By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - U.S. Hospitals Agree to $155 Billion in Government Spending Cuts

akuma587 on 08 July 2009

That's along with $50 or so billion pharmaceutical companies agreed to cut.  That's over $200 billion in cuts in government spending.  Obama would make Reagan proud.

Hospitals accept $155 billion in cuts

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24689.html

Vice President Joe Biden and hospital industry officials announced Wednesday that the nation’s hospitals have agreed to accept $155 billion in cuts from government programs in order to help pay for health care reform.

In a press conference that was short on specific details of the deal, Biden used the agreement to drive home the message that health reform will pass this year.

“Reform is coming. It is on track. It is coming,” Biden said. “Today’s announcement, I believe, represents the essential role hospitals play in making reform a reality. And a reality it will be. We must enact this reform this year. We must, and we will, enact reform by the end of August. And we can’t wait. ”

The announcement comes during an especially crucial month for health reform as both the Senate and the House are beginning the messy process of writing legislation. In fact, Biden was late to the microphone because he was coming from a meeting with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

On Tuesday, Reid told Baucus that Senate Democrats were concerned about any bill that would tax health benefits and not include a strong public option, which was the direction Baucus was headed.

The hospital deal was struck between the White House and Baucus and the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals and the Catholic Health Association and is similar to the $80 billion deal the drug industry made with Baucus and the White House.

Under the agreement, hospitals will receive $155 billion less in Medicare and Medicaid payments over the next decade that will come by improving efficiencies, changing the delivery system and reducing annual increases, Biden said.

Neither the White House nor the Senate Finance Committee responded to requests for additional details.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 08 July 2009

So saving $200 Billion after you have already gone in deficit $2 Trillion, will (likely) add another couple trillion in debt through increased spending on healthcare and further "stimulus", and instituting the largest regressive tax increase in US history now makes you fiscally conservative?



TheRealMafoo on 08 July 2009

"In a press conference that was short on specific details of the deal"

Yea... like everything that's promised before it's delivered, I will believe it when I see it. Remember, this comes from the same group of people who said we need to piss away 780 billion dollars to keep unemployment below 9%, and that 9% would be in 2010. We see how well that worked out.

They said they would close Gitmo.

They said they would bring troops home from Iraq, and end the war. Today there are 131,000 troops in Iraq, and they are staying the maximum time allowed by the Bush treaties. More troops are in war zones today then when Obama took office.

Deliver on just one fucking promise, and then tell me what your going to do. Until then, tell me only what you have done.



gomezc on 08 July 2009

When I start seeing change, I'll believe it. In the mean time, I'll be enjoying my Tricare I get from the DOD :)



NJ5 on 08 July 2009

I wonder how much of those savings will be offset by higher expenses in unemployment benefits for the sacked workers.

How do unemployment benefits work in USA? Are they paid by the states or by the central government?



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
gomezc on 08 July 2009

Unemployment is different depending on which state you live in. For example, I live in North Carolina right now. Here, you have to apply for unemployment benefits (which you can do online, ,via phone, or in person). When you qualify, you begin to receive benefits. All you have to do is make sure you are actively seeking new employment during your period of unemployment (unless disabled, etc) and remain available for new work.

Some states make it easier to collect benefits, others are more of a pain in the ass and end up giving you a hard time just for you to collect, having strict requirements. I chose not to collect as I would only have gotten a few hundred dollars a month, I opted to do freelance which made me more until I joined the military.



Tyrannical on 09 July 2009

Obama cuts health care spending and Liberals applaud it ?



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

akuma587 on 09 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
"In a press conference that was short on specific details of the deal"

Yea... like everything that's promised before it's delivered, I will believe it when I see it. Remember, this comes from the same group of people who said we need to piss away 780 billion dollars to keep unemployment below 9%, and that 9% would be in 2010. We see how well that worked out.

They said they would close Gitmo.

They said they would bring troops home from Iraq, and end the war. Today there are 131,000 troops in Iraq, and they are staying the maximum time allowed by the Bush treaties. More troops are in war zones today then when Obama took office.

Deliver on just one fucking promise, and then tell me what your going to do. Until then, tell me only what you have done.

They predicted that without a stimulus that unemployment would not get higher than 9%.  I don't really see how you can fault them for the fact that the economy actually turned out to be worse than everyone expected.  They got those numbers from private sources (i.e. people in the private sector, economic experts, etc.).

If anything, it means there was a greater need for a stimulus than they thought.  Your argument is essentially like saying that the fire department shouldn't have brought a hose to a fire because the fire was worse than they expected.  It really makes no sense.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 09 July 2009
HappySqurriel said:

So saving $200 Billion after you have already gone in deficit $2 Trillion, will (likely) add another couple trillion in debt through increased spending on healthcare and further "stimulus", and instituting the largest regressive tax increase in US history now makes you fiscally conservative?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. run a deficit every year they were in office?  I don't think we have had a fiscally conservative President since Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter.

Not to mention it is pretty much impossible to avoid running a deficit during a recession unless you just shut the government down entirely and stop providing essential services.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

HappySqurriel on 09 July 2009
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
"In a press conference that was short on specific details of the deal"

Yea... like everything that's promised before it's delivered, I will believe it when I see it. Remember, this comes from the same group of people who said we need to piss away 780 billion dollars to keep unemployment below 9%, and that 9% would be in 2010. We see how well that worked out.

They said they would close Gitmo.

They said they would bring troops home from Iraq, and end the war. Today there are 131,000 troops in Iraq, and they are staying the maximum time allowed by the Bush treaties. More troops are in war zones today then when Obama took office.

Deliver on just one fucking promise, and then tell me what your going to do. Until then, tell me only what you have done.

They predicted that without a stimulus that unemployment would not get higher than 9%. I don't really see how you can fault them for the fact that the economy actually turned out to be worse than everyone expected. They got those numbers from private sources (i.e. people in the private sector, economic experts, etc.).

If anything, it means there was a greater need for a stimulus than they thought. Your argument is essentially like saying that the fire department shouldn't have brought a hose to a fire because the fire was worse than they expected. It really makes no sense.


It didn't turn out worse that everyone expected, it just turned out worse for the incompetent keynesian economists that big government politicians listen to.

In 2003 through 2006 there were countless bloggers and economists who had analyzed the numbers and were crying from the rooftops that the United States (and western world) was in the largest housing bubble in history, and the incompetent keynesian economists that big government politicians listen to said the rise in house prices was based on solid economic fundimentals.

In 2007 as the bubble burst there were countless bloggers and economists who had analyzed the numbers and were telling everyone to protect their money because we were heading for a deep recession unlike anything we have seen in our lifetime, and the incompetent keynesian economist that big government politicians listen to said that we would only face a mild pull back in the housing market in over heated regions and the fundimentals of the economy were still sound.

In 2008 there were countless bloggers and economists who had analyzed the numbers and were telling everyone that we were in a recession, and the incompetent keynesian economists that big government politicians listen to refused to acknowege it until it had gone on for 9 months.

In 2009 there were countless bloggers and economist who had analyzed the numbers and were saying that the stimulus wouldn't work and the government numbers were far too optimistic on the unemployment rate for both the stimulus and the stress tests of the banks.

 

How many times do these incompetent kensian economists have to be wrong before you're willing to accept that either they are incompetent or they're trying to mislead people?

 

akuma587 said:
HappySqurriel said:

So saving $200 Billion after you have already gone in deficit $2 Trillion, will (likely) add another couple trillion in debt through increased spending on healthcare and further "stimulus", and instituting the largest regressive tax increase in US history now makes you fiscally conservative?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. run a deficit every year they were in office? I don't think we have had a fiscally conservative President since Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter.

Not to mention it is pretty much impossible to avoid running a deficit during a recession unless you just shut the government down entirely and stop providing essential services.

Have you ever tried not being partisan?

The Obama administration is going to have a larger per-capita deficit over their first six months in office than the Canadian government is going to have over the next 5 years; and being that the current projected reductions in the federal deficit are made by the same incompetent kensian economists who believed that the unemployment rate would peak at 8% without the stimulus (and at 6.5% with the stimulus) and considering that this doesn't take into account further stimulus or healthcare spending, it is likely that Obama will double the federal debt in his first term.

I think you're being remarkably dishonest with yourself if you believe that this deficit is in any way necessary to maintain government spending through the recession. Realistically, the spending increases are the equlivalent of a man building up $100,000 in credit card debt to pay for coke and whores under the belief that it will help him get a better job in the future.