Reminder: A Gaffe is When a Politician Accidentally Tells the Truth

 

From Rep. Tom Price’s confirmation hearing, via Reason:

https://youtu.be/JigNx_XXMZE?t=31s

Senator Elizabeth Warren: [C]an 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 administrative authority to carry out a single dollar of cuts to Medicare or Medicaid eligibility or benefits?

Price: But what the question presumes is that money is the metric. In my belief, from a scientific standpoint, if patients aren’t receiving care even though we’re providing resources, then it doesn’t work for patients.

Warren: I’m sorry to interrupt, but we’re very limited on time, but the metric is money. And the quote from the president-elect of the United States was not a long discourse on this. He said he would not cut dollars from this program. So that’s the question I’m asking you: Can you assure this committee that you will not cut one dollar from either Medicare or Medicaid should you be confirmed to this position?

0Warren: So I take that as a no?

Price: It’s that that’s the wrong metric.

Thanks, Senator, for lifting the veil for a moment.

Published in Healthcare
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 37 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Joe P (View Comment):

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):
    I thought spending was controlled by Congress, (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) and not the secretary, is Medicaid special?

    I am not an expert on this subject, but Congress has recently been writing laws such that they grant more discretion to cabinet secretaries on how to allocate their appropriations than they did in the past. With phrases like “the Secretary shall determine” or “the Secretary shall direct” etc. It’s my understanding that there’s a lot of this sort of language in the Affordable Care Act, which I believe also changes a lot how Medicaid dollars are spent.

    So yes, spending is controlled by Congress, but Congress has been handing big piles of money to cabinet secretaries and basically saying “Do whatever you want!” You know, because there was going to be a permanent Democrat electoral majority because of the demographic Blue Wall that nobody was ever going to penetrate. Oops.

    Well now, that’ll learn’em. I also thought that all the directives in these laws (like the ACA) could be the point of attack. If the secretary determines that there could be 12 levels of health plans instead of 3. They could just undo a lot of the nonsense just by saying dont pay for stuff you dont want….

    • #31
  2. Mike H Inactive
    Mike H
    @MikeH

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Misthiocracy (View Comment):
    Hey editors, when you do a wholesale rewrite of someone’s post, could you at least add a disclaimer stating that you’ve done so?

    What happened?

    They rewrote the post. They didn’t change the substance of it, which is why I’m merely suggesting they add a disclaimer, instead of raising holy heck in outrage.

    Still, really quite rude of ’em, sez I.

    Today was @tommeyer‘s first day back. I say we get out the pitchforks. ;)

    • #32
  3. Steven Potter Thatcher
    Steven Potter
    @StevenPotter

    Maybe Sen. Warren should have been asking the Obama Administration why they cut $500B from Medicare to pay for future benefits granted by the Affordable Care Act that they couldn’t afford if she was so worried about loss of money to Medicare and Medicaid recipients.  But, then again, if she did that pigs would fly…

    • #33
  4. Big Green Inactive
    Big Green
    @BigGreen

    cdor (View Comment):
    Boy did she get him. He won’t guarantee that he will spend every penny of the fake printed money that Congress allocates to his department. “The metric is money”. Wow, does that say it all in the difference between conservatives and progressives. I, Elizabeth Warren, care not about the quality of the services rendered, only about spending as much as possible on rendering those services. Could she be any more shallow? She certainly made it clear what is important to her.

    Would you mind wiring some of this “fake printed money” from your account to mine?  If so, I will provide the wiring instructions.  If not, why do you have an irrational need to hold onto “fake printed money”?

    • #34
  5. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    What if Elizabeth Warren actually believes that money=good results?

    • #35
  6. Misthiocracy Member
    Misthiocracy
    @Misthiocracy

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    What if Elizabeth Warren actually believes that money=good results?

    What if Elizabeth Warren actually believes that the moon is made of green cheese?

    Sincerely-believed nonsense is still nonsense.

    • #36
  7. EugeneKriegsmann Member
    EugeneKriegsmann
    @EugeneKriegsmann

    One definitely has to question whether Elizabeth Warren sincerely believes in anything. My sense about her is that she long ago learned the value of sincere lying, and has been practicing it as an artform ever since. Those “ideals” she strives after are merely cannon fodder used to attract a following of truly sincere believers of mediocre intelligence, those who would follow anyone who created a myth that they believe will bring them things they want, for free. Leftists are the greatest of pragmatists. They know and truly understand the value of well worded lie. They have only one real goal, their own agrandizement. To reach that they will do and say anything. Once there, surrounded by their accumulated wealth, they will denigrate others whose wealth wsa gained by real labor and integrity. Such a person is Elizabeth Warren, and sharing that are Bernie Sanders, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, and a whole host of others of less virulent, but equally dishonest philosophy, among whom I would include the “icon” himself.

    • #37
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.