Wrong medicine

[Lanya]

Bush budget would nearly freeze domestic spending
   
By Jeremy Pelofsky
Reuters
Thursday, January 31, 2008; 5:17 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will propose freezing most domestic spending in his upcoming 2009 budget and will seek big cost savings from government health care programs, a U.S. official said on Thursday.

In a more than $3 trillion budget to be unveiled on Monday, Bush wants to limit to less than 1 percent increases in spending on discretionary programs like transportation and education, but excluding national security, the official said.

He will try to extract some $178 billion in savings from Medicare, the health care program for the elderly and disabled, in part by freezing the reimbursement rates for health care providers for three years and requiring wealthier Americans to pay more for prescription drugs.

He will also seek $17 billion in savings from Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, according to the official, who declined to be named because the budget has not yet been submitted to Congress.

Bush has been criticized by some members of his own Republican party for tolerating big spending increases in the first several years of his administration. On his watch, the budget shifted from surpluses to deficits that reached a high of $413 billion in 2004.

In the last three years, the deficits have narrowed but that is about to change. The budget is expected to forecast deficits of $400 billion for both 2008 and 2009.

And Congress is considering a $150 billion economic stimulus package -- backed by Bush -- that would give Americans tax rebates in an effort to ward off a recession. The package would further add to the deficit.

Bush's proposed cuts to the health programs drew immediate fire from Democrats who said they were targeted at the wrong people.

"The president's cuts are exactly the wrong medicine when the cost of health care and the number of uninsured continue to rise and families are feeling economically insecure," said House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

The budget to be unveiled on Monday will fund government operations for the 2009 fiscal year which begins October 1.

(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by Philip Barbara)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/31/AR2008013102690.html

[The_Professor]

Sounds more balanced than ANY of his previous ones. Nothing wrong, in my mind, of freezing the budget, including Medicare. He should freeze ALL of it, however. If program A wants more pesos, then program B must cough it up. PLEASE, no more bloated "budgets". My grandchildren will be paying this one off!

[Universe Prince]

"The president's cuts are exactly the wrong medicine when the cost of health care and the number of uninsured continue to rise and families are feeling economically insecure," said House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

I'll put it this way: I trust neither President Bush nor Representative Pelosi because they're both quacks.

[Plane]

I consider it very dishonest to call a freeze a "cut".

[sirs]

Bush budget would nearly freeze domestic spending

One could only wish
   

[hnumpah]

I consider it very dishonest to call a freeze a "cut".

I consider it dishonest to misrepresent what the article said. Read it again.

"He will try to extract some $178 billion in savings from Medicare, the health care program for the elderly and disabled, in part by freezing the reimbursement rates for health care providers for three years and requiring wealthier Americans to pay more for prescription drugs.

He will also seek $17 billion in savings from Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, according to the official, who declined to be named because the budget has not yet been submitted to Congress."

Where are the rest of the $178 billion from Medicare and the $17 billion from Medicaid going to come from? Only part of the Medicare savings are referred to as coming from freezing the rates.

[Plane]

I consider it very dishonest to call a freeze a "cut".

I consider it dishonest to misrepresent what the article said. Read it again.

"He will try to extract some $178 billion in savings from Medicare, the health care program for the elderly and disabled, in part by freezing the reimbursement rates for health care providers for three years and requiring wealthier Americans to pay more for prescription drugs.

He will also seek $17 billion in savings from Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, according to the official, who declined to be named because the budget has not yet been submitted to Congress."

Where are the rest of the $178 billion from Medicare and the $17 billion from Medicaid going to come from? Only part of the Medicare savings are referred to as coming from freezing the rates.

I am very accustomed to Democrats calling a small increase a "cut" because it is a smaller increase than their own proposal.

So where they say "seek saveings" or "cut" I am sceptical and doubt that the actual proposal is for a reduction in money compared to the previous year ,but more like a freeze or an increase less than the Democrats desire.


So I stand still by this statement "I consider it very dishonest to call a freeze a "cut". as a sceptic untill a comparison of the actual spending proposal with the previous spending is presented.

[hnumpah]

I think the article made it very clear that only part of the savings would be from a freeze. Where, then, do you expect the rest of the savings would come from?

[Lanya]

Plane,
What this means is that people in the nursing home who have physical therapy treatments to stretch muscles and keep them from becoming all contracted
will have much fewer of them.   Or they will have fewer  walks in the hall that require several people to assist.
This happens every time there's a Medicaid cut (freeze, same diff.).
The physical therapy department isn't free.  If it won't get paid, it will just spread out services to one treatment per quarter (that has already happened this past year). 
Call if a cut, a freeze,  it really doesn't matter.  It means someone won't get treatment.

[The_Professor]

However, my impression is that the more money you devote to this arena, the more "the money maw" sucks up. It is a bottomless hole.

[BT]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nhs127.xml

[The_Professor]

Gosh!
From the article:

"Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone...
 
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money..."

Double ouch! If THIS is socialized medicine, they can keep it!

[sirs]

It is....and they can

[The_Professor]

The 10 Most Expensive Health Conditions

The nation?s 10 most expensive medical conditions cost about $500 billion to treat in 2005, according to the latest News and Numbers from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The money paid for visits to doctor's offices, clinics and emergency departments, hospital stays, home health care and prescription medicines.

Estimated spending for the 10 most expensive conditions:

*   Heart conditions $76 billion
*   Trauma disorders $72 billion
*   Cancer $70 billion
*   Mental disorders, including depression $56.0 billion
*   Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease $54 billion
*   High blood pressure $42 billion
*   Type 2 diabetes $34 billion
*   Osteoarthritis and other joint diseases $34 billion
*   Back problems $32 billion
*   Normal childbirth $32 billion

AHRQ, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, works to enhance the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care in the United States. The data in this AHRQ News and Numbers summary are taken from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, a detailed source of information on the health services used by Americans, the frequency with which they are used, the cost of those services, and how they are paid.

[yellow_crane]

Gosh!
From the article:

"Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone...
 
About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

Managers defend the policies because of the higher risk of complications on the operating table for unfit patients. But critics believe that patients are being denied care simply to save money..."

Double ouch! If THIS is socialized medicine, they can keep it!

"Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly . . ."

This is really not a surprise, except for the "elderly," which does reveal a callousness that the medical BUSINESS tries to hide.

This is not a surprise because the medical industry usually scoffs at treating addiction.

Smoking, drinking and most obesity are addictions.