Why approach it from the "cutting down Medicaid and Medicare" angle when it's not the health insurance, but the actual delivery of healthcare that's driving up spending? Medicare/Medicaid are exceptionally efficient programs that pay less to doctors than private insurance due to their massive purchasing power. There's very little fat in their budgets, so cutting the programs means cutting benefits. There are many other areas of the budget where we can look for inefficiency -- why focus on one of the few things the federal government does right?
If the budget situation is as dire as the political nonsense leads us to believe, then nothing should be off the table. If one side is going to propose massive cuts into some portion of the budget like Medicaid, they need to be willing to allow similar deep cuts elsewhere. I don't personally think it's as bad as either side wants to make it out to be, but I do believe there are long term budget issues that need to be addressed soon.
I'm just mostly tired of hearing politicians squabble over very minor aspects of the budget, such as funding to PBS. We just spent 5-6 years worth of federal public broadcasting funding with the opening missile salvo into Libya. Either they argue over these very minor details for hours on end, or they come out and propose major cuts perfectly aligned with their sides ideals. Nothing is ever going to get done if both sides continue the gridlock, while avoiding actual compromises.
Previous Topic
Index
