Ripping off Needy Seniors
At least the Los Angeles Times gets it…
Ripping off needy seniors through the ‘chained CPI’
Basing Social Security cost-of-living increases on the chained consumer price index, which presumes people will trade down to cheaper goods as costs rise, would force elderly people on fixed incomes to forgo essentials.
Michael HiltzikJuly 13, 2011Of all the ways policymakers in Washington show they have absolutely no conception of how their tinkerings with the federal budget affect average Americans, one stands alone. That’s the proposal to change the formula that determines annual cost-of-living increases for people on Social Security.At the heart of this particular change is an inflation indicator known as the chained consumer price index. You may have heard the term bandied about, along with the claim that it’s more accurate at measuring inflation than the plain-vanilla versions of the CPI used today for inflation adjustments in Social Security, the income tax and other federal programs.First published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2002, the chained CPI was designed to adjust for the ways real-life consumers compensate when a product or service gets more expensive: They buy less of it, or find a cheaper brand, or find something different, or go without.The phenomenon is known as “substitution.” Economists fear that an inflation index that ignores substitution might overstate the real cost of living because it will include products in its market basket that consumers have tossed out of theirs. The example favored by BLS analysts is ice cream ? as it rises in price, the analysts observe, consumers will buy a pint instead of a quart, or buy a store brand instead of Breyers, or shop for it at Costco instead of Ralphs.For budget cutters, the charm of the chained CPI is that it consistently rises at a lower rate than the traditional CPI, differing by two- to three-tenths of a percentage point per year. Social Security’s own actuaries have calculated that pegging cost-of-living increases to the chained CPI would cut seniors’ benefits by nearly 10% over any 30-year span, compared with the current formula.For the average retiree reaching age 85, the change would amount to an annual cut of nearly $1,000; by age 95, the reduction would rise to nearly $1,400. Over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Social Insurance, the change would cut total Social Security benefits by $112 billion.The idea of using the chained CPI to cut Social Security benefits has built up a dangerous head of steam in Washington. It even came up during President Obama’s news conference on Monday, though he nimbly dodged the issue. In the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, it’s the flavor of the month in all budget debates.It came up last week at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Social Security, for instance. Asked to illustrate how the chained CPI works, the eminent economist Sylvester Schieber skipped over the BLS’ ice cream model and went with this one: “If the price of a Mercedes goes up ? maybe you don’t buy the Mercedes, you switch and you buy an Audi or something.”It’s hard to say whether this was a real-life event for Schieber, who works for the corporate consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide, or whether he thought that a parable about substitution in the luxury car market would hit the potentates on the Ways and Means Committee where they lived.But here’s the punch line: Schieber was wrong, or at least wildly misleading. The sort of substitution he was talking about, within categories of goods such as new cars, is already baked into the standard CPI and has been since 1999. The chained CPI addresses the more painful substitutions that occur across categories ? a more accurate example might be that if the price of gas or medical care goes up, you cut back on food. But since members of Congress are often transported at government expense, receive government medical coverage and have lobbyists to pick up their restaurant tabs, maybe Schieber knew his audience.A more important issue is whether the chained CPI really is the best measure of the cost of living for Social Security recipients. There are grounds to doubt that it is. It’s not at all certain that elderly persons on fixed incomes can make the sort of lifestyle changes contemplated by the chained CPI, or even the standard CPI, as easily as other consumers.That’s because a larger portion of seniors’ spending is concentrated in medical goods and services, which aren’t as amenable to substitution as, say, oranges for apples; it’s not as though you can forgo a prescribed heart bypass operation and opt for a cheaper hernia operation instead.Indeed, the BLS has recognized that elderly consumers are a special case by developing an experimental CPI, known as the CPI-E, just for those 62 and older. Among other differences, the index overweights medical care as a factor in seniors’ spending. That component, which has risen in cost at nearly twice the rate of overall inflation over the last couple of decades, counts for more than twice as much of the CPI-E as it does of the standard CPI used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living raises today.That helps explain why the CPI-E rose nearly 7% faster than the standard CPI from 1998 through 2009, according to government estimates. It also tells you why, from the standpoint of seniors’ real cost of living, the chained CPI is a rip-off.When you factor in that two-thirds of our retirees get most of their income from Social Security ? and for one-third of retirees the program accounts for 90% of their income ? you can see that the chained-CPI proposal is nothing but a stealth benefit cut aimed at the neediest Americans, and one that weighs ever more heavily as people grow older, and needier.But the sad truth is that the proposal to link Social Security inflation protection to the chained CPI isn’t really about making annual cost-of-living increases more “accurate.” That’s mere window dressing. The goal is to cut benefits and thereby cut government costs. As has been the case throughout the discussion in Washington about the budget and the federal deficit, the guiding principle here has been to preserve benefits for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.How do we know this? If you use the chained CPI instead of the standard CPI for the annual adjustment in income tax brackets, over time that will create an effective tax increase, especially for wealthier taxpayers. (That’s because the bracket thresholds will rise more slowly relative to inflation than they do now.) The gain for the Treasury would be about $72 billion over 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.What do the agents of the wealthy say about that? Let’s ask the right-wing Cato Institute, which cherishes both a sedulous admiration for free enterprise and a long-standing hostility to Social Security. Cato last year called switching to the chained CPI for Social Security a “sound and overdue reform.” But when it came to using the chained CPI to adjust tax brackets, Cato called that “a very bad idea.” One would think it only fair that if you change the inflation index for one government program, you should do so for all of them. It’s a measure of the cynicism that guides debate in the nation’s capital that an “overdue reform” that would take $112 billion from the needy can be regarded as “a very bad idea” if it costs the rich $72 billion ? and that no one pauses to ponder the rank injustice involved. Must be that they can’t make out their own words over the purring of those Mercedes engines.Michael Hiltzik’s column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at [email protected], read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.
Fighting Back Against Social Security Dealmaking
A coalition of organizations dedicated to protecting programs which serve middle class Americans joined Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in a news conference today declaring White House plans tothrust Social Securityinto the Deficit Debate will not fly.Here is a quick summary of press converage of today’s call:
Liberal senators warn Obama over Social Security cuts in any debt deal ? THE HILL. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned Friday that President Obama faces turmoil in the Senate and in his reelection campaign if he includes Social Security cuts in any debt-ceiling deal.Bernie Sanders: If White House Thinks Senate Will Pass Social Security Cuts, Think Again– Crooks and Liars. Just got off a conference call with the Strengthen Social Security coalition, featuring Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Also taking part: Charles Loveless, Director of Legislation, AFSCME; Ed Coyle, Executive Director, Alliance for Retired Americans; Terry O?Neill, President, National Organization for Women, Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Sarah Lane of MoveOn.org. Bernie was his usual feisty self.”The American people are very clear. They understand that for the last 75 years, Social Security has paid out every nickel it was supposed to,” he said. “It is incongruous that in a conversation about the $14.5 trillion deficit to be talking about Social Security, which has nothing to do with it.”Democrats incensed with White House over Social Security, Medicare- Washington Post. Long-simmering tensions between the White House and congressional Democrats on how best to address the country?s debt boiled over on Friday, with leaders and rank-and-file members alike fuming at reports that President Obama is mulling cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of a bipartisan debt-limit deal.Bernie Sanders: Senators Have Told Me If Obama Sends A ?Piece Of Crap? Debt Deal To Us, We?ll Defeat It- Think Progress. The Washington Post set off a political firestorm earlier this week when it reported that President Obama will reportedly be seeking changes to Social Security as part of a wider debt ceiling deal with Congress.
The White House “Grand Bargain” is actually a Raw Deal for Middle Class Families
Sacrificing Social Security Benefits for Millions of Americans isn?t Fiscal Responsibility
?While President Obama has acknowledged that Social Security is not the cause of the federal deficit, news reports today claim the White House has now proposed Social Security cuts which would impact millions of middle class Americans for generations. Social Security should not be used as a bargaining chip. Proposing cuts which touch virtually every American family in exchange for closing tax loopholes and ending tax cuts for the wealthy few is not ?shared sacrifice?. Social Security is a self-financed program paid for by Americans throughout their working lives. It has kept millions from poverty for more than 75 years and has absolutely nothing to do with the federal deficit. President Obama has promised Social Security benefits for current retirees would not be at risk and that he would not ?slash? benefits for future generations. However, that?s exactly what will happen if the COLA formula is changed as has been reported. The chained CPI is nothing more than a backdoor benefit cut Washington hopes Americans won?t notice or understand. Having weathered two years of no COLAs, Washington now wants to tell seniors that ?nothing? is too much.?
NCPSSM on CSPAN
NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO, Max Richtman, spent this morning in the CSPAN studios talking about everything from Social Security and Medicare to deficit reduction talks. He also took some interesting calls from viewers. If you missed it this morning, here’s the video of today’s segment.
Happy Birthday Medicare
Each July we celebrate Medicare?s passage in 1965 and its undeniable success in keeping millions of American seniors from poverty each year. Unfortunately, far too many others in Washington will continue to spend this Medicare milestone month searching for ways to dismantle the program in the name of ?deficit reduction?. Washington?s fiscal hawks continue to see this economic crisis as the perfect opportunity to attack programs they have never supported in the first place. Remember Paul Ryan?s ?This is not a budget. It?s a cause? clarion call?There has been a lot written recently about the ongoing Washington budget talks and the campaign to slash Medicare benefits, while also preserving tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In celebration of the Medicare success story, we?ll highlight some of our must-read recommendations for those of you who share our view that Medicare should not be sacrificed at the altar of Washington?s debt reduction idols. We simply can?t continue to ignore Medicare?s role in the fiscal and physical health of middle class Americans and these articles help illustrate why:
Medicine has changed, but the need for Medicare has not. Senate floor statement by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
?Today, virtually every American over 65 has access to health care. And the number of seniors that live below the poverty line has dropped by 75 percent. That?s no accident. Medicare provides 47 million Americans with the access to care and the protection from poverty that Truman envisioned more than 65 years ago.And Medicare and Medicaid don?t only protect seniors from poverty ? they also protect those seniors? children. Forty-six years ago, middle-class families often spent themselves into the poor house honoring their commitment to their fathers and mothers. Today seniors and their children have the security that Medicare and Medicaid will be there to honor that commitment ? providing health care and nursing home care when they need it.?
Big Medicare cuts to reduce deficit unpopular. Reuters coverage of new Kaiser Foundation Poll.
?Few Americans would support major cuts to Medicare to reduce the federal deficit, but many would be okay with minor savings in the popular healthcare program, a survey released on Thursday said. The latest tracking survey on healthcare issues by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the public is more willing to accept Medicare spending cuts if done to shore up the elderly healthcare program rather than for deficit reduction or avoiding tax increases. The survey’s findings are important because the future of Medicare is at the heart of high level discussions over the $1.4 trillion annual deficit and $14.3 trillion U.S. debt.?
Medicare Proposal Could Stress Strapped Seniors. NPR coverage of Coburn/Lieberman Medicare legislation.
?Half of seniors had income lower than $22,000 in 2010; 25 percent had income lower than $13,000. Only five percent had incomes above $85,000. And while 91 percent of today’s Medicare beneficiaries have savings, in most cases those nest eggs aren’t nearly enough to pay substantial medical bills. Half of seniors have savings less than $50,000; a quarter have less than $8,400 money set aside. Ten percent had more than half a million dollars, half of those people had a million dollars or more. Yet even with today’s Medicare coverage, health spending accounted for an average of nearly 15 percent of the average Medicare household’s budget in 2009, according to another Kaiser study. That’s three times the health care spending for those not on Medicare.?
Here is something fun we urge you to share with your friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever your favorite form of online communication. Download the Picture or just forward the link to help spread the word that gutting Medicare is not a ?cause? you or the vast majority of Americans support.
Ripping off Needy Seniors
At least the Los Angeles Times gets it…
Ripping off needy seniors through the ‘chained CPI’
Basing Social Security cost-of-living increases on the chained consumer price index, which presumes people will trade down to cheaper goods as costs rise, would force elderly people on fixed incomes to forgo essentials.
Michael HiltzikJuly 13, 2011Of all the ways policymakers in Washington show they have absolutely no conception of how their tinkerings with the federal budget affect average Americans, one stands alone. That’s the proposal to change the formula that determines annual cost-of-living increases for people on Social Security.At the heart of this particular change is an inflation indicator known as the chained consumer price index. You may have heard the term bandied about, along with the claim that it’s more accurate at measuring inflation than the plain-vanilla versions of the CPI used today for inflation adjustments in Social Security, the income tax and other federal programs.First published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2002, the chained CPI was designed to adjust for the ways real-life consumers compensate when a product or service gets more expensive: They buy less of it, or find a cheaper brand, or find something different, or go without.The phenomenon is known as “substitution.” Economists fear that an inflation index that ignores substitution might overstate the real cost of living because it will include products in its market basket that consumers have tossed out of theirs. The example favored by BLS analysts is ice cream ? as it rises in price, the analysts observe, consumers will buy a pint instead of a quart, or buy a store brand instead of Breyers, or shop for it at Costco instead of Ralphs.For budget cutters, the charm of the chained CPI is that it consistently rises at a lower rate than the traditional CPI, differing by two- to three-tenths of a percentage point per year. Social Security’s own actuaries have calculated that pegging cost-of-living increases to the chained CPI would cut seniors’ benefits by nearly 10% over any 30-year span, compared with the current formula.For the average retiree reaching age 85, the change would amount to an annual cut of nearly $1,000; by age 95, the reduction would rise to nearly $1,400. Over the next 10 years, according to the nonpartisan National Academy of Social Insurance, the change would cut total Social Security benefits by $112 billion.The idea of using the chained CPI to cut Social Security benefits has built up a dangerous head of steam in Washington. It even came up during President Obama’s news conference on Monday, though he nimbly dodged the issue. In the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, it’s the flavor of the month in all budget debates.It came up last week at a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Social Security, for instance. Asked to illustrate how the chained CPI works, the eminent economist Sylvester Schieber skipped over the BLS’ ice cream model and went with this one: “If the price of a Mercedes goes up ? maybe you don’t buy the Mercedes, you switch and you buy an Audi or something.”It’s hard to say whether this was a real-life event for Schieber, who works for the corporate consulting firm Watson Wyatt Worldwide, or whether he thought that a parable about substitution in the luxury car market would hit the potentates on the Ways and Means Committee where they lived.But here’s the punch line: Schieber was wrong, or at least wildly misleading. The sort of substitution he was talking about, within categories of goods such as new cars, is already baked into the standard CPI and has been since 1999. The chained CPI addresses the more painful substitutions that occur across categories ? a more accurate example might be that if the price of gas or medical care goes up, you cut back on food. But since members of Congress are often transported at government expense, receive government medical coverage and have lobbyists to pick up their restaurant tabs, maybe Schieber knew his audience.A more important issue is whether the chained CPI really is the best measure of the cost of living for Social Security recipients. There are grounds to doubt that it is. It’s not at all certain that elderly persons on fixed incomes can make the sort of lifestyle changes contemplated by the chained CPI, or even the standard CPI, as easily as other consumers.That’s because a larger portion of seniors’ spending is concentrated in medical goods and services, which aren’t as amenable to substitution as, say, oranges for apples; it’s not as though you can forgo a prescribed heart bypass operation and opt for a cheaper hernia operation instead.Indeed, the BLS has recognized that elderly consumers are a special case by developing an experimental CPI, known as the CPI-E, just for those 62 and older. Among other differences, the index overweights medical care as a factor in seniors’ spending. That component, which has risen in cost at nearly twice the rate of overall inflation over the last couple of decades, counts for more than twice as much of the CPI-E as it does of the standard CPI used to calculate Social Security cost-of-living raises today.That helps explain why the CPI-E rose nearly 7% faster than the standard CPI from 1998 through 2009, according to government estimates. It also tells you why, from the standpoint of seniors’ real cost of living, the chained CPI is a rip-off.When you factor in that two-thirds of our retirees get most of their income from Social Security ? and for one-third of retirees the program accounts for 90% of their income ? you can see that the chained-CPI proposal is nothing but a stealth benefit cut aimed at the neediest Americans, and one that weighs ever more heavily as people grow older, and needier.But the sad truth is that the proposal to link Social Security inflation protection to the chained CPI isn’t really about making annual cost-of-living increases more “accurate.” That’s mere window dressing. The goal is to cut benefits and thereby cut government costs. As has been the case throughout the discussion in Washington about the budget and the federal deficit, the guiding principle here has been to preserve benefits for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.How do we know this? If you use the chained CPI instead of the standard CPI for the annual adjustment in income tax brackets, over time that will create an effective tax increase, especially for wealthier taxpayers. (That’s because the bracket thresholds will rise more slowly relative to inflation than they do now.) The gain for the Treasury would be about $72 billion over 10 years, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.What do the agents of the wealthy say about that? Let’s ask the right-wing Cato Institute, which cherishes both a sedulous admiration for free enterprise and a long-standing hostility to Social Security. Cato last year called switching to the chained CPI for Social Security a “sound and overdue reform.” But when it came to using the chained CPI to adjust tax brackets, Cato called that “a very bad idea.” One would think it only fair that if you change the inflation index for one government program, you should do so for all of them. It’s a measure of the cynicism that guides debate in the nation’s capital that an “overdue reform” that would take $112 billion from the needy can be regarded as “a very bad idea” if it costs the rich $72 billion ? and that no one pauses to ponder the rank injustice involved. Must be that they can’t make out their own words over the purring of those Mercedes engines.Michael Hiltzik’s column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at [email protected], read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.
Fighting Back Against Social Security Dealmaking
A coalition of organizations dedicated to protecting programs which serve middle class Americans joined Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in a news conference today declaring White House plans tothrust Social Securityinto the Deficit Debate will not fly.Here is a quick summary of press converage of today’s call:
Liberal senators warn Obama over Social Security cuts in any debt deal ? THE HILL. Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned Friday that President Obama faces turmoil in the Senate and in his reelection campaign if he includes Social Security cuts in any debt-ceiling deal.Bernie Sanders: If White House Thinks Senate Will Pass Social Security Cuts, Think Again– Crooks and Liars. Just got off a conference call with the Strengthen Social Security coalition, featuring Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Also taking part: Charles Loveless, Director of Legislation, AFSCME; Ed Coyle, Executive Director, Alliance for Retired Americans; Terry O?Neill, President, National Organization for Women, Max Richtman, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Sarah Lane of MoveOn.org. Bernie was his usual feisty self.”The American people are very clear. They understand that for the last 75 years, Social Security has paid out every nickel it was supposed to,” he said. “It is incongruous that in a conversation about the $14.5 trillion deficit to be talking about Social Security, which has nothing to do with it.”Democrats incensed with White House over Social Security, Medicare- Washington Post. Long-simmering tensions between the White House and congressional Democrats on how best to address the country?s debt boiled over on Friday, with leaders and rank-and-file members alike fuming at reports that President Obama is mulling cuts to Social Security and Medicare as part of a bipartisan debt-limit deal.Bernie Sanders: Senators Have Told Me If Obama Sends A ?Piece Of Crap? Debt Deal To Us, We?ll Defeat It- Think Progress. The Washington Post set off a political firestorm earlier this week when it reported that President Obama will reportedly be seeking changes to Social Security as part of a wider debt ceiling deal with Congress.
The White House “Grand Bargain” is actually a Raw Deal for Middle Class Families
Sacrificing Social Security Benefits for Millions of Americans isn?t Fiscal Responsibility
?While President Obama has acknowledged that Social Security is not the cause of the federal deficit, news reports today claim the White House has now proposed Social Security cuts which would impact millions of middle class Americans for generations. Social Security should not be used as a bargaining chip. Proposing cuts which touch virtually every American family in exchange for closing tax loopholes and ending tax cuts for the wealthy few is not ?shared sacrifice?. Social Security is a self-financed program paid for by Americans throughout their working lives. It has kept millions from poverty for more than 75 years and has absolutely nothing to do with the federal deficit. President Obama has promised Social Security benefits for current retirees would not be at risk and that he would not ?slash? benefits for future generations. However, that?s exactly what will happen if the COLA formula is changed as has been reported. The chained CPI is nothing more than a backdoor benefit cut Washington hopes Americans won?t notice or understand. Having weathered two years of no COLAs, Washington now wants to tell seniors that ?nothing? is too much.?
NCPSSM on CSPAN
NCPSSM Executive VP/Acting CEO, Max Richtman, spent this morning in the CSPAN studios talking about everything from Social Security and Medicare to deficit reduction talks. He also took some interesting calls from viewers. If you missed it this morning, here’s the video of today’s segment.
Happy Birthday Medicare
Each July we celebrate Medicare?s passage in 1965 and its undeniable success in keeping millions of American seniors from poverty each year. Unfortunately, far too many others in Washington will continue to spend this Medicare milestone month searching for ways to dismantle the program in the name of ?deficit reduction?. Washington?s fiscal hawks continue to see this economic crisis as the perfect opportunity to attack programs they have never supported in the first place. Remember Paul Ryan?s ?This is not a budget. It?s a cause? clarion call?There has been a lot written recently about the ongoing Washington budget talks and the campaign to slash Medicare benefits, while also preserving tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. In celebration of the Medicare success story, we?ll highlight some of our must-read recommendations for those of you who share our view that Medicare should not be sacrificed at the altar of Washington?s debt reduction idols. We simply can?t continue to ignore Medicare?s role in the fiscal and physical health of middle class Americans and these articles help illustrate why:
Medicine has changed, but the need for Medicare has not. Senate floor statement by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
?Today, virtually every American over 65 has access to health care. And the number of seniors that live below the poverty line has dropped by 75 percent. That?s no accident. Medicare provides 47 million Americans with the access to care and the protection from poverty that Truman envisioned more than 65 years ago.And Medicare and Medicaid don?t only protect seniors from poverty ? they also protect those seniors? children. Forty-six years ago, middle-class families often spent themselves into the poor house honoring their commitment to their fathers and mothers. Today seniors and their children have the security that Medicare and Medicaid will be there to honor that commitment ? providing health care and nursing home care when they need it.?
Big Medicare cuts to reduce deficit unpopular. Reuters coverage of new Kaiser Foundation Poll.
?Few Americans would support major cuts to Medicare to reduce the federal deficit, but many would be okay with minor savings in the popular healthcare program, a survey released on Thursday said. The latest tracking survey on healthcare issues by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that the public is more willing to accept Medicare spending cuts if done to shore up the elderly healthcare program rather than for deficit reduction or avoiding tax increases. The survey’s findings are important because the future of Medicare is at the heart of high level discussions over the $1.4 trillion annual deficit and $14.3 trillion U.S. debt.?
Medicare Proposal Could Stress Strapped Seniors. NPR coverage of Coburn/Lieberman Medicare legislation.
?Half of seniors had income lower than $22,000 in 2010; 25 percent had income lower than $13,000. Only five percent had incomes above $85,000. And while 91 percent of today’s Medicare beneficiaries have savings, in most cases those nest eggs aren’t nearly enough to pay substantial medical bills. Half of seniors have savings less than $50,000; a quarter have less than $8,400 money set aside. Ten percent had more than half a million dollars, half of those people had a million dollars or more. Yet even with today’s Medicare coverage, health spending accounted for an average of nearly 15 percent of the average Medicare household’s budget in 2009, according to another Kaiser study. That’s three times the health care spending for those not on Medicare.?
Here is something fun we urge you to share with your friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or whatever your favorite form of online communication. Download the Picture or just forward the link to help spread the word that gutting Medicare is not a ?cause? you or the vast majority of Americans support.