Are possible. The president s own council of economic advisors some years ago estimated that we could do savings of 700 billion a year without affecting the quality of care in any way for the worse. The National Institutes of medicine have made several regular projections on this. The most recent one is at 75 750 billion a year. Well, the institutes of medicine are pretty serious folks and theyre entitled to respect when they say that we can have those kind of savings. Rand corporation a lot of people know a lot about. Its a very, very expert organization. They actually have done two things. Theyve looked at what we can snaif Health Care Save in health care and then theyve looked at what we can save in Health Care Plus an additional bit for dealing with waste and fraud. And they gave ranges for the two. The midpoint of the range for savings is about 730 billion. And if you add their suggestions on waste and fraud, the midpoint of their range goes to about 910 billion a year. And the le
Next, a discussion about National Political party nominations, scandal, and comebacks, as well as rules changes for the 2016 election. This is part of the state of the parties conference. It runs just under two hours. We have four papers to be presented. We hope you will have great interest in what they present. More than anything else, we hope you will have Great Questions because this group of individuals have not only studied what has been, but are giving us perspective of what is to come. I think youll find their perspectives very interesting. About party a paper power and the causal effects of endorsements. Seth is at the university of denver and eric is at the public posse institute of california. I will shut up and let them talk. Whats were here presenting this on behalf of our other co authors. We are trying to come up with a measurement of the impact of a Party Endorsement in a primary, which is traditionally a tricky thing to measure. Study toing a fun case do this. This is t
Nominations i dont have my line in here but you only have a few that are not competitive. Versus incumbent renominations that rarely are these things competitive. Betweennd difference these indicators, democrats versus republicans. There is a distinct party difference for this timeframe. Campaigns contents are bit more competitive overall. Republican campaigns typically are not as competitive. Intraparty trends. This is perhaps the most fascinating thing as far as looking ahead toward 2016 and beyond. Haveratic nominations become somewhat less competitive over time. This is suggesting democratic a couple of things. One, the Democratic Party is a little more unified. It also could mean perspective candidates are little more strategic about calculating their chances and not running, which is also a possibility. Republican nominations in contrast, basically competitive in the 1970s. Ray nagin reagan comes along and you have a great deal of unity in the party and that maybe fragmenting in
I wasnt involved in that, i take no position on it, but what i do take a position on is people are going to do their jobs, heir going to focus on the mission, and were going to get this thing done right. You have two agents in the field office in mcallen, texas, that were indicted for falsifying records and to conceal real lapses in your offices standards. And, you know, im biased in this regard. I believe the job of an auditor and the job of a prosecutor are kissing cousins because post of them must be dictated by the facts, and they must have an incredible rigor about following the facts and not any political considerations. Um, those decisions have to be brutally independent. And by their very definition, theyre difficult. Obviously, youve got, once again, warring factions in conflict because many of the field offices under your supervision believe they have suffered in morale because of the heavy hand of the central office. On the other hand, youve got people being indicted for con
I think we have to work at that and the federal government has got to support that as we worked to build a more perfect union. The fact you are both cosponsoring it and the fact that you embody that conversation in this work and at the fact that you are getting so much done together and building Real Relationships and friendships is incredibly helpful. People should take notice to it and thank you for the work and made that sent forth more ripples of hope. Also more Civic Education please for places like this and for all of us. Thank you so much. [applause] hello. Thank you for being at this roundtable. Polarization misuses. A conversation between historians and political scientists on polarization in recent American History. The significance of that history. They are trying to rewrite broadly the history of american politics. One note joe always scheduled to be part of this roundtable, but his travel schedule is such that he is just getting an out and he will not be able to join us. I