Senate Democrats May Pare Medicaid Aid in Tax and Benefits Package

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: CQ POLITICS NEWS

Senate Democrats are discussing with a pair of pivotal moderate Republicans a scaled-down version of a tax and benefits extension bill that they have so far failed to move.

The most significant change being discussed would shrink the cost of a $24.2 billion provision that extends extra federal Medicaid funds to struggling states. In a new version, which was circulating among lobbyists Tuesday morning but not released or confirmed by lawmakers and aides, the federal assistance first enacted in the 2009 stimulus law would be gradually phased down over the coming fiscal year.

Democrats have been insisting that the Medicaid money remain in the bill to aid vulnerable patients and help cushion the economy against potential layoffs in state governments. The House removed the money last month to cut the cost of the bill, but, under pressure, the Senate added it back.

The previous version of the bill would have cost about $118 billion and increased the deficit by $55.1 billion. That was the main reason that moderate Republicans and two Senate Democrats refused to support a debate-limiting cloture motion June 17.

Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003687998&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=top-stories

[Bitwit1234]

1. JUST THINK if we pulled out of Iraq and Afghan

we would have billions and billions ready to use on social programs and to repair our infrastructure.

[nineteen50]

2. Scale down

How about you scale-down yourselves!!

[tech9413]

3. Rule # 1 Take care of those that need it most

Priorities, priorities, priorities! As elected and appointed officials you have a responsibility to address the needs of the people you were appointed the interest of those you represent based on the most immediate threat. For most of us the most immediate threat is being able to maintain an income that provides for the basic needs. Then would be that any health issues for you and yours would not require bankruptcy. Third would be that your needs would be presented to and addressed by those representatives.

Somewhere waaaay down the list would be an existential threat from some other nation or organization. That would be the equivalent of worrying about being struck by lightning when a large motorized vehicle is 20 feet away from grinding you into the pavement.

We need our current military and intelligence spending like we need 10 more holes in our head. SS is a self-funded program that should NEVER be eliminated. If adjustments have to made, make them, it's been done before without wrecking the nation. Drop the cap on contributions. After all just because you made more than $100K for part of your working life doesn't mean you won't be broke and incapacitated at some point in your life.
Just think about the possibilities. You're 25 working in Manhattan for some hedge fund or Credit Suisse. Your knew you were indestructible and didn't get some comprehensive or catastrophic health care plan. Headed down to lunch at the Seaport some poor fool gets cut off by a Bently and swerves and hits you and severs your spinal cord. Now the only thing you can move is from the neck up. Whatever insurance you had as a basic might carry $20K/yr as their responsibility. Medicaid might add another $10K (at least this year but it's not politically sustainable). It's a long way from 25 to 65( or whatever the retirement age is then).

Most likely, when you get to Medicare age the payout will be so low you might have to drive 100 miles or more to get to a doctor who would try and treat you. Of course they will only offer the cheapest treatment possible because that's all the gvmnt can pay for. That treatment will most likely be ineffectual or just pain remediation. Pain remediation is easy because the drug companies spread a lot of money around to promote their product. Accepted treatments aren't much better because all these pharma companies have at least 100 lobbyists selling their product to legislators. They get paid pretty well and won't take no for an answer.

Or how about this scenario. You liked the company you worked for. Your liked the people, you liked the job and you were damned good at it. You had offers to go somewhere else but you were happy where you were. Before you know it you're 67 and have no choice but to retire. A month or two before your retire date the shit hits the fan. You find out that the company has been gaming the pension system and floating their debts on the assets that you were relying on for your Golden Years. Your pension or stock investments are worthless. Face it, you're to old to get a job and now you're broke. You put your faith in the people you worked with every day and now when it matters you find that your co-workers and management were playing you for a fool and having fancy dinners on what would be your retirement, you know that thing you accepted instead of cash today?

My best advice to those young ones among us, don't trust any potential employer. If they can't delineate the terms of employment and separation in clear and concise terms, just walk away, it;s not worth it.

In my 30+ years of working in one profession (electronics repair) my best advice is to go into an interview considering that you are interviewing PROSPECTIVE employers. Don't consider selling your skills to the interviewer. That puts you on the defensive.

Sorry for getting off track but I thought there might be a few young turks out there that don't understand the adversaries they have to deal with.

Politics isn't kissyface, it's bloodsport. If you can't take a hit or break a nose, stay home and advise those that will act on what they see and what might work to beat them.
My nose is totally bent and I could breath a little more blood to support those