Now what, USA?

Thus sprach the Democrat Compromiser.

At least this time, the loser isn't demanding endless recounts.

I hear that Hannity and Boehner are both supporting immigration reform all of a sudden.

I didn't read all the responses to your question. My answer is we are screwed.

http://www.nextavenue.org/article/2012-11/obamas-second-term-and-older-americans
Now that President Barack Obama has been re-elected, many older voters are wondering what the effect will be on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Obama faces serious challenges on potential changes to federal retirement and health programs from liberals in his own party and other supporters who had stifled their criticisms while hoping for his re-election. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters in a post-election news conference: “We are not going to mess with Social Security.”

But the reality may be different.

(MORE: The New Financial Outlook for Social Security and Medicare)

“There is going to be the fight of our lifetime to maintain Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” says Eric Kingson, co-chair of Social Security Works, a liberal lobbying group.

A 'Grand Bargain' May Be Coming

Look for serious talk in Washington about a “Grand Bargain” in which the president and Democrats would accept changes to Social Security and Medicare while Republicans accept tax increases.

The specifics of such a deal are unknown, but Obama reportedly offered to increase the Medicare age to 67 in last year’s budget discussions with Republicans. And, according to CNBC, in 2011 he proposed a new way to calculate annual Social Security Cost of Living Adjustments that would effectively reduce yearly increases in that benefit.

A Grand Bargain is anathema to many senior advocates. It would mean “these programs are going to be in great jeopardy,” says Kingson, who is also a professor of social work at Syracuse University.

The debate in Washington for the last two years has been “about the federal budget and hasn’t been much about the impact of changes on health and retirement security,” says David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP, the politically potent lobby for people 50 and older. “What has been missing from this equation has been the focus on people.”

But Social Security, Certer says, has "its own funding source and is not part of the federal budget and should not be dragged into the budget debate.”

The Obama-Nixon Parallel

When it comes to changing Social Security and Medicare, Kingson sees Obama as a potential Democratic version of President Richard Nixon going to China. Just as only a Republican president could open relations with China without being accused of being soft on Communism, he says, only a Democratic president could cut programs that were the basis of Democratic electoral success.

Some conservatives say Congress and the president need to strike a compromise. “It’s time now to move beyond slogans and move into specific discussions about what we do about Social Security,” said David John, a retirement and Social Security expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

(MORE: Will You Have to Wait Past 65 to Get Medicare?)

Key Parts of Obamacare Ahead

Regardless of the negotiations, the re-election of the president means that key provisions of Obamacare affecting the health of Americans 50 and older will remain locked in place:
Beneficiaries with Medicare Part D drug coverage will continue receiving a 50 percent discount on brand-name prescription drugs and a 14 percent discount on generics once they have reached the “donut hole,” spending between $2,930 and $4,700 on prescription medications.
Medicare will continue offering its new, expanded list of preventive care services and treatments.
The federal government will establish a basic package of health insurance benefits for policies sold through insurance exchanges beginning in 2014.
Private insurers will not be allowed to turn away prospective policyholders due to pre-existing medical conditions.
Beginning in 2014, states will be given the opportunity to expand Medicaid coverage to millions of poor people who are currently ineligible for the federal health program. Among the beneficiaries would be large numbers of people in their 50s, working at low-wage jobs without health insurance.

“All these important things now have a chance to go forward,” says Bob Blancato, a consultant on aging issues.

He is also optimistic that Congress will provide financing for additional ombudsmen to oversee the quality of care in nursing homes.

How the Fiscal Cliff Could Hurt

The coming “fiscal cliff” — massive federal spending cuts and tax increases that would automatically go into effect in 2013 unless Congress strikes a deficit deal — could also weigh heavily on vital programs for elderly Americans, says Forbes columnist Howard Gleckman. “According to the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, if Congress goes over the cliff and the cuts last through 2013, the consequences would be severe,” writes Gleckman. Among the drawbacks: caregiver support would be cut by $12.6 million and social service block grants, which fund programs such as meals and transportation for people 60and older as well as and adult foster care, would be cut for 345,000 people.

Now that the election hoopla is over, the serious work begins.

really?

I would be willing to accept 67 as the new age for full social security benefits. I wonder if there is also talk of raising the minimum age from 62 to, say 64. I promise you, if you're over 55 or 60, you better hang onto whatever job you've got, because nobody wants you unless you are a very senior corporate officer.

It already started when he took office. I know because of the my sister's medical bills which are still coming in and those bills state due to the health care system.....
btw she had insurance and the bills are in the millions. It makes me sick.

You must be using that Conservative math again.

One recount is not the same thing as endless recounts. The one recount may have seemed endless but it was not more than one.

I don't know what you're arguing for T2L. My wife died in 2004, from breast cancer. She had chemotherapy and two courses of radiotherapy, not to mention three major operations. Once during a chemotherapy session the nurse told me each injection was about £2000 a go. That was back in 2003 and she had at least a dozen separate injections.

We have never had any form of health insurance, but when she died her medical bills were zero. That's because we have Universal Health Care. From what I understand 'Obamacare' does not go nearly as far as what we have over here.

I cannot understand why ordinary people would ever object to Universal Health Care. The only people out of pocket are the very rich.

Screw compromise from Mr. Obama, it has to come from the right wingnuts. He should use his bully pulpit and put the screws to them. Even that weasel Nixon was willing and smart enough to go on national television in an attempt to get support. Mr. Obama needs to take five minutes of our precious television time for an address to the nation. He needs to explain in simple terms that the Congress needs to come up with a workable plan to avoid fiscal disaster. He doesn't need to mention either party or any individuals. He just needs to tell people to contact their Senators and their Representatives to tell them that they must work together with the President to find a solution as soon as possible. He needs to provide real leadership and hold the conservatives' collective feet to the fire. He needs to use his unique position to get tough.

Why not mention the individuals, and their party?

Your post quite clearly makes this an issue of the rightwingers.

If there's individuals in congress that are standing in the way of progress for all Americans, then these individuals need to be routed out. They are attempting to drag a once-great nation into a financial abyss. Get rid of them.

We call it "Name and Shame". You can call it what you like.

Don't know **** about how politics work in the United States--but given your posting history here, i'm not surprised that you don't understand any of this. It seems to me that you have a schoolyard playground mentality.

I don't understand it either. We accept treatments that run into the millions and then complain about the cost. I truly don't understand the mindset.

Setanta typed;

What kind of history would you be referencing, Setanta?

From the little I see of your posts, you appear to possess a rather empirical ownership complex when it comes to this board. Does that kind of attitude problem take some kind of gestation period here? Or do you simply assume an attitude because of time spent perusing posts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Major_third_parties

So, who paid all your bills? Were they paid or are they still on the books?

I can't answer that, as i don't have an attitude problem. I do have deep contempt for people who display a shallow immaturity and who offer glib solutions to other peoples' problems. It appears to me that you don't understand what leadership and compromise mean, and just how necessary they are to effective government.

Since you're over 70 years of age, what does it matter that you "would be willing to accept" 67 as the new age?

You clearly don't understand Obamacare. One, it hasn't kicked in and won't until 2014 for most people. It wasn't Obamacare or anything resembling universal medicine that ran up the medical bills for your family. In fact it was the complete opposite. It was the LACK of Universal Healthcare that was the reason your family owed (not millions which I guarantee is a kneejerk bit of hyperbole) whatever large amount of money they owed to the doctors, hospitals, etc.... The large bills came from the pits of hell that is the status quo of the pre-Obamacare (mostly) unregulated health care/insurance industry.