There is a front page diary, "House Democrats recommend Super Congress raise Medicare eligibility age" that is 100% wrong. The author contends:
Just brilliant. Disastrous policy, disastrous politics and self-defeating to boot. Shifting costs that then balloon onto the private health care system will only increase costs in the health care system and will work directly against any cost-curve bending the Affordable Care Act might achieve. Do these Democrats actively want to fail?
Let's hope that the "hardly united" Democrats in the House and Senate can put the kabash on this dog of an idea.
If the author had bothered to read the primary source, the memo written by Ways and Means Democrats, she would have seen that it is an analysis of MANY possible changes to Medicare, and that the memo's authors REJECT many of those possible changes.
Discussion: Raising the Medicare eligibility age would be a radical departure from current policy and is only possible if the ACA is retained. If ACA were subsequently repealed or otherwise substantially changed, this policy would result in a significant increase in the number of near-elderly uninsured persons. Even assuming current law with respect to the ACA, some people over age 65 who are subject to the new policy may become uninsured if they no longer have access to employer sponsored insurance (ESI) and cannot afford coverage through the exchanges. Furthermore, this policy does nothing to control costs, it simply shifts substantial costs from Medicare to other parts of government and to private and public employers. More specifically, this policy would increase costs for employers as more near-elderly retain employer-sponsored insurance. It will increase Medicaid costs, as more low-income near-elderly would remain on Medicaid for longer and others who would become eligible for coverage through the exchange may be eligible for the new Medicaid expansion through the ACA. It would also increase government costs for subsidies in the exchanges, because some people who would otherwise receive Medicare will remain in the exchanges for longer. It would increase premiums in the exchanges – raising costs for other individuals and raising government spending for the tax credits – as the risk pool gets a little worse when the population shifts to be slightly older and more costly. Similarly, this policy may also slightly increase Medicare per capita costs as the population shifts to be slightly older than it is today by excluding the youngest and generally healthiest beneficiaries. This policy idea was floated by the President near the end of the debt ceiling debate.
The diary has a throw-away edit tacked onto it.
In discussions with a Ways and Means Democratic staffer, who stresses that this was a "cataloguing of options available, and not an endorsment of any of them."
This is inadequate. The diary is inflammatory, and inaccurate. It is unworthy of the Front Page.
Instead of quoting some pundit hack site, the author should have gone to the source material itself and formed her own analysis. That didn't happen and a litany of outrage flowed forth in the comment section - including from me.
We have too many real battles that need to be fought in the next 14 months to be stirred up against our own party needlessly.
The linked diary does nothing to advance our victory in those fights. It is false and needlessly inflammatory.
I respect the author tremendously. I will continue to respect her once this offensive diary is corrected, up top, and with a vigorous analysis of why the original post was in error.
UPDATE 4:45PM EDT I'm really loathe to add this, and have been debating it in my head since I originally posted this diary because I'm not sure it really matters, but I think it might:
I am a pretty harsh critic of the President.
I disagree with a lot, much, most (?) of what has transpired over the last 3 years from both a policy and politics point of view. I'm probably guilty of viewing news through a more cynical lens than may be fair, though I think I try to be fair in most of my assessments.
None of that has any bearing on the fact that the Front Page diary discussed above is 100% wrong. And dangerously wrong because it feeds the predispositions of people like me without any basis in fact.
I want to see President Obama re-elected. I want to see Democrats take an overwhelming majority in the House and hold onto if not expand their majority in the Senate. The diary posted does nothing to advance that agenda.
I wrote a diary this morning called "Pick an Enemy." In it I argue that we have no choice but to ensure President Obama's re-election, and a return to Democratic control of Congress. We have 14 months to work toward that goal, and we all need to pitch in if it is to be achieved. Knee-jerk attacks on Congressional Dems who are actually doing the right thing, or at worst doing their dutiful due diligence, doesn't help us achieve those goals.
And that's what has me most upset at a Front Page post on a Democratic Blog whose purpose is to elect more and better Democrats.
This Update may be a mistake on my part, but heck, I don't get a soapbox all that often, so here I climb...