For example, people justifiably fear the burden of the mandate on low- or middle-income families. So they've got some kind of insurance, but they are having difficulty paying for it. Is the more likely outcome an increase in their subsidy, the contraction of benefits under the plan, or elimination of the coverage? All are possible, but I'd say subsidy relief and preservation of benefits will be a strong card to play.
The delay in the onset of benefits is another target for incremental improvement. Who is going to campaign on delaying further? Nobody. If we get some kind of bill, people will scheme to speed up benefits.
I don't know what cuts in SS and Medicare you're talking about. These programs are a pretty good deal. They are worth what workers pay for them, IMO.
The real danger that I've been yammering about for the past 20 years is the application of canards about deficits, to which the Administration is clearly susceptible, as a club on SS and Medicare/Medicaid. These are the family jewels. If the WH starts down this path in a purposeful, malignant way, then my opposition to BHO will be second to none.
A mere commission is meaningless. It came out recently that the Greenspan commission did not make possible the 80s SS fix; it was an agreement between Reagan and Tip O'Neill. Since then we've had four other commissions on tax/entitlement reform whose impact was zilch. Any commission will propose a mix of tax hikes and benefit cuts. Who can imagine the GOP supporting tax hikes, or many Dems supporting benefit cuts. I can't see anything happening without some honking huge economic crisis, something much worse than anything we've seen so far.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Max Sawicky wrote:
>>
>> ...I'd say a new, big Gov structure creates demands for subsidies in the
>> future which threaten greater taxes on capital. It also opens the door to
>> addition
>> of a public option...
>
> But that "door" is wide open now--all(!!) that's needed is election of a
> congressional majority in favor of Medicare for All. The door closes (until
> 2016 at the earliest) with passage of a bill whose effects start only in
> 2013. And if the corporate politicians decide to increase subsidies (to the
> Insurance Companies) they will finance them the way they always do--by
> raising taxes on the working (aka middle) class and cutting back on social
> welfare benefits like Medicare and Social Security. Obama's Bipartisan
> Deficit Commission demonstrates that exactly such larceny is already in the
> works.
>
> Shane Mage