Obama stops short of 'marriage' at LGBT gala
Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/XIizaWUa_0U/index.html
Source: http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_allpolitics/~3/XIizaWUa_0U/index.html
The nation's largest doctors group this week formally called for the repeal of a key plank in the Democrats' health care overhaul -- a new board tasked with reining in the growth of Medicare.
The so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board was one of several "defects" in the law that representatives of the American Medical Association voted against at their annual meeting in Chicago.
The organization, which offered its qualified support for the health care overhaul before final passage last spring, named the Medicare board at the top of its list of "needed changes" in the law.
As early as 2015, the 15-member board is supposed to develop proposals for holding down Medicare costs if they exceed certain thresholds. The AMA in the past has complained that the board's work could lead to excessive payment cuts.
At the annual meeting, the AMA's House of Delegates also called for medical liability reform and other changes in the context of the health care law.
The Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights hailed the move, saying the board would "be given unprecedented power to cut billions of dollars from the Medicare program and has virtually no oversight."
But the AMA stopped far short of calling for a repeal of the health care law as a whole. In fact, the group reaffirmed its support for the law's controversial "individual mandate" requiring Americans to obtain health insurance.
"The AMA's policy supporting individual responsibility has bipartisan roots, helps Americans get the care they need when they need it and ends cost shifting from those who are uninsured to those who are insured," AMA President Cecil B. Wilson said in a statement.
The group also reaffirmed support for other key provisions in the law, including insurance market regulation and subsidies for high-risk patients.
As for the Medicare board, the Obama administration has argued it's necessary to keep health care spending under control.
In a speech last summer before the Brookings Institution, former White House budget director Peter Orszag said the law stresses quality over quantity of care, and that the Medicare board will ensure "that reforming the health care system is not a one-time event but an ongoing process with the goal of improving care and lowering costs over time."
Source: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/1u8pnkNvszs/
But that's precisely what happened a few days ago, when a front page story in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that the organization had dropped its long-standing opposition to cutting Social Security benefits.
Almost as soon as the story appeared, AARP officials called it inaccurate and said it misconstrued the organization's position. There had been no change in policy, they said.
But what really rankled David Certner, the organization's legislative policy director, was the timing of the story. It appeared just as negotiations on raising the federal debt ceiling were kicking into high gear. And Certner says it left the impression that AARP would not oppose benefit cuts as part of the effort to reduce the deficit.
"We have been very adamant that Social Security should not be part of this discussion," Certner says. "Social Security should not be cut to deal with the current deficit."
But while Certner and other AARP officials scrambled to distance themselves from the idea of cuts now, they did not dispute another major tenet of the story — that AARP recognizes benefit cuts in Social Security may be unavoidable in the future. But it wasn't something the organization wanted to see highlighted on the front page of a major newspaper.
'The Ship Was Sailing'
The story caught the attention of Eric Kingson, co-director of a large coalition called Strengthen Social Security.
"It's been greeted as a monumental shift," Kingson says. "AARP is being complemented by all those folks who've been working to cut Social Security."
According to the most widely used estimates, there's enough money to pay full Social Security benefits until 2036. But after that, if nothing has changed, recipients would get nearly 25 percent less.
The shortfall could be addressed with additional revenue, changes in benefits or both — and proposals on what to do are already circulating in Washington
In an apparent reference to the tough negotiations that are likely to accompany any long-term fix, John Rother, AARP's policy chief, told the Wall Street Journal, "The ship was sailing. I wanted to be at the wheel when that happens."
To Kingson, that sounds like AARP is too willing to compromise just to get a seat at the negotiating table.
"You know they talk about the ship — as the ship moves forward, my worry is that the ship might be the ship Titanic for older Americans, and for people with disabilities and for our kids unless they redirect what they're willing to accept," Kingson says.
Being Part Of The Debate
AARP's Certner rejects the suggestion that his organization has sold anyone out. He says AARP wants Americans to know that some people in Washington are talking about significant changes in Social Security benefits.
Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/24/137395740/for-aarp-a-monumental-shift-on-social-security?ft=1&f=1014
Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414997/the-gops-new-attitude-on-military-intervention?ft=1&f=1014
Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/24/137368356/the-teacher-learns-a-lesson-coming-out-in-class?ft=1&f=1057
Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414853/-troop-withdrawal-disappoints-military-advisers?ft=1&f=1004
Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/24/137368356/the-teacher-learns-a-lesson-coming-out-in-class?ft=1&f=1057
barak obama hillary clinton george w bush nancy pelosi harry reid