Slashing The Federal Budget
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-05/slashing-federal-budget
House Republicans release a 2012 budget proposal today. It cuts more than $6 trillion from the overall budget over the next ten years, essentially ends Medicare as we know it, and makes dramatic cuts to Medicaid. The plan is also likely to include reductions to the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations. President Obama and lawmakers from both parties have said federal deficits cannot be brought under control without changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, but critics of the Republican plan say it puts the deficit burden squarely on the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Join us for a conversation about the GOP 2012 budget plan and its implications for the overall budget process.
Guests
Alice Rivlin
senior fellow, Brookings Institution, vice chair, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System (1996-99); director, White House Office of Management and Budget (1994-96); and founding director, Congressional Budget Office (1975-83).
Ron Pollack
executive director of Families USA, a national non-profit organization for health care consumers.
Gail Wilensky
economist, senior fellow at Project HOPE; former administrator of Medicare and Medicaid and health policy adviser in the George. H.W. Bush Administration.
Tom Daschle
distinguished senior fellow, Center for American Progress
special policy adviser, law firm of Alston & Bird
former Democratic Senator from South Dakota.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Drug Benefit - Cost of Drugs
Our Armed Forces and V.A. system uses a drug formulary and a negotiated fee schedule. The cost of drugs to Medicare and Mediciad could be cut significantly if this formulary and fee schedule were applied to all government health care programs.
Roger H Strube, MD
www.rogerhstrubemd.com
Whenever the administration suggests regulation changes or taxes that would encourage lifestyle changes making for a healthier population they are attacked by the far right, republicans and Fox news.
Michelle Obama has been lambasted for suggestion schools provide healthier lunches and women start breastfeeding.
Guess what, healthy people don't have health care costs.
no doubt Clinton speaks to engineers agreed? I mean who is EVEN going to provide a mic to some Nuclear drilling engineer, nobody? So Clinton speaks with them since he is able to get Air time to share those views with which Clinton might believe in... Think people!
Why not use the distributed intelligence of the taxpayers to determine how to balance the budget through options in the tax forms? We the taxpayers establish priorities as we file our taxes and you in Congress and the Senate should take the advice of We, the People. The "no taxes - balance the budget now" rhetoric of the Tea Party smacks of the fanciful perpetual motion machines of Dr. Fludd and Joseph Neuman. I pay taxes, and social security, and medicare. Why destroy what you can't fix just because the Democrats got the first African-American president elected?
I like the commentary on the corporate welfare. Tyrants also benefit from welfare (all theirs) to the max, as they bleed their own people, stash their ill gains in foreign banks, and because they are fiscally irresponsible, destroy their own economies. Then, they expect to be rescued by their sycophant supporters when their cotton candy economies implode and the populace revolts. There is a looney set of ideas the Tea Party believes they must follow, in lock-step, to the precipice of destroying the American Economy. Like euthanists, they think they are being kind when they pull the plug on the federal system. And if the patient dies, will they be able to replace what they destroyed?
i am proud of the republican proposal. if the government and the dollar fails the disabled will have the rug pulled out from under them.
the sun will rise tomorrow whether the government is there or not i for one enjoy my independence and if that means i have to put a bullet in my head when im old and sick so be it.
a shutdown of the fascist us government would be a good thing.
its time the democrats admit theyve made many promises they cant keep and allow the 2012 budget to pass.
they running the us government into the ground with the spending ,working hard to destroy a government that at its core defends its people right to choose their own destinys through wise decision.
stop trying to save people from themselves.
Great e-mail.
I FOUND THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION DISHONEST! I PAID INTO BOTH MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY MY ENTIRE WORKING LIFE. AND, MY PAYMENT WAS A % OF MY INCOME; HOWEVER RICH PEOPLE HAVE CUT OFF ON THEIR PAYMENTS. THIS IS UNFAIR. EVERYONE SHOULD PAY ON THEIR TOTAL INCOME. WHY SHOULD THE WEALTHY NOT PAY THE SAME AS THE MIDDLE CLASS? AND IT IS THE LOWER CLASSES WHO SUFFER IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
I AM DISGUSTED WITH THE LACK OF COMMON SENSE BY THE PEOPLE IN THIS DISCUSSION. DO THEY THINK TAXPAYERS ARE IDIOTS? RAISE THE LIMITS ON TAXATION FOR THE WEALTHY! INCREASE TAXATION BEFORE CUTTING BENEFITS FOR THE MAJORITY OF TAXPAYERS.
ALSO, IT APPEARS NOTHING IS BEING DONE ABOUT CONTROLLING MEDICAL COSTS. DOES CONGRESS THINK WE ARE FOOLS?
The Federal Government owe the Social Security Trust Fund something like $200 Billion dollars. Isn't that the correct figure? Since the Reagan years every administration has been taking the surplus workers pay into the SSTF, using it for other government expenses, and writing I.O.U. to repay the money back to the Fund. This is an artificially created funding crisis for the Fund. What the Government is really saying is that they have taken the surplus and cannot and/or has no intention of ever repaying the money. This is a form of embezzlement! Diane, please call this what it really is. It's theft! Once again the Governments acts to give tax breaks for the wealthy, large corporations manage to pay no taxes, the banks get bailed out at tax-payer expense and our senior citizens and less well off get the shaft. Calling America a Democracy is just down right inaccurate. We use to be a Democratic Republic, but now we've descended into a Plutocracy. It's like the Government wants Senior Citizens to hurry up and die. I'm 46 years old and feel that by the time I need SS, after a live time of working hard, there will be no useful social safety net for me. Makes me furious and feel so betrayed.
It's very easy for politicians to suggest huge cuts in medicare and medicaid. I would have considerably more faith in their various plans if they would agree to give up the ridiculous lifetime benefits that senators and congressmen receive and live with the same plans that they suggest the general population live with.
in addition, I'd like to see senators and congresspeople receive the US median annual salary instead of the over generous pay packages that they have voted for themselves!
As this country sinks into Fascism or an Oligarchy State, I hear the echoes of those who have said that this country will never be overthrown by outside influences, but interior enemies of the people. And such is young Mr. Paul's desire to balance the budget on the backs of people who can least afford it.
After paying into FICA for over 58 years, I now get less than $19,000 a year. A major bank totally destroyed my 401(k) by waiting WEEKS to convert my stocks to cash leaving me with some spare change on which to retire.
Now I have zero against the rich or super rich; I'd love to be one of them and prior to a massive stroke that took 49 units of blood and plasma to stop, I was on my way to being comfortable. Now, I feel like a pregnant prostitute driving a Yugo.
IF CONGRESS WOULD SIMPLY REPAY THE FICA FUND WHAT IT HAS STOLEN FROM IT (some say it was authorized loans), the fund would be healthy for years to come. But they refuse to even recognize that they have done that. They owe FICA contributors billions of dollars!
Now this young upstart, young Mr. Paul, has the gall to sit on his comfortable rear end and wants to punish the poor for being poor. If he had any sense of shame, well...but he doesn't. We are either going to have to have another revolution in this country (sans the violence and guns, etc.) or toss up our hands and surrender our freedom to the bunch of thieves in Washington.l
Medicare is in deep financial trouble. Federal spending for this program in 2011 is expected to be $487.9 billion. This amount is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase to over one trillion dollars by 2020 which, if not addressed, would bankrupt the federal government. In response to this projection, the deficit and the desire for universal coverage, the newly enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will arbitrarily decrease Medicare payments, cutting spending by $523 billion over the next ten years. This will decrease care for many if not most Medicare patients by severely limiting their access to physicians and hospitals.
There is a better way to control Medicare’s costs and provide universal coverage. A great deal of our total medical expenditures, almost one-third by several different estimates, is for non-beneficial inappropriate care. A physician committee in each hospital to help provide only beneficial care individualized for each patient would avoid over-treatment, decreasing Medicare costs by at least 20-25%. As therapies of no benefit expose the patient only to risks, this would also improve outcomes. Resources would then become available to fully fund Medicare, provide universal coverage and maintain the financial viability of the federal government.
This is a false conversation. We are talking about various ways to limit care, not improve care. The choice comes down to limiting care for all, or just limiting care for the old, young and poor.
Reimbursement is already capped per procedure or visit at less than the COST of providing the service. You are NOT going to limit the growth of health care costs in EITHER manner without limiting services or getting everyone into the risk pool (ie- single payor or something like it).
Also, why not ask some physicians about this? I notice all of your panel has NO experience in the actual delivery of healthcare.
If I understand the Ryan proposal correctly it resembles an idea proposed by Laurence Kotlicoff of Boston University in his book "The Health Care Fix". In his book an age and health adjusted voucher would be given to individuals to subsidize purchase of private health insurance.
The voucher is not for buying health care. It's for buying insurance. The idea has some merit when combined with pricing transparency and the patient having skin in the game. Aside from political aversion the the v word I don't understand one of the guest's aversion to calling a voucher a voucher.
All this said, as long as we expect insurance to cover everything from going to the emergency room for a boo-boo to helping geezers get erections or helping 49 year old career women get pregnant we will continue seeing health care spending and insurance premiums soar.
One more thought. The Ryan proposal is yet another measure whereby the interests of corporations are driving the actions of those whom we elect to govern. Most Americans may not be aware that the intertwining of the corporate and government sectors is one of the text-book definitions of Fascism.
I think it would be interesting if we could get the views of some folks who benefited from the tax cuts. We all know the statistics. 99% of the wealth in the United States is controlled by 1% of the population. I would like to hear from that 1%. I am tired of hearing from politicians… I want to hear from the people. Get Warren Buffet on the program. Get Bill Gates. Let me hear what they think of the situation in this country…
After reading the Ryan Plan, I feel hope for this Country after months of despair under Obama's reckless spending leadership. We are so divided as a Nation, even in the teeth of pending financial disaster, we can't even link arms as a United people and get our house in order. We are in a financial emergency. I'm grateful Rep. Ryan has a vision and a plan out of the mess we've been pulled into. It's time we give take it seriously.
Other developed countries spend less money and have longer life expectancies. They have single payer systems that control cost. Maybe we should muzzle the insurance companies and take another look at that.
I am interested in hearing how we can justify spending so much on military spending. We spent 698 billion dollars last year on military spending which is 5.8 times the amount the next country is spending (China). It's also just 1 billion less than is spent by all Asian and European countries combined... When we are heating up this debate over such a small sample of our budget, why do we leave the 20 percent that is military spending off of the table?