House passes budget that cuts Medicaid

WASHINGTON - The House narrowly passed a $2.6 trillion budget Thursday evening that would cut back the Medicaid health care program for the poor for the first time since 1997 in a step toward trimming federal deficits.

The 214-211 vote approved a blueprint that instructs lawmakers to freeze or cut spending in many domestic programs outside defense and homeland security and restrain farm, student loan, pension and some other government programs that grow automatically from year to year.

The Senate simultaneously debated the measure and moved toward a vote Thursday night. Republicans said Vice President Dick Cheney was standing by in case a tie-breaking vote was needed.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it's time to look closely at benefit programs that are "popular but rife with waste."

"These entitlement programs deserve reform," he said. "The Medicaid system is antiquated and the quality of care is not being brought to the people that need it."

Democrats blasted the planned cuts and expressed doubt that the budget's projections of shrinking deficits would happen.

"This budget is an assault on our values," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "This budget we are passing today will pass mountains of debt onto our children and grandchildren."

The budget would shave automatically increasing benefit programs by $35 billion over five years while also cutting taxes by as much as $106 billion over the same period.

President Bush praised the House vote. "This is a responsible budget that reins in spending to limits not seen in years," he said in a written statement.

Medicaid, the federal-state health program for needy and disabled Americans, gets marked for the single biggest change, a $10 billion reduction over four years. The changes in Medicaid wouldn't begin until 2007, giving a specially convened commission and the nation's governors time to recommend cost-saving proposals.

Without any change, the Congressional Budget Office expects the government to spend $191 billion on Medicaid next year and more than $1.1 trillion over the five years covered by the budget.

"We are confronting a massive problem, a fiscal problem as a nation, and the effects of this problem is that somebody is going to have to pay this bill," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H.

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who held Republican leaders in protracted negotiations over the size of Medicaid reductions, announced his support for the plan.

"Those who care about Medicaid, those who are served by Medicaid, be engaged and know that my office, my heart, my mind are open to you to do this right and not just to do this fast," Smith said.

Smith said he's working with the White House to assemble a commission through the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine. The advisory panel would recommend one round of changes by Sept. 1 and issue a final report for comprehensive restructuring in December 2006.

The budget could also pave the way for opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. In past years, the drilling authorization has died in the Senate because of a filibuster threat. The budget resolution protects future bills from filibuster, giving lawmakers an opening to authorize drilling without that obstruction.

The budget sketches out plans and priorities for spending $2.6 trillion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, projecting a federal deficit of $383 billion. Lawmakers use the blueprint to pass specific tax and spending legislation later in the year.

It aims toward bringing federal budget deficits down to $211 billion by 2010. The president asked Congress to cut the deficit in half over five years.

In addition to planned reductions in projected Medicaid spending, it directs lawmakers to cull about $3 billion from agriculture programs and as much as $6.6 billion from federal pension programs, including higher fees paid by employers.

Government programs with budgets set annually by lawmakers would get a total of $843 billion next year, a 2 percent increase that's in line with a strict budget proposed by the president.

The agreement drops several billion dollars that the Senate voted to add to education spending and assumes $50 billion in extra spending next year for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The budget directs lawmakers to prepare their legislation for tax cuts and deficit-reducing changes by Sept. 16, to be completed with an item paving the way for increasing the legal limits on the national debt.

Under congressional rules, tax and spending legislation passed under direction from the budget is immune from filibuster delays in the Senate. Republicans hold 55 seats in the Senate and would need 51 votes to pass the related tax and spending measures.

The budget directions protect about $70 billion of $106 billion in tax cuts from filibuster. Options include extensions of many expiring tax breaks, most urgently a change that would prevent the alternative minimum tax from encroaching closer to the middle class.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said it's time to look closely at benefit programs that are "popular but rife with waste."

"These entitlement programs deserve reform," he said. "The Medicaid system is antiquated and the quality of care is not being brought to the people that need it."

Democrats blasted the planned cuts and expressed doubt that the budget's projections of shrinking deficits would happen.

"This budget is an assault on our values," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "This budget we are passing today will pass mountains of debt onto our children and grandchildren."

-----

c'Rats continue to play the children card over and over.. How predictable.

And to talk about values as a diehard leftist hellbent on destroying tis nation's very foundation,, Way to go, NaZi, Priceless!

"This budget is an assault on our values," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California. "This budget we are passing today will pass mountains of debt onto our children and grandchildren."

Actually she had it right but for the wrong reasons. Expansion of government is not good. Republicans used to believe that

"These entitlement programs deserve reform," he said. "The Medicaid system is antiquated and the quality of care is not being brought to the people that need it."

Wow Tom, just in the past few years your group helped to pass a medical drug plan that's going to cost trillions in the first 15 years. Isn't that enough?!? How much more of my tax dollars do you plan to waste pandering for votes?

""These entitlement programs deserve reform," he said. "The Medicaid system is antiquated and the quality of care is not being brought to the people that need it."

Sheesh, why don't the "R"s just all wear T shirts with big targets painted on them?

So are they going to just cut the Medicaid money and walk away, or is some committee really working on genuine reform?

Medicaid is a cash cow for thieves with an "M.D." on their names. With the brains and technology available to the feds, I do NOT understand why it can't operate with a shred of efficiency.

This will create more overflow in the ERs, and drive up the cost of health care for all of us. Then the Dems will be wringing their hands, crying: "See? Health care is SO expensive, we NEED Hillary to make it ALL better!"

I highly recommend reading this "companion article":

GOP Wants to Curb Medicaid Estate Planning (translation: FRAUD)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1393378/posts

To slow the rapidly growing Medicaid program, some lawmakers would like to make it harder for the elderly to shelter their assets as a way to have the government cover more of their nursing home expenses.

GOP members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee asked state Medicaid directors on Wednesday what they have done to curb "Medicaid estate planning," in which assets are transferred so people look poor on paper and thus qualify for Medicaid.

Medicaid is expected to grow at a rate of 7.4 percent annually over the coming decade.

The Bush administration has estimated that changing the policy on the transfer of assets could save taxpayers $4.5 billion over that time.

Maybe my thinking is too extreme but why dont we just get the government out of the medical field and let the free market dictate the price of medical services? Maybe it makes too much sense. I dont know.

That is pie in the sky since neither Republicans nor Democrats want to get out of it. They have both figured out how to divide and conquer. Just look at Bush's prescription drug plan.

Democrats blasted the planned cuts and expressed doubt that the budget's projections of shrinking deficits would happen.

That's because they still think THEY are the majority.

President Bush praised the House vote. "This is a responsible budget that reins in spending to limits not seen in years," he said in a written statement.

If choosing between the two, which is the only option at this time, I choose the latter.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.