now, given the current anti-Social Security environment in Washington, that seniors? benefits should be cut is not a view shared by any other major seniors? organization because it?s just not good policy. We don?t need to be squishy on this issue or equivocate, flip-flop or try to have it all ways?let me say clearly?we at the National Committee do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Timing is everything in politics and no one in Washington now is really talking about providing long-term solvency issues for Social Security?they?re looking at ways to avoid paying back what?s owed to the trust fund and ways to cut spending. Addressing Social Security as part of a budget deal has absolutely nothing to do with long-term solvency. The National Committee has always said we need to find long-term solvency solutions to preserve Social Security for future generations?and those solutions aren?t really a surprise to anyone. The need to make adjustments before the year 2036 isn?t news or position unique to AARP. We all know, modest and manageable changes will bring Social Security where it needs to be for 75 more years; however, THAT is not what is being debated now. Not a single seniors? group, contrary to claims by Washington?s fiscal hawks, have ever argued that we should do ?nothing? or ?ignore? the fiscal facts; however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current budget debate engulfing Washington. Offering up Social Security benefit cuts, to gain access to closed door discussions, where Let?s Make a Deal politics has become the norm is not the way to address strengthening a program which touches the lives of virtually every American family. AARP clearly hopes to continue to position itself as the representative of Americans seniors in Washington. They say they want to captain the ship in this Social Security debate. The problem is their policy ship is the Titanic and America?s seniors shouldn?t be forced to go down with it?with AARP at the wheel. The National Committee takes our position as a membership organization very seriously?we will always advocate for positions that best serve the programs we fight to preserve and strengthen because they are literally lifelines for millions of Americans. The debate about preserving Social Security over the long-term has absolutely nothing to do with the budget debate?period. ?