Comments on: House GOP Leaders Set to Cut Spending

By: ken

ken — Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:32:10 +0000

Scott, not every state has managed care plans that can replace traditional fee for service providers. Try to get a doctor in Wyoming or Montana or New Mexico to sign up for managed care and you'll be laughed right out of their office. I doubt if you could find any major market in America where managed care is not the dominant form of medical insurance already. You will have to find some other way to cut costs as this one has been worked to death already.

By: Herb

Herb — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:22:38 +0000

I'll beleive it when I see it

By: Scott in CA

Scott in CA — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:32:54 +0000

Just a tiny point - expect loud wailing from the Dems over the "cuts to the poor". Nonsense. I work in the welfare "industry" here in California. In this state, counties are allowed to put their Medicaid (for the poor) clients into managed care, such as HMO's. It has saved tens of millions of dollars. Other counties and some states still let their Medicaid clients go to as many doctors, for as many appointments, as they like, even when they are clearly unnecessary. If Congress would mandate managed care for Medicaid, it could save hundreds of millions of dollars, without doing any harm to anyone. It's the same managed care the rest of us have thru work healthcare.

By: Conservative Outpost

Conservative Outpost — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:02:00 +0000

"THEY'RE HURTING THE POOR!" Here we go again. Any time Republicans begin to discuss/propose budget cuts, (which are almost always, without exception, cuts in planned INCREASES in spending rather than actual cuts), the media starts w/the "cuts will hurt the poor" talking points....

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:54:52 +0000

Note also that Brad DeLong suggests the story is misleading. Weisman writes in the Post:

Beginning this week, the House GOP lawmakers will take steps to cut as much as $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget for health care for the poor, food stamps and farm supports, as well as considering across-the-board cuts in other programs.

DeLong comments:

But if you read to the end of the article--and if you understand budget concepts and reporting conventions--you can see that Weisman's announcement that the House Leadership has changed course and wants a new "cut... $50 billion from the fiscal 2006 budget" is... strange. It seems that Speaker "Hastert... announce[d] that... cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and farm supports would be raised from $35 billion to $50 billion." So it's a $15 billion change in direction--not $50. And it's not in the fiscal year 2006 budget. The original $35 that has been topped-off to $50 are cumulative "entitlement cuts over five years"--originally $7 and now $10 in each of the next five years. So we're not talking about a $50 billion cut relative to baseline in entitlement spending for fiscal year 2006. We're talking about a $3 billion cut.

More talk than substance??? Sounds wildly unlikely--we are, of course, dealing with our nation's premier statesmen--but perhaps it's not entirely inconceivable. IIRC, this isn't the first time that Weisman has set DeLong's teeth to gnashing over his (W's) willingness to turn press releases into journalism.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 18:17:35 +0000

Leaving aside any partisan implementation, this will be an interesting effort to watch.

The classic problem with democracy is that it leaves The Many in charge of the public treasury. Has the general political apathy of said Many made it possible for The Few to cut public spending significantly without waking up the sleeping masses?