Senate Kills All Medicaid Cuts From Budget

AP ^ | 3-17-2005 | ALAN FRAM

[Steve_Seattle]

The Senate voted Thursday to strip all proposed Medicaid cuts from the $2.6 trillion budget for next year . . . was widely seen as a test of the GOP-run Congress' taste for making even moderate reductions in popular benefit programs that consume two-thirds of the budget and are growing rapidly . . . the Medicaid cuts could still be revived when the House and Senate try writing a compromise budget next month. The more conservative House was voting Thursday on a similar budget that would make way for up to $20 billion in Medicaid savings."

Comment: Remember a few weeks ago when the media and the Dems were escoriating Bush because his drug-benefit plan was exceeding the budget projections? Then they excoriated him when he tried to reduce the growth of Medicaid. Which leads to my question: was Bush actually proposing real "cuts," or was he proposing a plan to slow the growth of Medicaid? Was he actually proposing fewer real dollars in his Medicaid budget, or simply less growth? Anyone know the facts?

[sheana]

not much hope for us (taxpayers) either *sigh*

[NeoCaveman]

Joining Smith were all 44 Democrats, independent James Jefforts of Vermont and GOP Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Dammit that's two days in a row for DeWhiner.

[traviskicks]

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
-Ronald Reagan

Let's throw out these Senate Rhinos!

[DannyTN]

"This one cries for the most care" in making a decision, said Smith, whose amendment was co-sponsored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. "Because it involves the halt, the lame, the poor, the blind, the needy, those who have no recourse."

I agree 100% with them. Medicaid, of all the entitlement programs, this one helps the most needy. The ones that government really does have a God given responsibility to care for.

I'm glad to see these cuts eliminated, until someone explains why the cuts make sense and how sufficient care for the needy will be accomplished.

[DannyTN]

"Was he actually proposing fewer real dollars in his Medicaid budget, or simply less growth? Anyone know the facts?"

And since Medicaid pays benefits according to a defined plan, does a budget cut reduce future payments at all? Or did the budget include rule changes that would actually affect the Medicaid program?

[DameAutour]

I agree with you. Medicaid is also the only one of the big 3 entitlement programs that is means tested. It's truly for the poor and destitute, those who have nowhere else to turn (and illegals, which is another problem altogether).

I bet a lot of money would be saved if SS and Medicare were means tested.

[DannyTN]

"I bet a lot of money would be saved if SS and Medicare were means tested."

I agree.

However SS is really a forced savings/disability insurance plan with a defined benefit program which generates a very low and perhaps negative returns for most people. But it should be run as a forced savings program instead of a pyramid scheme. And the components should be separated and reported separately and managed accordingly.

Changing it, wouldn't be a real change in any sense, but it would change the focus from are there enough funds to pay benefits to "what are the funds invested in?" and "Is US Treasury Debt a sound investment?"

Medicare already charges premiums, but those could be means tested and a progressive rate charged.

[DameAutour]

I agree that SS should be run as a forced savings program and I look forward to the day when that happens.

As for Medicare, yes premiums are charged and a lot of things aren't covered. But a lot of people on Medicare get around it by signing up with HMOs like "Keystone 65" or "Aetna Golden Medicare". People still pay their little part B premium, but now they don't have to pay nearly as much for their care as they would if they were just on straight Medicare.

However, the government still foots the bill.

[econ_grad]

All Presidents get their pet projects approved, unless you have a Congress of the opposite party willing to fight the President tooth and nail. We all knew that a Republican Congress will not be able to take on a Republican President. Bush went on a spending binge with his education spending and prescription drug bill. It is easy and proper to blame Bush. Hey, he could always veto the budget if he doesn't like it, right.

[corlorde]

Remember how excited everyone was when we retained both the House and the Senate? When President Bush proposed the cuts?

Big government is here to stay.

[Jim Noble]

"...Because it involves the halt, the lame, the poor, the blind, the needy, those who have no recourse."

Anyone who can afford $50/day for heroin can afford medicine.

[Jim Noble]

Afraid of the granny vote.

Medicaid is not for grannies.

That's Medicare.

Medicaid is welfare.

[John Lenin]

Thank you GOP

[Jim Noble]

Unwed mothers are on medicaid and accounts for about 75% the rest is between the illegals and the disabled.

Don't forget the drug addicts.

[Jim Noble]

until someone explains why the cuts make sense and how sufficient care for the needy will be accomplished.

Why the "cuts" (they aren't cuts, of course) make sense: Productive people will not work to support the unproductive at the same level that their families are supported. Never worked, never will. Medicaid now is bankrupting the mainstream health sector, because they require certain types of care to be delivered but don't pay the cost of doing so.

How sufficient care for the needy will be accomplished: First, decide how much to spend. Re-open the county hospitals and health clinics on a fixed budget. When the money's gone, the care stops until it's refunded. Allow individuals to buy services with their own money.

You might be surprised. A people that spend $50 billion a year on illegal drugs can afford a lot of medical care.

Now, you will have to deal with the fact that a lot of the money that now goes to illegal activities won't get spent on medicine-does that mean that YOU should pay, instead?

[nonliberal]

That's it. The definition of a neocon.

[nonliberal]

Norm Coleman of Minnesota,

Kiss his chances of higer office goodbye.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Well, Thank Gawd! I can hardly wait for Monday when I put on the old yoke again and continue to support those 6.3 Grannies I'm already supporting with my tax dollars.

H#ll! Throw another one on my back for good measure! I still have a few good years left in me until I'm totally broke.

Actually, I'm being rather sarcastic, but it would really, really help if my retired Dad wouldn't leave messages on my answering machine saying, "Nothing to do, and all day to do it. And on your dime, Honey!" Click.

[Conservative Firster]

I will bet in 2008 when the Hildibeast is running for president the FReepers,"conservative" talk radio and columnists will say how can anyone vote for her because "you know" she is a far-left liberal Marxist that will increase the size of government.

Well guess what, George(I lost my veto pen)Bush beat her to it!