Elizabeth Warren RIPS Tom Price for Wanting to Cut Over a Trillion Dollars From Medicare, Medicaid

Medicare Supplement News | April 1 - 2017

In a contentious hearing Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) grilled Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) — Donald Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary — over his proposal to cut to cut funding for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as his introduction of legislation that directly benefitted a company he held stock in. Noting that more than 100 million Americans receive healthcare through the federal programs Medicare and Medicaid, Warren asked Price if he hopes to cut Medicaid funding by more than $1 trillion dollars, as his 2017 budget proposal suggests. Price did not directly answer whether he proposed the trillion dollar cut, instead arguing the “metrics” of success for Medicare and Medicaid are “not necessarily the amount of money” put into the programs. Warren refused to let Price dodge her question. “It’s a yes or no,” she pressed. “Did you propose to cut more than a trillion dollars out of Medicaid over the next ten years?” “You have the numbers before you,” Price shot back. “I’ll take it as a yes,” Warren replied. The Massachusetts senator then referenced Donald Trump’s campaign pledge not to cut funding to Medicare and Medicaid, asking Price if he can “guarantee” he “will safeguard president-elect Trump’s promise” regarding funding for those programs. Price, once again, dodged the question. “Your question presumes that money is the metric,” Price began. “I’m sorry to interrupt but we’re very limited on time,” Warren replied. “The metric is money.” “Frankly, the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid today are not going to be reassured by your notion that you have some metric other than the dollars that they need to provide these services,” she continued, noting “Americans will be watching” to see if Price reneges on Trump’s campaign promise. Warren then pressed Price about his stock holdings in Zimmer Biomet, a medical device manufacturer that made several contributions to Price’s reelection campaign. In March 2016, six days after purchasing stock in Zimmer Biomet, Price introduced legislation in the House that directly benefited the company. Warren took issue with Price’s argument that he was not the one “making those decisions” to buy stock in the company, noting the HHS nominee did not use a blind trust or passively managed mutual fund. “So let’s just be clear, this is not just a stock broker, someone you pay to handle the paperwork,” Warren began. “This is someone who buys stock at your direction. This is someone who buys and sells the stock you want them to.” “Not true,” Price said. “Because you decide not to tell them” Warren asked. “Wink, wink, nod nod, and we’re all supposed to believe that?” The Massachusetts senator then asked Price directly if he took actions to benefit a company he owned stock in. “I’m offended by the insinuation, senator,” Price replied.Elizabeth Warren GRILLS Tom Price at Senate Confirmation Hearing 1/18/17. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) blasted Donald Trump's nominee to become Secretary of Health and Human Services over his desire to drastically cut essential services, including Medicare and Medicaid. Warren reminded Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that Donald Trump himself promised he would not cut those core safety net programs. After informing Rep. Price "more than 100 million Americans now receive their healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid," Sen. Warren reminded Rep. Price the budget he authored as chair of the House budget committee would have cut spending on Medicaid by $449 billion over the next decade, and would have cut Medicare by more than $1 trillion Price's response? The "metrics" used to determine success of these programs should not be dollars. That prompted a heated exchange, with Senator Warren slamming a combative Price, then reminded Rep. Price that "President-elect Trump was very clear about his views on Medicare and Medicaid." "Can you guarantee to this committee that you will safeguard President-elect Trump's promise and while you are HHS Secretary you will not use your authority to carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits?" Warren asked. "What the question presumes is that money is the metric," Price responded. "In my belief from a scientific standpoint, if patients aren't receiving care even though we're providing the resources, it doesn't work for patients." Warren was not buying what Price was selling. "We're very limited on time," she reminded the nominee. "The metric is money. And the quote from the President-elect of the United States was not along this to cut dollars from this program. So that's the question I'm asking you. Can you assure this committee you will not cut one dollar from Medicare or Medicaid should you be confirmed to this position?" "I believe that the metric ought to be the care that the patients are receiving," Price insisted. "I'll take that as a no," Warren retorted.

Elizabeth Warren RIPS Tom Price for Wanting to Cut Over a Trillion Dollars From Medicare, Medicaid

87 thoughts on “Elizabeth Warren RIPS Tom Price for Wanting to Cut Over a Trillion Dollars From Medicare, Medicaid”

    • Apparently you didn’t truly watch her confirmation hearings. Not sure she could spell EDUMACATION, much less head the department even if you spotted her the vowels. Unless her family bought all the letters for her.

      Reply

    • And you, gchannel are a deplorable Trumpanzee…Franken and Warren are informed Senators utilizing facts, knowledge and that science-y kind-a stuff that you home-schooled dummies have never experienced…

      Reply

    • You say 600000 like thats not middle-class. Fucking idiot. Bernie Has elizabeth warren ever used her influence to increase her profit like his idiot? Exactly republicans are scammers and most democrats do it the right way.

      Reply

    • +Elsario Delmarco Not really the point, and he did reaffirm the continued observance of the Old Testament, but fine. How many Christians do you know who’ve sold all of their stuff and dedicated their lives to following the teachings of Jesus? Because he did preach that.

      Reply

    • Hyperpandas I don’t want to get into a discussion of Christ’s teachings because they are not completely compatible with the Christian church—yet this another significant way in which Islam and Christianity differ. The organizations responsible for promoting Islam *ARE* fully compatible with the teachings of Mohammed.

      I’m not concerned with 70% of *currently* non-violent Muslims, I’m concerned with the 20-30% who are, or who support it, who the rest will follow.

      The US was founded by a very small segment of the population, the vast majority of Americans wanted to remain with their British overlords.

      The Caliphate is similarly being re-created by a minority of Muslims, but those Muslims have the power and resources behind them to do it. The rest of the sheep are falling in line, either because they’ll just follow strength as they perceive it, and/or are too scared to oppose them. That’s why you see hardly any Muslims speaking out against them.

      Reply

    • +Elsario Delmarco You’re missing thepoint, which is that adherents of every religion routinely ignore, or explain away, the parts of their religious doctrine that doesn’t fit with their personal preferences, or facts as we know them today, even if they’re dispensing with positions that could be attributed to their central prophets with certainty. Muslims do it, as do Christians, as do Jews, as does every religious person to one degree or another.

      Now, on with your figures. First, you have to account for the majority of Muslims who aren’t violent (your numbers), despite your belief that violence is mandated and central to Islam. Second, what’s the source for your claim that 30% of Muslims are violent? Or would this be the Pew polls that have an alarmingly high reporting of people being sympathetic to particularly heinous ideas? If so, then your 70-30 split isn’t accurate.

      As for Muslims not speaking out against it, what do you think they should do? I mean, it’s not hard to find fatwas issued against it, or Muslims using the #notinmyname or #jesuischarlie hashtags (for whatever that’s worth), or Muslims fighting ISIS, etc.

      You may think it’s not enough, but how much is? I mean, how much do people of any group do anything to reign in douchebags who happen to be in the same “group” they are (e.g. men, white people, Christians, Americans, or whatever), and how much should they have to?

      But we can even assume that more people are required to do so. What do you think positions and policies from non-Muslims that amount to “Islam is evil”, “ban Islam”, “Muslims are barbaric”, etc. do to the position of your 70% to challenge the remaining 30%? I mean, it plays right into the talking points of that 30%.

      Reply

    • Hyperpandas It’s not my point of view that Islam predominantly focuses on violence, especially as it pertains to Kaffirs—it’s an established fact. In fact, Islam is fairly unique in that it’s largely a political system, and focuses very little on matters of faith that do not involve Kaffirs. Didn’t read the rest of your (presumably) intellectually dishonest post.

      Reply

    • +Elsario Delmarco Dishonest? You’re the one dancing away from direct questions to hide in the warm embrace of your own fallacies. Suit yourself, though.

      Reply

    • +Shan Santee oh lookie…a bern-tard cultist is burning for his scum master bern! Of course we’ll vote for the last turd on the planet against bern weasel…oops he’s fossilled in 2020 thankfully

      Reply

    • Derik Davis Thank you for proving my point. Your (false) claim was that Trump said he wouldn’t reduce spending on those programs when in fact he said no such thing. Trump promised to *keep* those programs, he never promised he wouldn’t reduce spending. Trump’s whole pitch was that those programs could be kept in place and run more efficiently, and for less money. And he explained how.

      You’re arguing with your own strawman.

      Reply

    • +Elsario Delmarco​ “The Answer to both Social Security and Medicare is a robust growing economy — not cuts on the elderly.”

      “I was the first & only GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to social security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

      He has said it multiple times idiot.

      Reply

    • Derik Davis Trump was referring to cuts in medical coverage, not a reduction in spending which is something he did promise. For example one area he talked about reducing spending could be accomplished by allowing Medicaid to purchase drugs from outside the US from countries charging less, such as Canada. In fact Trump stated he believes medical coverage can be improved, even with spending cuts.

      You are are confusing two separate things, perhaps intentionally: spending cuts with cuts to medical coverage.

      Reply

    • nice deflection still doesn’t change the fact that Price was precisely active on gaining a profit by his unethical actions by using his government position to enact policies that effect Americans for his financial advantage ….

      Reply

    • Mr. Bonner, you obviously know more about this than I do, so what Price did is not insider trading? This is a legitimate question, I really want to know the truth on it. Your help would be appreciated.

      Reply

  8. i understand that republicans/trumpians have differing values to warren, but wouldn’t it make sense to actually defend those values instead of just avoiding questions…???

    Reply

    • iamdeafzed6 Come on! A trillion dollars though? So basically they’ve got a trillion to spare that were passed around to programs that never needed or used the funds? It makes no sense, I’m going to research it, but common sense wise I don’t see it. And yes it would be great if everyone could get health care on their own, but it’s just not realistic. Even someone whose say employed, with four kids, if their employer doesn’t pay part of their family’s insurance (which most in my experience do not), an entire paycheck will go to insurance. And it’s not that people shouldn’t have four kids, it’s that medical care is too expensive…not to mention the cost if someone gets sick or if you have a child with special needs.

      Reply

    • “Come on! A trillion dollars though? So basically they’ve got a trillion to spare that were passed around to programs that never needed or used the funds?”
      I have no idea what you’re talking about here.

      “And yes it would be great if everyone could get health care on their own, but it’s just not realistic.”
      Nobody’s arguing that this is realistic. What IS realistic, however, is the degree to which we (as a society) remove people from using tax-dollar-based healthcare programs (namely Medicaid), and instead ENABLE THEM to be able to pay for their healthcare THEMSELVES. Which you do by a.) making healthcare cheaper, and b.) having a strong economy where net incomes for the poor and middle classes (particularly) are higher.

      Obamacare achieves neither a.) nor b.). It provides greater access to healthcare for poorer people, but at the expense of costing a lot more for everyone else, in addition to limiting choices and just generally making the actual QUALITY of healthcare far worse for everyone. It’s also a huge job-killer, given the mandates that are forced upon companies that have more than 50 employees (I believe is the threshold).

      Reply

    • iamdeafzed6 it’s not realistic, and it’s impossible for everyone to be able to pay for their own medicare. For example, these people who work on minimum wage and their employer doesn’t provide them health care. “Make insurance cheaper” lol only in your dreams that would happen. Companies expenses are going up like crazy and they’re going to offer a cheap service? That’s something that won’t happen, not in this economic crisis.

      Reply

    • I believe I made it quite clear in my original statement that obviously not everyone can be expected to pay their own way. So-called ‘safety net’ programs are designed for such people.

      But make no mistake…such programs cost tax money, and the point is to get as few people as possible to rely on them. Free market principles do this…partly because they DO indeed make formerly expensive products cheaper to people (albeit this often takes years, even decades, to really see fruit) and partly because the incentives of more free market principles tend to frankly make it more difficult for reasonably able-bodied persons to unnecessarily exploit safety nets. It’s not perfect by any means, but compared to attempts to socialize healthcare, it’s far better.

      And to clarify, cheaper is with respect to REAL dollars, NOT nominal dollars. Meaning that the cost of a car in nominal dollars today is, for example, clearly more expensive than it was in 1905. In real dollars, which is to say real wealth (money is just a representation of wealth after all…NOT actual wealth itself, which is where many people get lost in economic analyses) cars are indeed cheaper today than they were in 1905. Not in my dreams.
      So just because prices are going up doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going up in real dollars. Not that I know exactly what you mean by ‘Companies expenses are going up like crazy’. Health insurance companies? Other companies?

      Reply

  9. Elizabeth Warren ROCKS! I wonder how many of Tom Price’s immediate family depend on medicare or medicaid. I’m guessing 0. What a scumbag.

    Reply

  10. I don’t get how Tom Price isn’t brought up on charges.. I thought the US had laws against insider trading (and I would classify it as insider trading when you buy stock and then push a bill to the floor that increase your stock value)

    Reply

    • The Michael Anderson Show but you pick and choose the type and market area for them to buy in. Not very smart for HHS to have his broker buying up this type of stock. Even if innocent, doesn’t look good, especially when you do find out you own the stock and then push even harder to push a bill that will increase the value of that stock.

      Reply

    • Saying “she did it too” is not a valid argument in disproving the wrongs that Price himself committed. $250,000 invested in tobacco from 1993 to 2012? If a man who is supposed to be our Secretary of Health and Human Services has invested a quarter of a million dollars in the single leading cause of preventable death in the United States, does that mean that appointing the Goldman Sachs CEO in charge during their infamous bailout as the Secretary of the Treasury is perfectly fine and dandy?
      Reductio ad absurdum; your argument does not stand.

      Reply

    • Elsario Delmarco Price broke the law under The Stock Act. It’s an acronym. It stands for Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge.

      Reply

    • Elsario Delmarco trump probably last 4 years. Only idiots like you would even vote for him again. Only a few weeks in and his administration is a mess. He’s incompetent and has no clue what’s going on. Can’t read anything a few pages long and it’s clear that intelligence from the US doesn’t even trust him enough to brief him on matters with Russia. Trump has been horrible the first few weeks.

      Reply

    • First off, it took me at least 30 seconds to figure out what asking about a minimum wage rate had to do with this thread, given how much of a non sequitur it is to healthcare.

      Secondly, (to answer your question), no, I am not. Because minimum wage rates are great for people who are making below that rate, AND who still have a job once those policies are enacted. However, they suck horribly for the people who lose their jobs as a result of them.
      In other words, minimum wage laws inevitably lead to higher unemployment.

      They are an attempt to treat the symptom of low wages and not the cause.

      Reply

    • How stupid do you have to be to believe that garbage. Giving fair value for work is a guaranteed way to have a healthy economic system. Paying wages so low that people cannot even afford healthcare leads us right back to the horrific conditions of the past.

      Reply

    • “Stupid” enough to understand how economics works (nice ad hominem).

      I’m sorry that you seem to sincerely believe that we live in a world where, by the abracadabra of fiat, you can get something for nothing. But the fact is, you cannot.
      Let’s illustrate via example…

      If an employer has a budget of $2000 to spend in a week on labor costs, and if each employee gets paid $10 per hour, and works 10 hours a week, then the employer can hire 20 employees per week (do the math…$2000 = $10/hour * 10 hours/employee * 20 employees)

      Now let’s say you mandate that the minimum wage should be $20 per hour instead…
      That employer still has only a $2000 per week budget. So all you’re doing is changing his expense formula. He can now only afford to hire 10 employees a week:
      ($2000 = $20/hour * 10 hours/employee * 10 employees)

      The point being that minimum wage laws don’t work because they abjectly fail to account for the fact that a wage earner’s gain is an employer’s loss. They treat the symptom of wages (its monetary expression) and not the root cause (the employee’s actual productive value).

      The real way to combat low wages, which is to say increase employee value to an employer, is ultimately to make an employee more productive. Which can be done either if technological advances (particularly) allow that employee to do the same job more efficiently. Or if the employee learns job skills that make him less easy to replace, and hence more valuable, to an employer.
      That’s how you increase someone’s ACTUAL wealth (and not just its dollar representation) and let both employer AND employee to win.

      Reply

    • If you are rich you can get something for nothing ’cause, laws and stuff…. ye know.

      Let’s look at your well thought-out example. The employer has a budget, really, what was his profit line? And why should employee work for someone who can’t afford the labor. It seems that you think that everyone who starts a business should be given free (or next to free labor) If the employer goes hungry (or without that second airplane) it is a tragedy — if the employee goes hungry, tough luck.

      As to you other point, ” minimum wage laws … is an employer’s loss.” LOSS OF WHAT, a new yacht, airplane, another percent of wealth? Everyday statistics like, “wealthiest 10% controlling three-quarters of all family wealth in the country.” Examples like this are everywhere and while they vary, it is easy to get the big picture. http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/18/pf/wealth-inequality/ or http://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/
      Employees ARE productive (hence ya know … hmm…. profit). Stealing labor is also very lucrative from the employer’s point of view.

      oh, and sweetling, I would like to make a small point — if technology replaces the need for employees, who is gonna buy all those inaccessible PROFIT making goods?

      The truth is the economy exists to benefit mankind — no one man deserves to own it or control it — sell your crazy somewhere else.

      Reply

  14. So Price was “personally offended” when his conflict of interested was exposed. His excuse of ignorance is sufficient only when speaking with a group of Republicans, but not when exposed to the American Public. The party of family values is teaching us to screw or be screwed.

    Reply

  15. I hate these stupid time rules. These hearings should go on for an entire day, just like Hillary’s 11 hour Benghazi special committee. That way people like Elizabeth Warren would actually be able to squeeze some truth out of guys like Tom Price. They cut her off right when she was getting to the meaty stuff!

    Reply

    • +Dixon Adair
      The socialist witch, warren, doesn’t like any successful men. She still has a chip on her shoulder, the size of a bowling ball, because her bum daddy got his car repossessed by the bank, when she was a little faux indian girl.

      Reply

    • +over under sideways down Absolutely, as she as US senator is so frustrated because she is not as successful, right?! LOL Those biases needed to be confirmed, so anything goes. Gotcha!!!

      Reply

    • Flip-
      It appears we agree on most these issues such as

      A woman’s choice is hers.

      There are choices when it comes to paying for health insurance; or choosing to not pay at all (as in not paying the penalty for no coverage)

      The FDA does suck

      And hearings are important

      I don’t much care for republicans. Neither party fully represents what I believe in. Though I’m glad to see we’ve found some common ground.
      🙂

      Reply

    • Sean
      Yeah you’re probably right. More lies I suppose. I agree we’ve seen this from all angles. I have watched the full hearing.

      I’m probably the minority view in this thread (definitely have some conservative views ) but in the end, it’s about headlines… How it’s stated influences bias; even before we view the information. For example: I would presume the same exact clip labeled Isakson RIPS Franken (not really…) at 9:35 could draw different demographics of viewers. Though Warren did give a half assed attempt at 8:38. People are going to see what they want to see. Most see through it for what it really is… Like reality tv. Then it modifies your suggested YouTube videos

      Reply

    • Thanks for Being a Useful Idiot Sorry mate.. the Clinton Bogata info is on the Clinton Foundation website.. so much for your Non research and your partisan head in sand. Happy Cocaine money for CorruptClinton Inc.

      Reply

    • Actually, I am beginning to think they are the New World Order of which all the konservatives have been warning us. I do know for sure they are beginning to look a lot like Fascists in really expensive business suits instead of all that tasteless gold braid on epaulets that Mussolini favored.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *