. . . 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.
>> (MBS) Maybe not sufficient, but not insignificant either. Support goes
to what
taxpayers part with, which is subject to average inflation, not just how
effective
the dollars are at the other end.
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
>> (MBS) Sure. We should have and could have gotten much more.
I don't know what the effect of the cuts will be. But I am skeptical
of all manner of schemes advertised as cost control, including those
under the purview of a public agency.
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.
>> (MBS) I would always prefer to be on the side defending M&M from any
such cuts. Advocates of cuts would have a very tough row to hoe. Advocates
of spending cuts are much a case of the bark being worse than the bite.
But in a catastrophe, any number of improbable things become possible.
I don't see that as any more likely now than without HCR.
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
<< (MBS) We're not there yet. I still don't see the ingredients of a coalition that will cut entitlements and raise taxes.