Ryan budget also down in flames
Well, it seems I need to add the Senate Republicans to the naughty Christmas list…. that's assuming this admin will allow us to distribute coal and not ban it as an illegal substance. But someone may want to send a physician up to the Senate chamber and find out if any one in there has a pulse… because there doesn't appear to be a heartbeat, or signs of life, when it comes to addressing serious spending cuts and reform of the entitlement programs.
I'm going to have to throw the Democrats a bone here. At least they were up front in their political reasons for dodging the Medicare bullet, telling the nation they have no plans to commit to budget cuts prior to the POTUS election.
So what's the Republican Senators' excuse? Gee… can't wait to hear it.
Not that I'm a fan of even Ryan's budget, as it falls far short of the austerity we genuinely need and doesn't offer a balanced budget for decades. In fact, not much better than Obama's budget. That, in itself, assumes no additional spending in between to add to the debt and deficit. Good luck with that…. But even a token, half hearted attempt to vote for some workable budget – hang, even vote for two different budgets and force reconciliation – or offer amendments to get us out of the Continuing Resolution gravy train should be in order. Where is the responsibility of these elected officials?
Apparently, there is none.
The House passed Ryan's budget back in April, with only 4 GOP members voting nay. The ol' Grey Ghost brings it to the Senate floor today, along with Obama's budget which every Senator, across the board, rejected. Ryan's budget fared little better, also ending up in ashes on the chamber floor.
Reality is, folks, there is little heart in the Senate, by any party, to address the entitlement programs that are bringing the nation's economy down. Why? Politics… it's always election season in the United States, and no one wants to take a stand. Instead it's nothing but lip service thru the media talking heads, and at fundraisers.
Send the bums home, I say…. otherwise we are fools yet again.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
There were two different budgets voted down today in the Senate.
Ryan’s plan was voted down by a 57 to 40 vote.
The vote roughly broke down along party lines, but Republican Sens. Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins (Maine), Rand Paul (SC), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) all broke ranks and voted against consideration of the budget.
In a later retaliatory vote forced by Republicans, the Senate achieved rare bipartisan unanimity in rejecting Obama’s budget plan on a 97-0 vote.
SOURCE
And in this we totally agree.
The reality is that a majority of Americans consider any reduction in the level of protection that Medicare provides to current and future seniors to be unacceptable.
Want to reduce Medicare costs? Let’s start by removing the restriction that forbids the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating for lower prescription drug prices. Such a prohibition never was consistent with a free market philosophy to begin with. It was little more than an open invitation for a multi-billion dollar industry to pick the tax payers’ pockets.
@Nan G… thanks for the correction, Nan G. I got the McConnell update today on the vote and I knew Ryan’s was up. But I see the do-nothing Senate blew ’em both off.
Apparently, budgets are optional duty for that chamber. Send the bums home.
@Greg:
Prove it. Not a poll, put it on a ballot that only citizens can mark. If the majority is really stupid enough to think the government “helps” in the field of healthcare then the country isn’t worth saving.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/understanding_the_cause_of_hea.html
@Greg, I agree that no one wants their care rationed. The “reform” of Medicare that I advocate is weening the young off a ponzi scheme that doesn’t work, then passing reform that lessens the costs of administering health care.
I have no problems with having negotiations for lower prices for drugs since that would indeed lessen some expenses. There are other ways to bring down costs for premiums, allowing insurers to sell across state lines perhaps offering a basic package, and riders for add’l state requirements so that anyone who moves to another state need only change their state rider. Nothing like having all of them vie nationwide for the base package to make that cheap.
Also offering tiers of coverage. I like the idea of portals for shopping options, much like Orbitz does for plane fares/hotels, and Lending Tree did for loans. I do not think that needs to be a government run entity, nor a mandate on the states.
Another savings on Medicare is to allow the wealthy Americans 65 and older, who prefer a private plan, to be able to opt out without losing their Social Security benefits. They should not be tied together, and Medicare should not be a mandated insurance program for those who don’t want it. It was estimated you could save over a billion a year alone if just 1% of Americans opted for the private system.
Non profit 24/7 clinics for the smaller medical needs should be encourage. People shouldn’t have to end up in ERs because of minor illnesses, and clinics shouldn’t need to charge an arm and a leg for services. Tetanus shots shouldn’t cost $100, and it shouldn’t cost $40 to soak a hand in a bin of warm water with a squirt of Betadine. The entire bottle costs about $5 at Walmart, fer heavens sake.
Individual doctors, particularly primaries, should be able to offer an affordable monthly fee for the basics of check ups and office visits. And another thing… this idea that if you have a skin rash, but can’t see a dermatologist until you spend extra cash visiting your primary is a bunch of wasted hoo hah. If I need my car fixed, why should I have to visit the bicycle shop for a recommendation first?
And while we’re at it, I often say Medicare reform, but we need to reform Medicaid as well, which is spiraling out of control faster than Medicare. That’s where those clinics would help.
Big box stores offer products more cheaply than small mom and pop outlets because they can purchase in bulk and distribute. Why can’t providers bond together and buy in bulk, and receive deliveries from a group warehouse. Surely there’s a way to get wholesale prices for even the smaller practicioners and hospitals/clinics. Especially for supplies that don’t have short shelf lives.
Then, of course, there’s tort reform across the board for malpractice.
But Congress has two problems. Neither party wants to stop spending, and neither party has figured out that the problem with health care is not the price of insurance premiums, but the cost of administering health care. Since both are clueless, both are refusing to touch the subject… and the spending… for fear of political fall out.
At this point, I think I would have been happy to see the House with the Ryan’s budget, and the Senate pass Obama’s budget. At least they would be forced into reconciliation of two bills that, frankly, weren’t all that much far apart. They both sucked…. LOL Neither produced a balanced budget for decades, if at all. But at least they would have had to start making some decisions for which we voters could hold their feet to the fire in 2012.
Right now… as far as I’m concerned… they are all busy playing dodge ball.
Welcome to Hyperinflation Hell (Belarus, unfolding now).
HYPERINFLATION SPECIAL REPORT (2011) by John Williams of Shadow Stats.
It is Collins, Snow, and Brown I understand. They are RINOs to Nth degree, but what is interesting is that Rand Paul threw in with them.
@Greg:
Actually, Greg, the idea that a government office should be allowed to negotiate, with private companies, for lower prices, goes completely against free market principles. Why? Because it would be allowing a government entity access to favors, or bullying, in order to artificially change a private company’s prices, that wouldn’t be in the best interest of both parties. It would open the door to more abuse by the government, concerning private companies. It would allow for the artificial choosings of winners and losers, based on what favors a company can garner, or negative actions, by bullying, that a company can avoid.
@anticsrocks:
May 23, 2011
Paul: Ryan budget doesn’t go far enough…..
Paul said he actually likes Ryan’s changes to Medicare – and he’ll later unveil his own stand-alone plan to overhaul Medicare.
Don’t have time at the moment, but I’ll provide a few links at the end of this comment to get everyone started. But I’d sure like to find out more of this think tank project done by the Peterson Foundation’s Solutions Initiative. Six think tanks, two conservative, two liberal and two centrist – all tasked with debt/deficit reduction plans.
I have to add that the GOP budget plans also bear little resemblance.
Now I know that so many are going to say “well, at least the GOP is trying”. But what is so danged frustrating about this vote is that what they are presenting is so far below par for the need for austerity and reform. This was a joke on all fronts. They knew that both Obama and Ryan’s plans would fail. Perhaps the only semi surprising thing is the 100% nay for Obama’s plan. I say semi surprising because with the Dems doing the political dodge ball game for election purposes… as they freely admit… it can’t come as too much of a shocker.
What might have been a laugh was to have all the GOP Senators vote for the Obama plan, along with a few renegate Dems, get that passed and forced reconciliation between the chambers. As it stands, both parties win politically. The GOP can say “hey, we tried”. The Dems, true to their word not to submit a budget prior to the election, can distance themselves from “Medi-scare” for talking points.
Yup… win/win for the political parties. Big loss for the US citizens.
Here’s the main page to Peterson’s blurb about it, and a link to their PDF report/findings summary. The latter may or may not be a good link. If not, go to the main page I linked first, and look for the “click here to read the full report” link at the end of their blurb.
Also linked there are individual PDFs to each think tank’s plans. If you want to skip the icing and get to the cake… ala the proposal that reduces the national debt by the most and keeps federal spending and taxes at the lowest levels, here’s the link to the Heritage Foundation’s plan
Nan– Karl Denninger is on the same page as Rand Paul. He’s a little wild-eyed sometimes, but he makes some good points. Ryan’s Falsehoods Continue
I’m old enough to remember what it was like “before”. When you went to a doctor, you wrote a check on the way out. Everybody paid the same amount for the same service. If you had insurance, you would submit the bill and be reimbursed. These days, doctors and hospitals charge those with insurance four times the going rate to cover the poorly-named “self-pays” (people who will never pay) and the medicare/medicaid crowd that have the taxpayer reimburse the doctor half or one-quarter of his going rate.
I’ll be on Medicare soon, and I’m getting real scared. I visited my Pharmacist yesterday and presented him with a list of insurance companies. I told him “I don’t want to put you on the spot here, but which of these companies work best for you?”
He related that he made about $10 for filling a prescription. Out of that, he had to pay his staff, rent, electric bill, and maybe have enough left to live on. When insurance is involved, the insurance company takes a cut. Depending upon the company, that cut could be anywhere from 50% to 95%.
Needless to say I won’t be going with the companies which demand 95% and leave him only 50 cents income per prescription. He was very appreciative that I was doing research like this.
@Nan G: Thank you Nan for clearing that up!
I guess that we are going to have to just drive over the clift, and pick up the pieces afterwards, before people get the message about their elected leaders. They are selfish, and worthless. But how long would they spend blaming each other after the fall. So really we would just keep sinking deeper into the mud. What a mess, and or what a joke.
@johngalt
Uh, I’ll have to dispute with you on this one. Your argument doesn’t fly. It most assuredly does not go against any free market principles. While it can be cumbersome for some companies to meet red tape legislation that governs doing business with the government, for the most part most of the business the government does with private companies is negotiated just as happens in the “real world” between companies. One problem that exists is that government purchasing agents have little incentive in making sure that the taxpayers are getting the best deal, and in some cases the government purchasing agents sometimes eventually (after the usual waiting period of one year) end up working for larger companies that they used to negotiate with. Unfortunately, we suspect but usually can not “prove” that secret deals are also worked with some businesses, but IMO it’s a wink-and-a-nod consensus of corruption that knows no particular party affiliation.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/government-procurement/
@Ditto:
While I won’t disagree that in some cases, the negotiations happen on good faith by the government, I do disagree with your main assertion. The negotiation, on prices, between a private company, and a government entity, has the potential for abuse on the part of the government. In many cases, the government entity has direct, or indirect, control over much of the functions of the private company, including fees, licenses and permits, and approval of company associations, like merger approval and the like. While these are not exploited by honest people, the opportunity for abuse is present. And that abuse can take many forms, such as a forcing of artificially low pricing on a company’s products. This is why it isn’t in line with free market principles.
@ Johnalt
You assume that the price negotiation for pharmaceuticals would be rife for direct abuse by “the government entity” yet you provide nothing to back that up with. Show me where such gangster-like abuse has happened. No one in government holds a gun to the head of corporations and gives them offers they can’t refuse. The Secretary manages the department and does not directly handle purchase negotiations, while regulations are written by the legislative branch. Your argument that a hostile government entity, through their regulatory powers, can bring the drug companies to their knees, is paranoid and ignores the fact that the corporation can simply refuse to sell to the government unless they work with the pharmaceutical companies.
@Ditto:
This may be so, and in all actuality, I hope that it is. However, as recent events have shown, governmental abuse towards companies has happened. The NLRB’s actions against Boeing are just one example. It is not really that great of a stretch to assume that other abuses, such as those I hinted at, are possible under Obama’s admin.
Indeed, the greatest number of abuse cases, regarding government procurements, has been from the companies themselves, however, there have been instances of kickbacks for votes, and other, similar abuses.
Regarding ‘Free-market’ principles, one of the pillars of such is limited government involvement within a marketplace. The rabid growth of government officials, not beholden to the “advice and consent” clauses within our Constitution, shows a willingness by the liberals to spread their big-government ideas further, and it’s not that big of a stretch to imagine more severe moves away from free-market principles, and done so in the name of their favorite phrase, “for the common good”.
Again, I hope that I am wrong, but if Obama has shown us one thing, it’s that he doesn’t care about the Constitution, or it’s limits placed on government.