• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

“Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”

Their freedom requires your slavery.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

Cancel the cowardly Times and Post and set up an equivalent monthly donation to ProPublica.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

Let’s bury these fuckers at the polls 2 years from now.

Beware of advice from anyone for whom Democrats are “they” and not “we.”

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

So many bastards, so little time.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Nothing says ‘pro-life’ like letting children go hungry.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

“In the future, this lab will be a museum. do not touch it.”

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / What they’re saying, and what I’m hearing

What they’re saying, and what I’m hearing

by Kay|  July 10, 201110:19 am| 33 Comments

This post is in: #notintendedtobeafactualstatement

FacebookTweetEmail

This is a letter from liberal House members to Pelosi:

We write in strong agreement with your unwavering defense of the Democratic programs that form the bedrock of America’s middle and working classes, and which are overwhelmingly popular. On July 7, you made very clear that “We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America’s seniors, women and people with disabilities” and that “we do not support cuts in benefits” for vital safety-net programs. We agree completely.

Especially in these tough economic times, we should not be cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits that millions of our constituents paid into and depend on. Such benefit cuts should be off the table in current debt discussions.

Our Republican colleagues should be embarrassed by their insistence that unless Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits are cut, the nation will default on its debts. Middle-class families have sacrificed enough, and a deal that pushes the American Dream further out of reach, in order to pay for extending tax breaks for the rich and corporations, is simply unacceptable.

We stand united with you in insisting that benefit cuts for working families, our seniors, children, and people with disabilities must be off the table, and we stand united with you in fighting for millions of Americans who need Democrats to be firmly on their side.

And here’s Ms. Nancy:

House Democratic leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California said, “I could never support any arrangement that reduced benefits for Medicare. Absolutely not,” she told CBS’ “Face The Nation,” emphasizing a position she and other Democrats had laid out at their own meeting with Obama.

I believe the liberal House members and Pelosi are drawing a clear distinction between cuts to beneficiaries and cuts to providers and others. Benefit cuts is what they oppose. That’s important because it’s being reported as House liberals opposing cuts to Medicare, and that isn’t what they’re saying.

Two things: I am aware it doesn’t matter what House liberals or Obama are saying if the objection is to cuts of any kind to Medicare during a recession. I am also aware that it doesn’t matter what House liberals or Obama are saying if the objection is to having a deficit reduction discussion at all. I get that.

In addition, we’ve been here before, so I see the political problem. The last time Democrats reallocated funding from Medicare Advantage to the broader ACA, media and conservatives launched a wildly successful lie campaign on those cuts and Republicans won seat after seat in 2010 on “500 billion in cuts to Medicare”. People read that (understandably) as cuts to their individual benefits, but, of course, Medicare Advantage has two sides, beneficiaries and federal payments to private insurers.

I live in Ohio and I received the direct mail. I saw the ads. I’m politically active locally and I talked with senior citizens about the cuts to Medicare Advantage contained within the ACA. They were all brutally misinformed. Media and conservatives can spin the 2010 elections any way they decide, but in Ohio, in my county, it was the lied-about cuts to Medicare Advantage that put conservatives in power. That’s what happened.

I assume that will probably happen again. Media and conservatives will lazily or deliberately misinform and any cuts to Medicare by Democrats will be (successfully) portrayed as a cut to Medicare benefits. I get that, too. All I’m doing here is reading what they’re saying, and they aren’t saying “no cuts of any kind to Medicare”. None of them are saying that, including the members of the progressive caucus.

One more thing. I think any proposed, floated, rumored, whatever cuts to Medicaid should be put in context of the ACA, because 17 million people are going to be added to Medicaid. Two facts on that, that may or may not be relevant, and that you may want to put into the mix when reading what they’re saying on Medicaid going forward:

Medicaid enrollment shot up during the economic downturn, but $100 billion from the federal stimulus package helped states pay the tab. However, that funding ended June 30, and now “states are struggling with what they can do,” said Laura Tobler, a policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures. The health law bars states from restricting eligibility for the program.

Additional stimulus funding for Medicaid is ending.

Under the health care law, more than 16 million additional people will become eligible starting in 2014, with the federal government picking up most of the cost.To entice more physicians to accept Medicaid patients, the law raises rates for primary care doctors in 2013 and 2014 to match those paid by Medicare, the federal health program for the elderly. States, on average, currently pay Medicaid providers about 72 percent of what Medicare pays.

The ACA raises Medicaid rates to providers.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « A Simple Question
Next Post: Not Serious »

Reader Interactions

33Comments

  1. 1.

    harlana

    July 10, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Stinkin’ meddlin’ liberal progressives!! I hate them with the white-hot heat of a thousand suns! ;)

  2. 2.

    boss bitch

    July 10, 2011 at 10:28 am

    The caucus should tell their supporters to stop helping Republicans push the lie that Dems are cutting benefits.

  3. 3.

    bystander

    July 10, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Thanks for parsing this out, Kay. No way not to get the sense that Congress is trying to tinker with something that is a Rube Goldberg machine on steroids. Seems like there’s a heck of a contradiction buried in those last two items you note.

    And, is it unreasonable to speculate that if they reduce the return to providers, they will also reduce the pool of providers? I don’t get the sense that it’s been stipulated that the docs themselves will face these cuts, but that’s not clear to me, either.

    Thanks for fleshing out a bit of the scorecard going forward.

  4. 4.

    Kay

    July 10, 2011 at 10:35 am

    The caucus should tell their supporters to stop helping Republicans push the lie that Dems are cutting benefits.

    Well, last time they ducked it, because it’s a hard argument to make. IMO, the media-conservative misinformation was so entrenched, so quickly (along with all the other lies they were fighting; death panels, etc) that they simply gave up and thought it was better to let it lay. It’s a judgment call. Keep bringing it up (defending) and risk solidifying the lie with one more repeat or just move on and sell something else (offense)? They chose offense (positive). That’s always a hard decision.

    However. The death panels never materialized, nor did the brutal cuts to Medicare, so maybe media and conservatives have lost credibility on the “Democrats are after your Medicare” bullshit. I don’t know.

  5. 5.

    Kay

    July 10, 2011 at 10:40 am

    And, is it unreasonable to speculate that if they reduce the return to providers, they will also reduce the pool of providers?

    Broadly, in the future, I have to say I don’t see how that happens. If I combine Medicare and Medicaid (under the ACA) I am talking about the vast majority of insured people in the US. How can providers simply abandon that entire market? Can they? Are they going to have enough patients?

    Specifically, if I look at what the Biden plan (supposedly) contains, the cuts are to uncompensated care (hospitals). Uncompensated care payments were ending under ACA anyway (because it will no longer be uncompensated) , so that “cut” looks like kabuki/bullshit for Tea Party consumption to me.

  6. 6.

    Zach

    July 10, 2011 at 10:41 am

    The number one indicator of conservative ignorance is the idea that they can drastically cut a program providing health care to one in five Americans without severe political consequences.

  7. 7.

    The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik

    July 10, 2011 at 10:45 am

    @Kay #4:

    There’s also the significant problem of the non-liberal Dems in congress all too often backhanding the rest of the party in endorsing the language, if not the policy outright, of the GOP, either because they’re true believers, or desperately still want to believe in that long lost MacGuffin of bipartisanship and camaraderie.

    That, I find, is a wee bit more of a problem then “supporters helping Repubilcans push the lies’. You know, since fuck all when do you actually see liberal supporters outside of Hamsher (who is often invited if only for caricature’s sake) actually get the kind of face time that 1) GOP supporters of all psycho stripes get, and 2) the Blue Dog Dems and the like pushing the exact same kind of lies, except glowingly and supportively?

  8. 8.

    Rick Taylor

    July 10, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Thanks for sharing that letter, Kay. It makes me feel better about what Democrats are up to, though by now I’m pretty much confused. I’m in the camp of, Democrats should never have started negotiating in a setting where Republicans were taking the position of, do what we want or the country gets it. But since the President has decided to go down this road, it’s a bit late to be turning back, and this is the sort of thing I’d hope to hear. While I agree there’s a distinction between benefit cuts and cuts, the devil is obviously in the details. Under what circumstances would cuts to providers be passed down to seniors. Also, for political purposes the distinction is not as important; primary challengers will treat any cut as a cut.

  9. 9.

    kay

    July 10, 2011 at 10:54 am

    That, I find, is a wee bit more of a problem then “supporters helping Repubilcans push the lies’. You know, since fuck all when do you actually see liberal supporters outside of Hamsher (who is often invited if only for caricature’s sake) actually get the kind of face time that 1) GOP supporters of all psycho stripes get, and 2) the Blue Dog Dems and the like pushing the exact same kind of lies, except glowingly and supportively?

    I had this silly, naive idea at the start of the (fake) health care debate that we were going to hear from non-professional pundits ( ie:patients and providers). I thought: how great that will be! We’ll hear from the people that actually use the health care system, and aren’t paid to push anything! Nope. Not a word.

    I’d settle for that, I really would. I think we’d do fine with just those voices.

  10. 10.

    kay

    July 10, 2011 at 10:57 am

    now I’m pretty much confused.

    I’m confused too, and I don’t know anything more than you do. I’m just reading statements, lately, like a transcript, and I’ve had some success with that.

    I consider the words around people’s ACTUAL statements to be “filler” :)

  11. 11.

    The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik

    July 10, 2011 at 10:58 am

    @Kay #9:

    Well, who the fuck cares about those kinds of people?! If they were important, they wouldn’t be on Medicare, would they?! GED: GOP erat demonstrandum.

  12. 12.

    The Spy Who Loved Me

    July 10, 2011 at 11:10 am

    I’ll be glad to stand corrected, but in trying to get to the bottom of things, you say that the ACA raises Medicaid reimbursement rates to PCPs to the level of Medicare. On the other hand, what you don’t say, is that in order to arrive at the expected cost they did for ACA, didn’t they eliminate the so-called Doc fix, which would result in about a 25% reduction in reimbursement rates to physicians? If that is, in fact, the situation, how would this improve access to primary care? Wouldn’t more and more PCP’s not only still not take Medicaid patients, but also cut back on new Medicare patients as well?

    My own PCP does not accept Medicaid, and stopped taking new Medicare patients over three years ago. When asked why, she told me that reimbursement rates were less than the cost to treat them and she just could not afford to take any more on.

  13. 13.

    cathyx

    July 10, 2011 at 11:10 am

    I think it’s left vague and confusing on purpose. That way they can’t be pinned down with having said definitive statements and being held to them.

  14. 14.

    kay

    July 10, 2011 at 11:18 am

    I think it’s left vague and confusing on purpose. That way they can’t be pinned down with having said definitive statements and being held to them.

    It’s really common to discuss health care in terms of beneficiaries and providers, if you’re reading people who know anything about how public health care programs work. That’s the language they speak. I don’t think they’re spinning. It’s just fact. There’s beneficiaries and providers, and we can’t really have an informed discussion ignoring that distinction.

    It’s not accidental timing, either. There is a raging battle ongoing, right now, with various providers lobbying Congress furiously, but that’s almost a constant. It’s always there, behind everything health care related. It’s 1/6 of the economy. There’s going to be wrangling over that much money, and the question is “who pays whom, and how much?” Remember: that’s without even delving into HOW do we pay (insurance), because these programs are single-payer.

  15. 15.

    slag

    July 10, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Reading posts like this one remind me how untenable our democracy seems to be at times. We want a government that can do its job of maintaining an efficient, effective safety net. But then communicating the necessary nuance of that task to the general public is nearly impossible. Even for people trying to pay attention, it’s sometimes really hard to get the broad strokes, let alone the subtle ones.

    I’m finally realizing that it’s not just that Republicans spend their energies on good messaging at the expense of good governing. It’s that good messaging and good governing are–in themselves–diametrically opposed to each other. And when you can only have one of those two things, a democracy like ours cannot function indefinitely. Our current survival seems dependent on little more than happy accident.

    Shit. Does this thought make me a glibertarian? But I don’t want no corporate overlords!!

  16. 16.

    Triassic Sands

    July 10, 2011 at 11:30 am

    I’m a little uneasy because all the statements I’ve seen from Pelosi have been about Medicare, not Medicaid. Obviously, I haven’t seen everything Pelosi has said, so I can only hope she is as unyielding on Medicaid as she claims she is on Medicare.

  17. 17.

    Valdivia

    July 10, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Thanks for this great post Kay. So much out there this just clarifies a lot and gives the lay of the land.

  18. 18.

    boss bitch

    July 10, 2011 at 11:46 am

    That, I find, is a wee bit more of a problem then “supporters helping Repubilcans push the lies’. You know, since fuck all when do you actually see liberal supporters outside of Hamsher (who is often invited if only for caricature’s sake) actually get the kind of face time that

    I’m not talking about face time on TV. I’m referring to all those liberal blogs sending letter after letter, and writing post after post that Obama and/or Democrats are going to “gut” and “slash” entitlements. These people never have to make it on TV but all that shit makes it to Google and can be used by Republicans. As in ‘oh look even Obama’s “base” says he’s cutting your benefits.’

  19. 19.

    RinaX

    July 10, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Thanks, Kay. Having some knowledge of the insurance industry and Medicare in general, your post is pretty much along the lines of what I felt would be proposed. Unfortunately, as you said, it can be difficult to try to explain these distinctions, and the current political environment doesn’t help.

    Media and conservatives will lazily or deliberately misinform and any cuts to Medicare by Democrats will be (successfully) portrayed as a cut to Medicare benefits.

    And far too many “progressives” as well. Like these:

    I’m referring to all those liberal blogs sending letter after letter, and writing post after post that Obama and/or Democrats are going to “gut” and “slash” entitlements.

    But hey, gotta get those contributions somehow…

  20. 20.

    Bruce S

    July 10, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Only slightly off-topic, apparently the New York Times editors joined the “Professional Left” this morning…

    http://titanicsailsatdawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/worst-time-to-slow-economy.html

  21. 21.

    nancydarling

    July 10, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Kay, Thanks for this post. You are absolutely the best ‘splainer I know of! Glad you are on our team hear at BJ. Can you address this question of mine from mistermix’s thread in some future post?

    Can someone explain to me how changing the way CPI is calculated for COLAs to SS is a bad thing? I’m agnostic on this issue, but it seems like this would result in cent rather than dollar changes in COLAs. Other than allowing the camel’s nose further under the tent of SS reform, could this be a good bargaining chip? I live in an area where many retirees survive on less than $1000/month, so I don’t want to see them hurt.

    Here is a Dean Baker link that kth provided:

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/baker080711.html

    I’m not getting Baker’s math but maybe I have a misplaced decimal

  22. 22.

    FlipYrWhig

    July 10, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Thanks, kay, this was admirably lucid.

  23. 23.

    mb

    July 10, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Actually, what Pelosi/liberals are willing to vote for may well matter a lot. I think it is most likely that we are going to end up with a deal that will need the bulk, if not all, of the House Dems to pass. If they would threaten to sit on their hands and vote present they could have significant leverage.

  24. 24.

    vernon

    July 10, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    There’s beneficiaries and providers, and we can’t really have an informed discussion ignoring that distinction.

    There’s also investors. No one EVER talks about them.

    Our healthcare system is profit-driven: the most powerful class takes a hell of a lot of money off the top. I don’t see how we can have an informed discussion without acknowledging their stake in the issue (and their influence on policy, which, though usually ignored, is of course unrivalled).

  25. 25.

    Carol from CO

    July 10, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    It’s my understand that the cuts to Medicare/Medicaid will be to what is paid to hospitals and nursing homes. I don’t think they dare tackle cuts to physicians. No matter how you look at it cuts to providers will be a hike in what beneficiaries have to pay and therefore a cut to income. It will also mean access is cut off either because they can’t afford the hike or because providers decline treatment to medicare patiens.

    The fact that the dems apparently aren’t considering deals with big pharma to cut cost of part D means the progressive caucus is being just as disingenuous as Obama when he says he won’t cut benefits.

  26. 26.

    agrippa

    July 10, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    The number one indicator of conservative ignorance is the idea that they can drastically cut a program providing health care to one in five Americans without severe political consequences.

    The GOP, more likely than not, do not expect there to be any consequences. If they any of them are thinking about the matter at all. Which is likely.

  27. 27.

    Rick Taylor

    July 10, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    Actually, what Pelosi/liberals are willing to vote for may well matter a lot. I think it is most likely that we are going to end up with a deal that will need the bulk, if not all, of the House Dems to pass.

    So that the bulk of Republicans could vote against it on principle, and Republicans could run against Democrats on their vote, and even on the specific cuts that are proposed.

  28. 28.

    Rick Taylor

    July 10, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    It seems Nancy Pelosi proposed just having a clean vote on raising the debt limit. This immediately got her branded as “not serious.” This is how insane things have become.

  29. 29.

    toledored

    July 10, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    What’s ACA?

  30. 30.

    John Puma

    July 10, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    I’ll stipulate that the “effective message-challenged” Dems may have lost many House seats in the mid-term due to the false conflation of actual provider cuts with the threat of benefit cuts.

    But, did not the Dems (perhaps using the 2010 experience, perhaps accidentally) get the lying GOP snakes whining when Ryan’s budget benefit cuts were well publicized and riled up the public enough to get them hounding GOP reps at town hall meetings?

  31. 31.

    Mnemosyne

    July 10, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    @ Rick Taylor

    Is it just me, or is it pretty clear in that article that the “anonymous” quotes that Newton-Small has are from Hoyer or Hoyer’s allies? And isn’t he the same Steny Hoyer who tried to oust Pelosi as minority leader after the election?

    Especially this quote:

    But some Republican and Democratic sources point to Pelosi’s question in Thursday’s meeting as one that highlights how out of touch Pelosi has become on policy as she crisscrosses the country fundraising and recruiting candidates, working to regain the majority and her speakership. The President, these same sources suggested, could rely on House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer to deliver moderate Democrats to help pass the debt ceiling, thus circumventing Pelosi.

    Yeah, no anti-Pelosi spin there.

  32. 32.

    bob h

    July 11, 2011 at 6:10 am

    The Tony Awards need a new category: most nauseating Kabuki Theater. The two political parties win handsdown.

  33. 33.

    kay

    July 11, 2011 at 7:22 am

    toledored – What’s ACA?

    Ha! Look who’s here. Was here. I’m honored. Mr. Toledo checks in.

    Late, as usual :)

    ACA=Affordable Care Act. I know. I need an editor.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - way2blue - SINALEI, SAMOA—RESPITE EDITION—FEBRUARY 2025.  (second of five) 7
Image by way2blue (7/13/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Jay on Sunday Night Open Thread (Jul 13, 2025 @ 11:16pm)
  • Harrison Wesley on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 13, 2025 @ 11:16pm)
  • Splitting Image on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 13, 2025 @ 11:13pm)
  • Mai Naem mobile on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 13, 2025 @ 11:12pm)
  • piratedan on Late Night Open Thread: Buyer’s Remorse (Jul 13, 2025 @ 11:11pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!