Bingo. Heck, let employers satsify their health insurance requirement by purchasing a medicare policy for their works. THE public option so to speak.

its main problem is that it covers the oldest, sickest subgroup of the population.

You know, maybe I'm cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if Medicare is off the table because all the insurance company CEOs phoned Obama and said, "We love having a captive market as a result of the ACA and still being allowed to charge high premiums and impose deductibles, but we do NOT want all those seniors."

Single. Payer. Now.

but they were justifying it with the support for premiums with ACA, meaning, the middle class+ would still pay..

where you only pay 108000 towards social security

But it's obvious we will have to raise it to fund SS payments.

However, when you do that, do you allow for higher SS payments to those paying in more? If not, you have fundamentally changed the nature of the program.

Still, Medicare is a completely separate program with completely separate funding.

reduce it to 1% and order a full governemental audit of the DoD, and remove the pork and the waste.

I bet you DoD budget will drop significantly from 60% of the entire US budget down to 5%.

And we'll still be tops.

It is less than Social Security. It is less than Medicare + Medicaid. Yes, we spend an awful lot on Defense, but your figures are wildly off base.

Here's a link to a graphic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

and this is from 2011, so rest assured it is actually higher

The Real U.S. National Security Budget, The Figure No One Wants You to See

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175361/


What if you went to a restaurant and found it rather pricey? Still, you ordered your meal and, when done, picked up the check only to discover that it was almost twice the menu price.

Welcome to the world of the real U.S. national security budget. Normally, in media accounts, you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That already gets you into a startling price range -- close to $700 billion for 2012 -- but that’s barely more than half of it. If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year.


Take that in for a moment. It’s true; you won’t find that figure in your daily newspaper or on your nightly newscast, but it’s no misprint. It may even be an underestimate. In any case, it’s the real thing when it comes to your tax dollars. The simplest way to grasp just how Americans could pay such a staggering amount annually for “security” is to go through what we know about the U.S. national security budget, step by step, and add it all up.

So, here we go. Buckle your seat belt: it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Fortunately for us, on February 14th the Obama administration officially released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request. Of course, it hasn’t been passed by Congress -- even the 2011 budget hasn’t made it through that august body yet -- but at least we have the most recent figures available for our calculations. For 2012, the White House has requested $558 billion for the Pentagon’s annual “base” budget, plus an additional $118 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. At $676 billion, that’s already nothing to sneeze at, but it’s just the barest of beginnings when it comes to what American taxpayers will actually spend on national security. Think of it as the gigantic tip of a humongous iceberg.

To get closer to a real figure, it’s necessary to start peeking at other parts of the federal budget where so many other pots of security spending are squirreled away...............................

snip
----------------------------

full details at the link above

section of DU.

I love how for years folks here on DU cry, spit & scream that Obama will do this & obame will do that & when it turns out they were WRONG they simply move onto another in their long list of everything Obama does is bad.

SAD!!!

I have looked at the SS COLA Indexing & it is not near as bad as folks here make it out to be..." under three-tenths of a percentage point less each year". Plus, Obama has called for protections for folks like myself & others who need it the most. "The White House reportedly linked its acceptance of the chained CPI with safeguards to protect lower-income and disabled beneficiaries as well as veterans."

The idea that most here have that Obama can get 100% of everything folks here want but he simply chooses not to is ridiculous...At some point there will have to be compromise & this is a compromise I can live with in order to get other more important things we want.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/12/19/how-chained-cpi-affects-social-security-cola

It would be nice if we could get everything we want but that is not reality...I will say this, if we don't do anything now then if by chance the GOP gets in full control again then every cut will come from Medicare, Medicaid & SS. I think about this all the time & would much rather try to live with "under three-tenths of a percentage point less each year" than I would begging on the street for food if the GOP gets what they want.

So, you may have principal like I do but principal does not put food on the table & pay medical bills.

If we stand on "principal" we don't compromise & NOTHING gets done...However, if we want progress then we will have to compromise something so what would that be if EVERYTHING is off the table? Sure, it would be nice if all the cuts came from the DOD but we both know that is literally impossible with 60+ votes in the Senate & control of the House.

It should not be in this discussion at all.

--this had nothing to do with it. Just like Rachel Carson had nothing to do with the recovery of bird populations after DDT was banned.

especially to an article by the Washington Post who is no longer trustworthy.


Besides, the number of people sniping at the President has grown to an all time high, so I try to be as contradictory as possible.

Or maybe the Huffington Post just made this up

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/11/medicare-eligibility-age-sequestration_n_2663141.html

find someone else who wants to bash the President


Have a NICE day

to back up what I said.

Maybe they were bashing him

Find someone else to argue with who is interested in bashing the President. I ges you can't read.


And Huffington Poo, give me a break........

Still has not happened.

Obama's first term was PACKED with predictions of the death of SS. They will continue until he leaves office. And when he leaves office, those who claimed he had an evil intent will take CREDIT for stopping him.

That's my prediction.

That get's the O'Basher's panties in a wad before I allow mine to budge.

But go ahead and hate him based on all the he plans to, he's going to, he wants to... BS we read here and elsewhere every stinking day.

Those of us who understand the difference between wanting to, thinking about, planning on, and actually doing will live longer due to less stress.

Presidents even mentioning it is a big SELL OUT. Obama's done the bait and switch.

You must have a lot of time on your hands to chase the butterflies of discontent, made up or otherwise.

Your pension and Social Security are part of the pay you earn when you are younger. They are deferred pay.

We can afford to drone people in Yemen and Somalia, but we can't pay 80-90 year olds enough to keep them in nursing homes?

What kind of country is this?

And by the way, medical care is going to become cheaper in the not too distant future thanks to computer applications that permit your doctor to monitor your vital signs without seeing you -- everything from urine to blood to electrocardiogram tests.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp/50582822#50582822

to whine about this statement.

Keeping access to health care from older Americans would have cause unnecessary deaths. Now I hope he takes the chained cpi off the table. Then we seniors can let out a sigh of relief.

a lot of times there are weasel words, not this time:

But that won't stop the "he plans on, he wants to, he's going to" worriers... ugh...

Now if he will only back off his willingness to consider Chained CPI in terms of Social Security and other benefits, I will be on the same page as the President and be very happy about it. SS and Medicare should both be totally off the table.

We need to stay alert and ready to lobby the lawmakers over this.
http://thehill.com/special-reports/state-of-the-union-february-2013/282395-chained-cpi-an-economic-moral-disaster

Chained CPI would also be used to raise tax brackets, which would hit lower income working Americans.

President Obama has gone on record multiple times as supporting this, and yesterday's press conference was just one more example:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/02/11/for-obama-medicare-age-increase-off-the-table-chained-cpi-still-on/

There is also a relatively detailed plan for cutting Medicare:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/03/how-obama-would-cut-medicare-spending-in-a-deficit-deal/

All else is doomed to end-game failure, on so so many levels. All else is simply putting off collapse, and also condemning millions to premature death and lives of debt-slavery along the road.

The profit motive CANNOT be allowed to stand for health care. But of course it will, till there is nothing left to stand it on.

and see how much employer-sponsored health insurance you'll get

President did right here