Democrats should insist on universal health care before they allow any money to be spent on add-on private accounts.

This is the real crisis that the nation should be addressed and it fits perfectly with a progressive message. The Republicans would hate it.

This is the real crisis that the nation should be addressed and it fits perfectly with a progressive message. The Republicans would hate it.

And in hating it, this would ineviteably give Republicans way too much fuel. It would also sidestep the SS argument into a tangential issue which, though it has merit IMO, isn't on message with SS in general. The Republicans would seize on this and take us right off message as a consequence.

And it's not that I don't disagree with universal healthcare; or at the very least, have affordable healthcare completely for the children and elderly. Unfortunately our fiscal situation that Bush has deliberately thrown us into wouldn't give us a very strong argument to attempt to pay for it. Furthermore, no one in this GOP led Congress would even mutter such words.

So while I agree with the philosophy, the reality of current times just wouldn't allow it, nor do I think it should be tied in with the current SS issue at hand.

Steve,

What are you recomending as a balanced approach that relies upon revenue and benefit adjustments? Could you please expand on this?

Thanks

MisterOpus1 says: "So while I agree with the philosophy, the reality of current times just wouldn't allow it, nor do I think it should be tied in with the current SS issue at hand."

Why are we always playing the Republicans game. As for 'realities of current times,' if the Republicans have their way it will never be the right time for Natl Health insurance. We are losing while playing their game, how can we lose any worse if we speak the truth and fight for what we believe.

I belive that Bush is planning on a war with Iran helping him pass this.

What I believe he is saying is that you Need to pick your battles...and now is not the time for that battle. There is a chance that if you fight both battles now, you will lose both. That is how you lose worse!

Gail,

bigdog is correct with my assessment. I understand that intentionally "starving the beast" is the Republicans' strategy, thus making it more difficult to not only pay for current gov't programs, and nearly impossible to pay for any new programs (like un. healthcare).

And perhaps the fight of universal healthcare SHOULD be on the forefront right now, given the much greater fiscal problem Medicare is bringing vs. SS.

But the reality is that NO ONE is talking about this right now. The President has set his agenda on SS, so we must discuss and effectively debunk his issues pertaining to SS, at least for now. Attacking un. healthcare at the same time would not only sidetrack this SS issue the Dems. are effectively fighting, but may ineviteably spread them a bit too thin.

Sen. Reid stated a few months back that the 2 main fighting issues for the Dems. are SS and the judicial nominees. The Dems. are being very effective on these fights. Unfortunately other issues that deserve playing time, such as healthcare and national security (read Yglesias' guest post over on TalkingPointsmemo.com on this national security issue), have to take a backseat for now.

The minority can only spread themselves out so far while keeping together a cohesive attack/counterattack strategy. The issues being pressed right now are exactly the issues that Reid knew were going to come to the forefront. As it stands this is exactly where the Dems. need to fight.

I wonder how much of a person's Social Security check goes toward their health care?

If Frist & Co. destroy the filibuster, then the passage of a S.S. phase out plan (now in "planning" in the house) is probably certain. They really don't care what people think anymore, only satisfying the demands of the plutocracy that they serve. They want that money, and they're going to get it.

The dead skunk still smells like a dead skunk.

Sharon, 25% (plus the cost of what medical insurance doesn't cover) of my social security goes for health coverage. I am 63 and not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid right now.

Steve,

YOU OUT THERE? ITS LATE AND I'M GOING TO BED, I HOPE YOU'RE AROUND TOMORROW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS I THINK WE COULD HAVE A NICE CHAT ABOUT.

First, his plan cuts benefits for most Americans far more than doing nothing would.

No, because starting in 2009, the surplus begins to shrink. This means that the general fund will have less dollars to spend. This means other federal programs will have to be cut. This will accelerate towards 2018.

Your #2 and #3 are irrelevant.

Fourth, given how much higher-end wage earners have seen their wages go up since the $90,000 ceiling was implemented, why shouldn’t the ceiling also be adjusted upward?

The ceiling is already indexed. It goes up every year.