So Bush wants to turn all hospitals into mini-Walter Reed’s?
Govs and hospitals try to block Medicaid cuts
A coalition of governors and hospital groups says it has the support of nearly two-thirds of the members of Congress to block a Bush administration plan to cut $5 billion in Medicaid funding.
Governors, state Medicaid directors and public hospitals are urging Congress to pre-empt a new rule proposed to take effect in September that would limit federal reimbursements to government-run hospitals.
The proposal would save $5 billion in the federal government’s share of Medicaid bills, but it would force states to pick up the difference or to cut funding for government-run hospitals. State and hospitals officials say the cuts could jeopardize hospital services at a time when states and Congress are trying to deliver health care to more Americans.
Same ol’ Bush, same ol’ Let Them Eat Cake phony conservatives. Has congress developed a spine yet? Tune in interminably for the next two years and find out.
Pass the problem to the states and local level.
In that way, Bush can snooker the GOP sheep into thinking he is “saving Federal tax money”.
In any case, why would American tax payers care about medical coverage while we are spreading democracy and Christianity around?
This is yet another move that shows the overall view of the current republican party, which has long since ceased to be about fiscal conservativism. The new mantra is:
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION AND ENDS AT BIRTH
So if he cuts spending that’s bad, and it’s bad if he runs up a deficit.
#4: Giving enormous tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires only helps millionaires and billionaires. They “support the troops” by creating wars, then repeatedly cut the budget of the Veteran’s Administration.
There’s a good critique of the 2008 budget here:
“Maybe We Deserve to Be Ripped Off By Bush’s Billionaires”
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/48278
Since I knew this site is mainly frequented by people that echo Bush bashing mantras with little to no intellectual backing, I thought I would share for you all here what I found with 60 seconds of research. I wouldnt want any of you to strain yourself pulling your heads out of your asses.
The article I found is here:
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=191670
-excerpt-
“The rules it unveiled this year would crack down on what it calls “questionable methods of state Medicaid financing” that the administration contends allows hospitals to recoup more money than they should.
For example, the rules would prohibit hospitals from charging Medicaid more for a procedure than it actually costs. Hospitals say the long-standing practice allows them to offset shortfalls in funding for other services.
”
Recap: Charge what the service is worth. If you need more cash lets determine that clearly and fairly.
Personally, I’d be more thrilled if the title read “Bush Plans to End Medicaid,” but I’ll take what I can get. Hopefully, his measure on taxing employer provided health care will gain some momentum.
If each state wants to have different levels of public health care, let them raise the money, ie increase the tax on consumption. This will help foster greater levels of competition between states, and help the individual states be more proactive in ensuring that the money is being spent wisely (assuming the fallacy that government has the ability to spend the money of other people as wisely as the individual can).
$5B here, $5B there, a few more hundred of these cuts and you’re talkin’ some real money.
Seriously, why are hospitals cheating the Feds? If they can get away with it, they’ll do it. Medicaid fraud? Nahhh.
#Arrius, I will gladly risk straining, right after you’ll go and ask your brilliant budget maker to buy you a reading glasses from those tax cuts that he’s giving himself and the rest of his pals…
Your alternet article is pointless class warfare. He spends all his time complaining about how people will ‘make’ money by eliminating the estate tax. Of course, that’s not the government’s money to begin with, and eliminating the estate tax will mean less ownership by corporations who buy when heirs have to sell to pay the estate tax.
#4, MikeN,
As a true liberal, and relatively fiscally conservative (meaning I know the bills have to be paid), I’m OK with raising taxes, even if it means my own.
I do think though that we should first make the gazillionaires pay their fair share. We’d all (except said gzaillionaires) get a much lower tax bill if we could do that.
But, even without that pie in the sky hope, I’m willing to pay for this. We seem to have no trouble coming up with money to bomb people info oblivion week after week, month after month, and year after year.
I think we can afford this. We can probably even afford nationalized health care. In fact, I think we can’t afford to keep living without it.
#9 Art:
Get your glasses out because I have something you can read, I dont need glasses just yet so I’ll proceed without them.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Look at the tables for taxes paid through the Federal Income Tax system. The rich pay taxes that largely subsidize the poorer people in the USA. I’m not looking to argue if this is just or unjust, but when people want to say ‘Bush is just giving his rich friends more money’ they are being lazy and slanderous.
The word ‘tax’ says exactly what it is and what it does, it taxes you, as in ‘man this work sure is taxing on my nerves’ If the rich are disproportionally the ones *paying* who else is there to refund money to? The middle class and married have gotten tax relief as well. The lower than middle class are actually given money through the tax system.
To think or proclaim for even a second that all the rich in the *world* could be taxed enough to pay for all the half cocked schemes our governement can concoct is foolish. The rich of our contry already pay for the vast *vast* majority of all the services you use.
If you guys want to hate Bush dont be so blindly dumb about it. I dont like Bush either.. what to know why? (I’ll assume not so I wont say here) I can actually explain it though with proof of my views versus mindless echos from shit I heard on CNN or NBC.
Arrius,
define “rich”. Right now the people being taxed the highest…aren’t “rich”, they are our middle class (slightly above middle). The very rich (upper classes) have so many schemes and dodges, and ways to avoid taxes, that they do pay lower taxes. And, then add to that all the tax benefits and schemes corporations have…
Health insurance for the self-insured has gone up 300% in the last 5 year. I don’t know about YOU, but a 300% increase is a little hard to manage in the budget. Add to that the increased costs — across the board — on food, gas, heating, electricity, etc., etc., and what you have is a real crisis in most families. Forcing states and localities, and hospitals to foot the bill on medicine (since, hospitals, in border states, are already having problems paying the bills because of the government’s lack of border security and other issues with migration) means that they’ll charge private insurance more, which means….what? another 300% increase? I can hardly afford insurance as it is, much less going to a doctor…. with another few increases, and guess what? I’m UNINSURED!!
Just watch…moves like these, to keep strapping the middle class is going to make more of us lower class, and unable to afford basic services.
Bush bashing….no, it’s not bush bashing, it’s fed up with the last 12 years of bullshit government. Our quality of life is decreasing, across the board. This would just be another drop in the bucket. Wait until the economic crisis hits….and then see how history records this dismal time.
Meetsy, did you even look at the link with the tax tables? I assume from your post that you didnt because most of it relates to health care costs escalating beyond what you seem to personally deem appropriate.
To answer your question though, I would call ‘rich’ anything thats in the top 25% of income. *consults the convienent tax table and sees..* the top 25% in the country pays 84.86% of federal income tax. If you were going to *cut* taxes whos going to get to keep more of their money?
Why arent more people angry at insurance companies? I never understand this. They are some of the most profitable, two faced SOBs around and yet they seem to get little of the attention they deserve in all of this.
Arrius,
I think I read your tables more carefully than you did. The dollar cut-off for the top 1% in those tables ranges from $80,580 in 1980 to $328,049 in 2004. Yes, $328,049 is a lot of money. But, it’s not going to buy tax shelters and politicians.
meetsy is correct. Define wealthy.
Billionaires pay a lot of money in taxes, but still pay very little as a percentage of their income. The tables also show tax bracket, rather actual percentage paid, which is lower in all tax brackets.
But, the very wealthy pay a much lower total percentage than the upper middle class. There is a bracket where you make quite a bit, but not enough to buy politicians and tax shelters that I like to call the “fuck you tax bracket”. This is the bracket that pays a a high percentage of their total income. The truly wealthy are solidly outside this bracket.
Arrius,
One more point. I think what is missing in these tables is a separate column for the top 0.1%. That is what would truly change these numbers and show the truth.
Arrius,
do you know anyone on medicare??
Have you seen what they DONT cover?
7.
and the State just raises Property taxes. Then they raise the MINIMUM requirments to get assitance, then they Cut services to the medical..
Businesses that hire Low income people FOUND an interesting idea…
DONT work the employees full time.
What this means is:
1. you dont have to pay benefits. the emplyee cant get Unemployment, or health benefits, and the Company dont pay much to the state.
2. The State dont get the extra money it needs to run Vital services for the poor, unemployed, or even assistance.
3. business looks good, does whats needed, Hires more people, and pays LESS tot he gov.
Sorry, you can only post a new comment once every 15 seconds. Slow down cowboy. LOVe seeing this on First post of the day.
Let me start this off with a little Milton Friedman: “I’ve never met a tax cut I didn’t like.”
Meetsy, that is a lie. First off, the Bush tax cuts are largely aimed at investment, capital gains along with dividends, and if one thing should not be taxed it is investments. The estate tax is somewhat sleazy, but is a perfectly acceptable Ferengi business practice. You do not have to be rich to open an e-trade account, participated in the stock market, acquire money and face a lower tax bracket. It is “disproportionate” only in terms of who usually participates in this enterprise. Also tax revenues are up because it is not the price of taxes, but the quantity taxed. This has to do with the optimal tax rate, which is highly debatable in it of itself.
In terms of quality of life, actually the quality of life has been increasing constantly in the U.S. Medical expenses are higher yes, but what happens when demand out paces supply? Increases in prices, welcome to the wonderful world of intro econ. In terms of overall quality of life, there is no case to be made! It has gone up. If you are really interested in pursing this matter further, I would suggest listening to the Econtalk podcast (econtalk.org), one of the recent episodes deals with the quality of life in the U.S. and how most people underestimate the huge gains in GDP/capita.
Oh, and that huge economic crisis that seems to be right around the corner…I’m waiting for it ha.
Misanthropic Scott, those uber-rich people give more than what they produce, or what they pay in taxes, in terms of consumer surpluses. Example being that Bill Gates pays a lot of taxes, but he has contributed more towards world economic output than the revenue from his software, the taxes he pays, or the charity he runs. The wealthiest individuals of the early 20th century, who were disdained for their disproportionate wealth, continue to give back to society in the forms of charities and grants (ie Carnegie & Mellon).
ECA, it is important to keep in mind the 211th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition: Employees are the rungs on the ladder to success; don’t hesitate to step on them.
I defined what I called wealthy. 300k+ a year is pretty well off. If you have a different view on it Scott thats cool too, I see where you are coming from when you stratisfy the wealthy segement even further though. Someone making 300k+ a year is going to have lots of hands in lots of cookie jars so I wouldnt quickly dismiss their influence. Again though, I know the point you were making about the uberwealthy.
ECA: I dont know what Medicare wont pay for as I have not been in need of its services at this point. I have however had family members live on Medicare and the amount of money that nursing homes and hospitals will run up on Medicare’s tab is phanominal. My grand dad even commented to me when this was going on for him, he would say they charge Medicare so much more than they would charge him because they know they can and that the people incurring the cost dont really care since its not coming out of their own pocket.
The whole track of these posts has gotten off track I think. The article was posted with some spirit that Bush was at it again (insert random evil statement) and the intent of the actions was to force providers to bill for services rendered, not services rendered with a little fluff tacked on just because you can.
Arrius,
I HATE the medical insurance lying-cheating-sons-of-bitches. They pull every crappy bullshit game in the book to force people OUT of the better (older) plans, and into the less services covered new plans. I am sick of paying thousands of dollars a year (yes, an individual policy for each family member costs THOUSANDS a year, now) for what amounts to extortion. In fact, every chance they get they cancel my policy (delayed payment, payment missing or lost, paid wrong amount — which is the same as no payment, even though the billing didn’t reflect the change in fees). They literally raise rates with no notice…. hey, guess what? They AREN’T REGULATED anymore!!! Whoo hoo, the state insurance commissioner says “they’re allowed to”. Huh!
So, should I blame the insurance companies….or the morons in government who have rolled back all the controls on this? What about the lobbiests? What about the people who’ve passed the laws? What about the dirty backroom deals? Let’s line them up and whip them all.
At last we agree on something Meetsy. Insurance is an area that really needs to have its ball broken a bit. Competition doesn’t seem to have a very good footing in the insurance business. If you can get them all to line up I’ll gladly come help whip them.
BTW, I too have my own personal health care policy and it cost 3k a year for myself and my wife.
At 47th best health care in the world and by far number one in percent of GDP spent, the solution is obvious. We are the only developed democratic nation in the world without nationalized health care. We spend 15% of GDP on ours and still end up ranked alongside the better third world nations in terms of life expectency and infant mortality. As for the percent of GDP spent, the next highest in the world is 9%.
People blast nationlized health care saying that some people have to wait. Guess what, no nation in the world has perfect health care. No nation in the world gives the best possible care to every individual. In other countries, metrics are used to determine who gets what. People consider things like QALYs and cost per QALY and have review boards with doctors, government, and citizens all getting together to hash out the best way to determine who gets care.
What do we do in the U.S.? Give care to those with money and screw the poor.
Oh, and unnecessary procedures are simply not performed in countries with national health care. So, all the unnecessary operations, the excessive use of C-sections, etc are all unknown in the rest of the developed democratic nations.
The Fed should not be involved in health care. Leave that to the States. The source of the money is the same.