Zitat des Tages über Medicaid:
I'm the guy that has written at great length about exactly how we should profoundly reform Social Security. If I were afraid of going after entitlements, I wouldn't have done that, I wouldn't have put Medicaid reform in this budget, I wouldn't have called for the reductions in spending, which people will scream about, but I think are necessary.
The automatic stabilizer is unemployment insurance, food stamps, additional coverage of Medicaid.
The decision is 'trust fund' versus 'no more Medicaid' - and that shouldn't be a tough decision.
How we continue to fund Medicare and Medicaid into the future is a pressing issue of national concern.
When it comes to serious cuts to major programs like Medicaid, the American people are not calling for leadership but magic. They want cuts with no pain.
Conservatives are telling elected leaders that expansion of Medicaid comes at a moral - or more overtly, a political - price. At what price are they willing to go back on years of proclaiming 'socialized medicine' as the slippery slope to 'rationing of health care,' 'death panels' and other claims far too gruesome to mention in polite company?
Half of all women who are sexually active, but do not want to get pregnant, need publicly funded services to help them access public health programs like Medicaid and Title X, the national family planning program.
I have been outspoken on my opposition to 'Obamacare,' and I don't buy the line that our Medicaid program, or any function of government, has reached maximum efficiency.
In 2003, GlaxoSmithKline paid $88 million in civil fines for overcharging Medicaid for its anti-depressant Paxil.
I say that Medicaid isn't the only vehicle to be able to purchase coverage or be able to have coverage.
The bottom line is, what are we doing to Obamacare? We eviscerate the law in our bill, and then we do things like expanding health savings accounts, which give families real flexibility. We reform Medicaid.
Medicaid is essentially bankrupt, Medicare is essentially bankrupt, why the heck would we give the federal government another entitlement program to manage?
The Medicaid system currently steers people toward nursing home care. Far more people can be covered in community-based care programs for significantly less.
At a time of economic recession, the need for Medicaid and other safety net services is even greater. And we don't want to raise taxes on people who are having a tough time paying their bills.
We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low-income women.
People in Medicaid ought to have access to the same insurance as the rest of the population. If they are segregated, it will be a poor plan for poor people.
My goal is to have a simple lottery to help our people and solve a decades old problem dealing with our general fund, particularly Medicaid. Let us solve this together and allow the people in your district the right to be a part of the process with a vote.
The central question is whether Medicare and Medicaid should remain entitlement programs guaranteeing a certain amount of care, as Democrats believe, or become defined contribution programs in which federal spending is capped, as Republicans suggest.
How about we let the states be innovative on Medicaid and do much better and smarter things?
In many cases, an expansion of Medicaid will not only drive taxpayer costs but will deliver lower-quality care than what they have today.
One thing governors feel, Democrats and Republicans alike, is that we have a health care system that, if you're on Medicaid, you have unlimited access to health care, at unlimited levels, at no cost. No wonder it's running away.
Tens of billions of dollars could be saved in Medicare and Medicaid alone by eliminate fraud and improving patient care. Not only would this save money, but it will save lives.
In 2005, Republicans passed a 360-page reconciliation bill without a single Democratic vote that provided deep cuts to Medicaid and raised premiums on Medicare beneficiaries.
In a system where the cost of care is hidden by taxes levied on your income, property, and business activities, it is no wonder why so many Americans rely on Medicaid to pay their long term care.
Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.
The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be to make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care.
Marriage equality - I think that it's a constitutionally guaranteed right. Let's end the drug wars. Let's balance the federal budget, and that means reforming the entitlements - Medicaid, Medicare.
In fact, entitlement spending on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security make up 54% of federal spending, and spending is projected to double within the next decade. Medicare is growing by 9% annually, and Medicaid by 8% annually.
Well, there are about 10 million children that aren't covered by health insurance. About 3 million qualify for Medicaid but don't get it, so we're going to reach out and bring more of those kids into the Medicaid program.
I don't have a problem talking about Medicare or Medicaid or some other very important issue.
The Medicaid expansion enacted under Obamacare is unaffordable for the taxpayers of Kentucky and should be repealed.
You want to talk about something that truly changes the game in this country, Medicaid is one of the most failed forms of health care.
Governors of both political parties face a stark choice between unpopular tax increases and drastic cuts in Medicaid, education, public safety and other essential services.
There is a lot of waste in government-run programs generally, and a lot of waste and fraud and misuse of money in Medicare and Medicaid that can be saved.
The lower income individuals, under any Republican proposal, at least that I have seen, are real losers in the framework because there is not enough subsidy, not enough assistance, for them to realistically participate in the market. Particularly if you halt or rollback the Medicaid expansion, which is for the lowest income workers.
We have a serious structural deficit problem. And it needs to be addressed. The president is trying to address it through reforms of Social Security, but the problem is there with other entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
