From The Hill:
Senators from both parties on Tuesday put new pressure on Speaker Nancy Pelosi to turn the power to trim entitlement benefits over to an independent commission.
Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.
“You rarely do have the leverage to make a fundamental change,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who said he hasn’t ruled out offering the independent commission legislation as an amendment to the healthcare reform bill.
The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt.
Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an “unsustainable” $63 trillion in 2083.
A BRAC-style commission on entitlements should be one of the highest priorities of the federal government today. Period. If you need any convincing, watch the video “IOUSA” at the top right of this page.
{ 10 comments }
Hold tight Nancy, and fix it the Democratic way. Don’t let Republicans win back in committee what they lost in the elections.
The only meaningful debate for Social Security is on two numbers: How high to set the taxable income cap, and where to peg the means testing.
Medicare and Medicaid are hostage to overall medical costs, which are being addressed by the current health care bills. That is where Republicans should get their bipartisanship on if they are serious.
Hold tight Nancy
Hmmm.. you did say Senate.. my bad.
Hold tight Harry.
Actually, you were right the first time. It’s a bipartisan group of Senators pressuring the House leadership to be sensible.
Also, it’s important to distinguish between Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Social Security is repairable, if the bipartisan political will is there.
The others, however, are structurally unsound. And their structures are not properly addressed in the current health care bills.
The structural unsoundness is caused by the overall increase in medical costs. European countries cover everybody and spend less than we do. The only difference is we let the private sector drive the bus, and they don’t.
A couple of things on that:
1) Each of the European countries has only between 40 and 80 million people to manage in their systems. If we would reform our system to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and revert those monies and requirements for coverage back to the states, you would have a much more manageable situation and a greater likelihood of long-term, sustainable outcomes.
2) Europe’s combined GDP is less than ours.
3) Most of the innovation in pharma, biotech & procedural medicine comes from our system.
So it’s not as easy as you say.
2) Europe’s combined GDP is less than ours.
So what? It is even more amazing that they can achieve their levels of health care without the economies of scale that are available to the US (should we choose to take advantage of them).
3) Most of the innovation in pharma, biotech & procedural medicine comes from our system.
Somewhat true. I’m not sure prescription drug commercials, or non-negotiable drug prices, are innovations to be proud of.
If we would reform our system to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid and revert those monies and requirements for coverage back to the states
I am trying to keep an open mind and understand how this would benefit anybody.
First of all, many states are receiving more in Federal Medicaid dollars than they are sending to Washington. And Medicare, the poorer states could not afford at all. So you are talking about transfer payments from wealthier states to poorer states. Which is what is occurring now. That is OK with me, but are you saying there should be no strings attached to the money, but we should keep sending it?
Some background facts here.
I’m saying the money should never leave. Obviously it’s not doable as a single action. But giving more control to each individual state over caring for its citizens is an ideal goal. Unfortunately, to do that, you have to implode the Ponzi scheme.
We can’t have seniors or the poor who rely on the federal government for health care all of a sudden lose that care in a transition. That’s priority one.
But we need to shift back towards manageable populations. For more evidence, look at the discrepancy between what each state spends on Medicaid. We, as is our custom under Democratic rule, are among the highest. (see this book for some stats.)
Sorry, that link didn’t get me too far to seeing state Medicaid expenditures. I suspect the difference is in the number of people in long-term care (i.e., elderly in nursing homes) since Medicaid is the safety net for long term care. Maybe a separate system for long-term care is what’s needed to save Medicaid.
I’d like to see the stats by state, normalized for the long-term care population.
From wikipedia:
“Medicaid payments currently assist nearly 60 percent of all nursing home residents and about 37 percent of all childbirths in the United States. The Federal Government pays on average 57 percent of Medicaid expenses.”
Most HIV therapy is also paid by Medicaid.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/9780844743165.pdf
Comments on this entry are closed.