House Republicans' ambitious plan to cut $5.8 trillion in federal spending over the next decade is built on a politically risky revival of the longtime GOP quest to scale back the healthcare safety net and hand consumers primary responsibility for controlling costs.Read the rest here.
The budget resolution unveiled Tuesday by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) would dramatically improve the nation's overall fiscal picture, reducing deficits projected in President Obama's budget and moving the federal government into surplus by 2040, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Republicans are betting that a high-profile fight over government spending will swing budget-minded voters their way in the 2012 campaign.
But the largest savings in their plan would come from slashing popular programs that cover about 100 million Americans.
The GOP proposal would phase out direct payments to doctors and hospitals under Medicare, scale back the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, and throw out government insurance subsidies that the new healthcare law is to make available to millions of Americans starting in 2014.
That would force seniors to pay more for their healthcare and would likely make states cut back their Medicaid programs, the Congressional Budget Office concluded.
Gone would be Medicare's open-ended pledge that the government will pay providers for all services the program covers. Republicans instead propose to provide fixed subsidies and let seniors shop for private insurance.
In place of the federally overseen Medicaid insurance plan, the proposal would allow states to construct their own plans with their own standards and pay the costs with block grants from Washington.
House Republican leaders argue that cuts are necessary to save the programs. "This is not a budget. This is a cause," Ryan said. "The social safety net is fraying at the seams."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich espoused similar transformations to government healthcare programs when Republicans swept to power in 1994, and George W. Bush ran for president on a promise to introduce more market forces into Medicare.
Despite decades of experiments, however, it is far from clear that market forces will hold down the nation's skyrocketing healthcare tab. It is equally uncertain that states will be able control Medicaid costs without stripping away benefits from millions of people.
Being a Disciple of Christ
3 hours ago
7 comments:
Anything in there about scaling back our military all over the world and bogged down in three wars that might allow us to keep a humane medical social safety net?
Curtailing immigration so we're not a magnet for net tax consumption?
Dropping the unjust, uneconomic, counter-productive War on Drugs?
Eliminating a superflous, ineffective federal Department of Education? And Commerce, Labor, Agriculture, Energy while we're at it?
Making Warren Buffett and his pals pay the same tax rate as their secretaries?
Ditching Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae and all the other financial time-bombs ticking out there?
There is a great deal we could do and still preserve a substantial, need-based social safety net for the American people.
About 1/3 of the way through the article, it shifts from reporting to analysis with this paragraph:
Despite decades of experiments, however, it is far from clear that market forces will hold down the nation's skyrocketing healthcare tab. It is equally uncertain that states will be able control Medicaid costs without stripping away benefits from millions of people.
And the analysis shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of just how "market forces" work. What the paragraph calls "stripping away benefits" translates to "responsible individuals choosing not to buy what they cannot afford." When that happens, demand for those services falls, and the price falls along with it. That is how the market "holds down the skyrocketing healthcare tab."
That is not to say that we do not have a responsibility to ensure that the poor are not deprived of health care. But that is best accomplished by targeted subsidies (as the A-G said, a "substantial, need-based social safety net"), not trying to "manage" the cost structure of entire industries.
I agree with the A-G. No one would look at this farce of a budget seriously and call it fiscal conservatism. It leaves the huge cash cows of the Pentagon and bloated insurance companies unscathed and goes after a minuscule segment of discretionary spending. And even the discretionary spending it cuts doesn't touch the things most Americans would like to see cut (esp. Foreign Aid). To put it in Ad Orientem terms, its like the Mets saying they have a plan to win the 2040 World Series by changing the recipe for hot dogs at Citi Field.
That's the best plan I've heard for the Mets in some time.
That's the best plan I've heard for the Mets in some time.
Ouch
If it ever held that long-suffering ultimately leads to some glory, then you can take some hope in the 100plus year history of us Phillies fans. And, as to the recent turn on our fortunes these last few years, we owe much to the Mets, for which we are eternally grateful.
Ron Robins has a good idea, here:
http://english.alrroya.com/content/eliminate-corporate-taxes-and-spur-economic-growth
Post a Comment