DLC Idea of the Week: Fixing, Not Just Cutting, Medicaid

[ConservativeDemocrat]

DLC | New Dem Dispatch | February 11, 2005

The release of the presidents budget earlier this week drew a lot of derisive attention to the administration's admission that the Medicare prescription drug benefit it championed in 2003 would cost nearly double the amount it originally claimed in selling the proposal to Congress. But less attention has been paid to the administration's proposal to cut funding for Medicaid -- the federal-state safety net that provides health care coverage to low-income families -- by some $45 billion through an ill-defined attack on waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.

A couple of years ago the administration proposed to simply "cap" federal Medicaid spending and force the states to either come up with more money (at a time when most were going through budget crises) or cut back on services and eligibility.

The new Health and Human Services Secretary, former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, has made it clear the administration doesn't plan to bring back that non-starter. But he has also hinted that he wants to make it easier for states to restrict services and eligibility, something he has considerable power to do through administrative waivers. And the future direction of the GOP on Medicaid may well be reflected by Florida Governor Jeb Bush's radical proposal to give private health plans unprecedented control over the level of services offered to particular beneficiaries -- or worse yet, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour's proposal to eliminate eligibility altogether for tens of thousands of disabled adults whom he basically described as freeloaders.

Fortunately, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, led by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Gordon Smith (R-OR), is stepping forward with an effort to make sure Medicaid's future is not determined in the context of federal budget-cutting. Bingaman and Smith introduced legislation this week to set up a bipartisan commission to carefully and comprehensively evaluate Medicaid before any significant steps are taken to cut the program's funding. They have been joined in these efforts by independent Jim Jeffords (VT); Democrats John Kerry (MA), Dick Durbin (IL), Blanche Lincoln (AR), and Ben Nelson (NE); and Republicans Olympia Snow (ME), Lincoln Chafee (RI), Mike DeWine (OH), and Rick Santorum (PA).

The Senators made it clear that the budget process is the wrong way to deal with a safety net program that so often provides the last recourse for health care for the nation's most vulnerable families.
- - -
The full article can be found here.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[BanzaiBonnie]

1. What this plan would do is "pre-fund" for the needs of old age.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-oneill15feb15.story


It solves the long-term financing problem for both

Social Security

and

Medicare

allowing for the gradual replacement of programs like Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid and food stamps and housing aid for those over age 65. To make this work, the savings account money would need to be invested — my suggestion would be through so-called index funds. The administrative costs would be practically nothing because there's no need for a huge separate tax collection bureaucracy; the money would come from the general revenues of the U.S. government.

[KissMeKate]

2. gee, it almost makes up for their crap other ideas.

on second thought, no, it doesnt even come close.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

3. And what ideas would those be?

...electing President Clinton, perhaps? Or is it that horrific concept that Democrats should act like adults?

Quite frankly, many people the in D.U. have no idea what the DLC's ideas are at all. They're just your collective boogieman. Any idea you don't personally like must be, perforce, something promoted by the DLC. In the exact same way (and with the exact same stupidity and ignorance) that Freepers attack "lie-berals" over positions that Democrats have never taken.

Come back when you're better informed.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[KissMeKate]

4. youre right- democrats should know exactly what the DLC advocates.

the more you know about the DLC, the less defensible it is.

[paulk]

5. tell us what is so indefensible

No, I mean really.

What do you hate about the DLC that should make all Democrats feel as you do?

I see way to many posts like yours here - just knee jerk putdowns. Back up your criticisms.

Educate us.