Medicaid – Page 2

March 3, 2015March 4, 2015

Obama’s budget addresses issues of interest to seniors

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

President Obama released his 141 page ‘policy and wish list” when he unveiled his politically ambitious FY 2016 budget on Feb 2, not having to worry about running for president in the upcoming 2016 presidential election cycle.

Yes, even inside the Washington Beltway a picture is truly worth a thousand words. Gone is the budget’s plain blue cover replaced by a black and white photo of the Tappan Zee Bridge in New York, an image that projects one of the President’s spending priorities of rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure to create jobs and improve the transportation system.

The $4 trillion presidential budget, a political campaign document outlaying his policies and priorities, would cancel automatic sequestration cuts to domestic and military programs over a 10 year period. According to the New York Times, Obama’s budget proposal would add $6 trillion to the national debt, and the single-year deficit would rise to $687 billion by 2025.

Obama’s FY 2016 budget puts more funding into education, rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, increased defense spending, along with providing tax relief for America’s middle class while increasing the taxes for corporate America and the wealthy. Political insiders say that Obama’s budget, one that gives to the middle class and assesses higher taxes from corporate America and the wealthy, sets the issues to be surely debated in the upcoming presidential election. .

A Look at Aging Priorities

In a Feb. 3 blog post, Nora Super, executive director of the upcoming White House Conference on Aging, details how the recently released budget proposal will “ensure that older Americans enjoy not only longer but healthier lives.”

As to retirement security, Super notes that the Obama Administration strongly opposes any legislative measures that would privatize the nation’s Social Security program, or slash benefits for future generations or reduce basic benefits to current beneficiaries. Super says that half the nation’s workforce, that’s about 78 million, does not have a retirement savings plan at work. “Fewer than 10 percent of those without plans at work contribute to a plan of their own. The President’s FY 2016 Budget expands retirement opportunities for all Americans to help families save and give them better choices to reach a secure retirement,” she says.

According to Super, Obama’s Budget proposal supports healthy aging by strengthening the Medicare program by “aligning payments with the costs of providing care, along with encouraging health care providers to deliver better care and better outcomes for their patients, and improving access to care for beneficiaries.”

To put the brakes to rising prescription drug costs, Super notes that the President’s Budget proposes to close the Medicare Part D donut hole for brand drugs by 2017, rather than 2020, by increasing discounts from the pharmaceutical industry. The Budget proposal also gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services new authority to negotiate with drug manufacturers on prices for high cost drugs and biologics covered under the Part D program.

Linking nutrition to healthy aging, Super says that Obama’s Budget provides “over $874 million for Nutrition Services programs, a $60 million increase over the 2015 enacted level, allowing States to provide 208 million meals to over 2 million older Americans nation-wide, helping to halt the decline in service levels for the first time since 2010.” Also, Obama’s budget ratchets up funding for supportive housing for very low-income elderly households, including frail elderly, to give these individuals access to human services, she adds. .

Protecting older persons from elder abuse, neglect and financial exploitation, Super blogs that the President’s budget proposal includes $25 million in discretionary resources for Elder Justice Act programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act. “Funding will “improve detection and reporting of elder abuse; grants to States to pilot a new reporting system; and funding to support a coordinated Federal research portfolio to better understand and prevent the abuse and exploitation of vulnerable adults,” she says.

Here’s Super’s take on the Obama budgetary blueprint: “Taken together, these and other initiatives in the Budget will help to change the aging landscape in America to reflect new realities and new opportunities for older Americans, and they will support the dignity, independence, and quality of life of older Americans at a time when we’re seeing a huge surge in the number of older adults.”

In a released statement, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond gives thumbs to the president’s efforts to “lower the cost of prescription drugs, promote better care, reward improved outcomes and make health care programs more efficient and less wasteful.” She also expresses her nonprofit group’s support for the President’s budgetary priorities to “create opportunities for the middle class” and his goal “to make saving for retirement easier.”

But, LeaMond expresses concerns that higher premiums, deductibles and copays might shift costs to older Americans. “As the federal deficit continues shrinking, we must find responsible solutions for strengthening critical programs and improving the retirement and overall economic security of current and future generations. We must also look for savings throughout the entire health care system, as the rising cost of health care threatens people of all ages,” she says.

In his statement, President/CEO Max Richtman, of the Washington, DC-based National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, agrees with LeaMond’s concerns of higher premiums, deductible’s and co pays, too. “While some tout increasing means testing in Medicare as a way to insure ‘rich’ seniors pay their share, the truth is, the middle-class will take this hit as well,” he predicts.

Political pundits say that Obama’s 2016 budget was dead-on arrival at Capitol Hill the day it was released at the beginning of February. In the shadow of the upcoming 50th Anniversary of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Older Americans Act, as well as the 80th Anniversary of Social Security, GOP leadership in both chambers of Congress must work with the Democratic President to hammer out a bipartisan compromise. Putting budgetary proposals that strengthens the nation’s programs and services for older Americans on the chopping block for purely political reasons is not acceptable, especially to a nation that opposes political gridlock.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer covering aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com.

January 27, 2015January 28, 2015

RI Hospital employees and community allies speak out

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

More than 500 people crowded into the meeting room of Our Lady of the Rosary Church on Benefit St in Providence for the Worker & Community Speakout for Good Jobs and Quality Care on January 17. At issue was the contract negotiation between Lifespan/Rhode Island Hospital and General Teamsters Local 251 representing some 2,500 hospital employees.

According to Local 251, “As a non-profit entity, Lifespan and RI Hospital are supposed to put the healthcare needs of the community first. Unfortunately, management has taken cost cutting measures, causing shortages in equipment and staff that undermine patient care.”

Literature at the Speakout quoted a nurse, Aliss Collins, saying, “When we are understaffed, I cover 56 patients in three units. It’s not right for the patients or the employees.” There was a story at the Speakout of another nurse who was forced to buy her own equipment for measuring oxygen levels, because the hospital did not provide it.

Obamacare has allowed Lifespan/RI Hospital to take in an additional $33 million in net revenue last year, because so many Rhode Islanders are now covered under Medicaid. Yet rather than invest this money in patient care, Lifespan pays its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally,” according to the union.

At the same time, hospital employees such as single mom Nuch Keller make $12.46 an hour with no healthcare coverage. Keller’s pay does not even cover her rent. She regularly works 40 hours or more per week, yet Lifespan continues to pay her as a part-time employee. And in case you missed it, Keller works at a non-profit hospital, and receives no healthcare.

The Speakout was intended to show community support for the workers of RI Hospital, and was attended by Representatives David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, as well as General treasurer Seth Magaziner. There were also representatives from many other unions and community groups such as Jobs with Justice, Unite Here! and Fuerza Laboral. Many religious leaders, including Father Joseph Escobar and Rev Duane Clinker, were on hand to show support.

It was hard not to feel that something new was happening at the Speakout. The level of community support and solidarity made one feel as if a union resurgence were imminent, which many feel is necessary if obscene inequality is to be combated.

It was Duane Clinker who helped put the event into perspective for me. He said that unions have often limited their negotiations to wages, hours and benefits, and health-care unions have long argued staffing levels, but “when/if organized workers really make alliance with the community around access to jobs and improved patient care – if that happens in such a large union and a key employer in the state, then we enter new territory.”

This struggle continues on Thursday, January 29, from 2-6pm, with an Informational Picket at Rhode Island Hospital. “The picket line on Thursday is for informational purposes. It is is not a request that anyone cease working or refuse to make deliveries.”

Full video from the Speakout is below.

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 002 — Mirjaam Parada

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 033 — Duane Clinker

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 080 — James Langevin

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 172 — Seth Magaziner

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 087 — Aaron Regunberg

Speak-Out for Good Jobs & Quality Care at RI Hospital 098 — Carmen Castillo

March 7, 2014March 7, 2014

The wage gap for older women, in Rhode Island and nationally

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Following on the heels of a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released last week, the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging held a hearing to put a Congressional spotlight on the alarming increase of older Americans becoming impoverished. The GAO policy analysts concluded that a growing number of the nation’s elderly, especially women and minorities, could fall into poverty due to lower incomes associated with declining marriage rates and the higher living expenses that individuals bear.

As many as 48 percent of older Americans live in or on the edge of poverty.

“While many gains have been made over the years to reduce poverty, too many seniors still can’t afford basic necessities such as food, shelter and medicines,” said Aging Committee Chairman Bill Nelson (D-FL).

Policy experts told Senate lawmakers on Wednesday that millions of seniors have been spared from abject poverty thanks to federal programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SSI, and food stamps. The testimony contrasted with the picture painted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) earlier this week, who produced a report that labeled the federal government’s five-decade long war on poverty a failure.

Appearing before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging, Patricia Neuman, a senior vice president at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, stressed the importance of federal anti-poverty programs.

“Between 1966 and 2011, the share of seniors living in poverty fell from more than 28 percent to about 9 percent, with the steepest drop occurring in the decade immediately following the start of the Medicare program,” said Neuman. “The introduction of Medicare, coupled with Social Security, played a key role in lifting seniors out of poverty.”

Neuman’s remarks were echoed by Joan Entmacher of the National Women’s Law Center, who credited food stamps, unemployment insurance and Meals on Wheels, along with Social Security, for dramatically reducing poverty among seniors.

The report was highly critical of many programs designed to help the poor and elderly saying they contribute to the “poverty trap.” Ryan and other House lawmakers have long proposed capping federal spending and turning Medicaid, food stamps and a host of other programs for the poor into state block grants.

Older Women and Pension Benefits

GAO’s Barbara Bovbjerg also brought her views to the Senate Select Committee on Aging hearing. Managing Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, she testified that the trends in marriage, work, and pension benefits have impacted the retirement incomes of older Americans.

Over the last five decades the composition of the American household has changed dramatically, stated Bovbjerg, noting that the proportion of unmarried individuals has increased steadily as couples have chosen to marry at ever-later ages and as divorce rates have risen.

“This is important because Social Security is not only available to workers but also to spouses and survivors. The decline in marriage and the concomitant rise in single parenthood have been more pronounced among low-income, less educated individuals and some minorities,” she says.

As marriage and workforce patterns changed, so has the nation’s retirement system, adds Bovbjerg. Since 1990, employers have increasingly turned away from traditional defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, she says, this ultimately shifting risk to individual employees and making it more likely they will receive lump sum benefits rather than annuities.

These trends have affected retirement incomes, especially for women and minorities, says Bovbjerg, that is fewer women today receive Social Security spousal and survivor benefits than in the past; most qualify for benefits on their own work history. While this shift may be positive, especially for those women with higher incomes, unmarried elderly women with low levels of lifetime earnings are expected to get less from Social Security than any other demographic group.

According to Bovbjerg, these trends have also affected household savings Married households are more likely to have retirement savings, but the majority of single-headed households have none. Obviously, single parents in particular tend to have fewer resources available to save for retirement during their working years. With Defined Contribution pension plans becoming the norm for most, and with significant numbers not having these benefits, older Americans may well have to rely increasingly on Social Security as their primary or perhaps only source of retirement income.

Inside the Ocean State

Although the GAO report findings acknowledge a gender-based wage gap that pushes older woman into poverty, Maureen Maigret, policy consultant for the Senior Agenda Coalition of Rhode Island and Coordinator of the Rhode Island Older Woman’s Policy Group, observes that this inequity has been around since the 1970s when she chaired a legislative commission studying pay equity. “Progress in closing the gender wage gap has stagnated since 2000 with the wage ratio hovering around 76.5 percent,” she said.

GAO’s recent findings on gender based differences in poverty rates are consistent with what Maigret found researching the issue for the Women’s Fund of Rhode Island in 2010. She found that some of the differences in the Ocean State can be attributed to the fact that older women are far less likely to be married than older men. Almost three times as many older women are widowed when compared to men.

Maigret says that her research revealed that older women in Rhode Island are also less likely to live in family households and almost twice as likely as older men to live alone. Of those older women living alone or with non family members an estimated one out of five was living in poverty. For Rhode Island older women in non-family households living alone, estimated median income in 2009 was 85% that of male non-family householders living alone ($18,375 vs. $21,540).

Finally, Maigret’s report findings indicate that aound 11.3 percent of older Rhode Island women were living below the federal poverty level as compared to 7.3 percent of older men in the state. Older women’s average Social Security benefit was almost 30 percent less than that of older men and their earnings were only 58 percent that of older men’s earnings.

There is no getting around peoples’ fears about outliving their savings becoming a reality if they live long enough,” said AARP Rhode Island State Director Kathleen Connell. “One thing that the latest statistics reveals [including the GAO report] is the critical role Social Security plays when it comes to the ability of many seniors to meet monthly expenses. Social Security keeps about 38 percent of Rhode Islanders age 65 and older out of poverty, according to a new study from the AARP Public Policy Institute.”

“Nationally, figures jump off the page,” Connell added. “Without Social Security benefits, 44.4 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line; all else being equal; with Social Security benefits, only 9.1 percent do, she says, noting that these benefits lift 15.3 million elderly Americans — including 9.0 million women — above the poverty line.”

“Just over 50 percent of Rhode Islanders age 65 and older rely on Social Security for at least half of their family income—and nearly 24 percent rely on Social Security for 90 percent of their family income” states Connell.

“Seniors trying to meet the increasing cost of utilities, prescription drugs and groceries would be desperate without monthly Social Security benefits they worked hard for and planned on. As buying power decreases, protecting Social Security becomes more important than ever. Older people know this; younger people should be aware of it and become more active in saving for retirement. Members of Congress need to remain aware of this as well,” adds Connell.

Kate Brewster, Executive Director of Rhode Island’s The Economic Progress Institute, agrees with Maigret that older women in Rhode Island are already at greater risk of poverty and economic security than older men.

“This [GAO] report highlights several trends that make it increasingly important to improve women’s earnings today so that they are economically secure in retirement. Among the ‘policy to-do list’ is shrinking the wage gap, eliminating occupational segregation, and raising the minimum wage. State and federal proposals to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 would benefit more women than men, demonstrating the importance of this debate to women’s economic security today and tomorrow.”

House Speaker Gordon Fox is proud that the General Assembly in the last two legislation sessions voted to raise minimum wage to its current level of $8 per hour. That puts Rhode Island at the same level as neighboring Massachusetts, and we far surpass the federal minimum wage of $7.25, he said. He says he will carefully consider legislation that has been introduced to once again boost the minimum wage.

“Bridging this gap is not only the right thing to do to ensure that women are on the same financial footing as men, but it also makes economic sense”, says Rep. David N. Cicilline.

At the federal level, the Democratic Congressman has supported the ‘When Women Succeed, America Succeeds’ economic agenda that would address issues like the minimum wage, paycheck fairness, and access to quality and affordable child care. “Tackling these issues is a step toward helping women save and earn a secure retirement, but we also have to ensure individuals have a safety net so they can live with dignity in their retirement years,” says Cicilline.

With Republican Congressman Ryan in a GOP-controlled House, captured by the Tea Party, leading the charge to dismantle the federal government’s 50 year war on poverty, the casualties of this ideological skirmish if he succeeds will be America’s seniors. Cutting the safety net that these programs created will make economic insecurity in your older years a very common occurrence.
Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket writer who covers aging, health care and medical issues. He can be contacted at hweissri@aol.com.

October 24, 2012October 24, 2012

Romney Lauds RI, But Would Cut State Medicaid

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

You probably listened with great interest in the debate Monday night when Mitt Romney complimented Rhode Island for running its innovative Medicaid program better than does the federal government. This may be true, and Rhode Island certainly deserves credit for its well-run, innovative Medicaid system.

But as it turns out the Romney/Ryan plan for Medicaid would be detrimental to Rhode Island’s well-run, innovative Medicaid system.

According to an article in the Huffington Post today:

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney cited Arizona and Rhode Island as models for a redesigned Medicaid system that states control during his debate with President Barack Obama Monday. What Romney didn’t say is that his own plan would slash funding for the program in those states along with the rest of the country.

…Romney supports a plan that would reduce federal Medicaid funding for states by 38 percent. Arizona and Rhode Island, like other states that have reformed Medicaid with federal approval, did so by tapping funding above what Romney’s proposal would allow.

And an article in Politco today puts it this way:

The Romney Medicaid plan would cap the growth of the program’s spending to the consumer price index plus 1 percent and essentially give states a lump sum to spend as they see fit. The Rhode Island and Arizona Medicaid programs, while enjoying more flexibility, are still backstopped by the federal government.

“We’re really talking about two different things,” said Judy Solomon of the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. “We’re talking about a proposal for huge cuts for federal funding, versus states that have used [federal Medicaid] waivers to do things a little bit differently.”

Rhode Island’s 2009 Medicaid waiver has become a political football in health policy circles. Conservatives who’d like to see states completely take over the program are eager to point to Rhode Island as an example of a block grant that’s working. Liberals argue the Rhode Island program doesn’t count as a real block grant because it doesn’t have the same fiscal constraints. They contend the GOP plan would slash Medicaid spending and cast millions off the program’s rolls.

In the case of Rhode Island, the Global Waiver it obtained in 2009 wasn’t intended to control costs, as a Lewin Group report commissioned by the state explained last December. “The Global Waiver is not a block grant meant to control costs but a demonstration aimed to improve health care quality built on the core foundation of shared state and federal costs,” the report said. The feds still have oversight and approval powers for program spending.

Think Progress quotes the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the plan:

A Congressional Budget Office analysis of Paul Ryan’s proposal to block grant Medicaid found that if federal spending for Medicaid decreased, “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” As a result, enrollees could “face more limited access to care,” higher out-of-pocket costs, and “providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.”

It’s great that Mitt Romney thinks more states should run their Medicaid system like we do, but it’s not so great that if he were elected presidents he’d make it so our Medicaid system wouldn’t run as well as it does.

March 26, 2012April 1, 2012

Budgeting for Disaster: Medicaid in the Budget

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In volume II of the budget, you’ll find there the Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS), which contains the Departments of Children Youth and Families (DCYF), Health (DoH), Human Services (DHS), and Behavioral Healthcare, Developmental Disabilities, and Hospitals (BHDDH).

Collectively these departments spend over $3 billion, about 40% of the overall budget. In the Governor’s budget, only about 40% of that is actual tax dollars, and the rest is either federal money or restricted receipts, such as fees for service.

The big kahuna in the Human Services budget is, of course, Medicaid, so we may as well begin there. The expense for Medicaid has been moved from the DHS budget to the umbrella EOHHS. This, of course, means nothing to the budget’s bottom line, only that the accounting for that expense appears on page B2-118 for years before FY12 and before, and on B2-12 for FY13 and beyond.

So much for where to find it. How much is it? The Medicaid budget for next year is projected to be $1.66 billion, approximately the same as was originally budgeted for this year.

The same as this year? But what about the skyrocketing medical inflation? It’s there, but masked by offsetting cuts in service. The “Managed Care” portion of Medicaid that you see in the breakdown of the Medicaid costs is also known as RIte Care, and it has more than doubled in ten years, though it still amounts to only about a third of all the Medicaid. The annual cost increase for Managed Care has been about 7.5% each year. Eligibility rules tightened, but demand increased, so that includes a very minor decrease in enrollment over that time. What’s worse, federal reimbursement paid for 55 cents of every dollar in 2003, almost 64 cents in 2010 (part of the stimulus package) and only 51 cents in 2013.

In order to control these costs, the state has added or increased co-pays and restricted eligibility several times in recent years. Apart from that, there has been little more than some studies and planning from Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts in response to this ongoing disaster—remember, this affects everybody, not just the state budget—and this year is no different. The Governor’s 2013 budget will cut all dental care for adults to save $2.7 million. “Refinements to Medicaid managed care programs” will save another $2.5 million [ES-56]. Lots of these refinements involve cutting services, though some, like providing more care through “Patient-Centered Medical Homes” are potentially good ideas, depending on how they’re implemented.

One problem with the push for managed care is that in some cases it may well insert a new layer of bureaucracy where none is needed. A director of a residential care provider pointed out to me that his agency is already providing managed care for most of their residents. That is, with the advice of a consistent array of medical professionals, the agency selects care options for its residents. This is pretty much what the medical home concept suggests. If new requirements simply force them to add a layer of doctors to what they’re already doing, it won’t necessarily reduce any costs or improve any care. (It also calls into question the cost savings estimates for the managed care push.)

The other big component of cost saving in Medicaid is a proposal to save another $14 million by simply paying 4% less for the care.

Paying less? Who knew you could just solve the health care cost problem so easily. Why didn’t we think of this years ago? But yes, the Governor’s budget proposes paying 4.14% less for all Medicaid coverage that require a monthly per-person fee (“capitation”). This is mostly Neighborhood Health Plan, though United Health also has a share of that market. Neighborhood, though, has the misfortune of being in the business of serving the Medicaid population almost exclusively, so they will be much harder hit than the other two. Obviously any cost cutting reform has to start somewhere, but it’s hard to see how this will do the trick.

It’s worth an aside here to mention one of the factors in health care cost inflation that seems never to come up in serious discussions of the rising cost of health care. After all, what’s the fastest-growing component of a medical practice’s expenses? More likely than not, it’s health insurance for its employees. For all the fancy machinery of modern medicine, it’s still a labor-intensive business. A giant facility like Rhode Island Hospital puts more than half its budget towards salaries, and a small practice will see an even higher fraction, 70% or more.

A physician’s assistant earning $65,000 a year is probably receiving a health benefit worth around 20% of that if he or she has a family. What’s more, all those pharmaceutical firms, medical device manufacturers, and bandage makers also have to deal with rising health care costs. In other words, a significant part of what an increase in health care costs pays for is… an increase in health care costs.

This sounds like a dopey little irony, but engineers call this a feedback loop, and electronic systems with less feedback than this also spiral out of control. Obviously there are plenty of factors driving health care inflation—not least the vast number of people who see health care as a way to get rich—but at root, linking health care and employment creates an unstable system, prone to amplify increases. Could that not be worth some attention?

Next: Food inspection dereliction
Read more from this series

July 25, 2011January 22, 2012

Uh Oh, President Obama to Address Nation Tonight at 9pm

This could potentially be very, very bad…

Tonight at 9 p.m. EDT President Obama will address the nation on the stalemate in Washington over avoiding default and the best approach to cutting deficits.

You can watch the speech live at www.WhiteHouse.gov/live starting at 9pm tonight. The expectation among progressives is that President Obama will reiterate his frustration at Republican intransigence for his desire to dismantle the social safety net that millioins of Americans rely on. To summarize:

Democrats asked Republicans to pass a clean bill, just as GOP leaders had supported many times in the past. Republicans said, “No.”Democrats invited Republicans to Biden-led bipartisan talks. Republicans quit. Democrats offered a $2.4 trillion debt-reduction package, 83% of which would come from spending cuts. Republicans said, “No.”Democrats sought a Grand Bargain, with more than $4 trillion in savings. Republicans said, “No.”Several Democrats offered some preliminary support for the “Gang of Six” blueprint. Republicans said, “No.”Many more Democrats signaled support for the McConnell/Reid “Plan B.” Republicans said, “No.”

Unfortunately, we can only rely on Republican intransigence to protect Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for so long. As I said before, it took a Democrat to “end welfare as we know it.” And it’ll take this Democrat to gut the social safety net. Will Obama offer yet another path that fully capitulates to Republican demands? Will he abandon any and all revenue enhancements in the battle over the debt ceiling? It has been a slow progression away from what would be desireable, what would be reasonable, to what is ridiculous.

From the Center for American Progress:

The infographic above shows that the president’s latest offer to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is heavily titled toward spending cuts. In fact, the president’s offer contained about $1 trillion less revenue than the recent proposal from the so-called Gang of Six, a group that includes three Republican senators and three Democratic senators. It also represents significant movement from the president’s original debt reduction framework, which itself was already more conservative than the recommendations from the chairs of the debt commission (Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson) last December.

I suppose we’ll see what happens at 9pm. In the meantime, sign this petition asking our Congressional Delegation to stand strong against cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387