> Medicaid spending has burgeoned through the ages of Reagan, Clinton,
> and both Bushes, not to mention the reigns of a multitude of
> retrograde state government officials, who influence the size of each
> state's Medicaid program.
>
> The threat to entitlements is interesting because any big compromise
> on entitlements would have to include tax increases, and the GOP has
> worked themselves into such a krazy korner that none of them can
> possibly endorse a tax increase under any circumstances. Moreover,
> there are also their hypocritical screams about cuts to Medicare --
> the other half of the entitlement fix scissors. Unless the Dems build
> a veto-proof, Rubinoid, pro-entitlement cut majority, it's hard to see
> how it happens. (For anyone who just got here from Mars, I'm dead set
> against any such policy.)
>
A couple things. Medicaid spending has burgeoned, but medical inflation has burgeoned, too. And then there's the number of poor people who need coverage - that's another factor. So the raw spending number isn't a sufficient measure of how much political support for Medicaid has actually been forthcoming.
Also: Don't you think the political wisdom of what the Dems have done with Medicare has been more than questionable - i.e., let themselves be the ones who cut hundreds of billions over Republican cries of save the seniors? Maybe they're right that these particular cuts are perfectly harmless. But you'd have to read an 800-page GAO report to know that. So if one day some sort of debt crisis-type thing happens, and Republicans and Blue Dogs gang up to push real Medicare cuts, how could the pro-Obamacare Dems oppose it? They've got blood on their hands now, too.
Seems like a typical attempt to be "responsible" that ends up serving the nefarious purposes of the most reactionary sectors - like 90's deficit reduction.
SA