It's really amazing how we hear so much about cutting spending but when it comes to the programs that actually cost lots of money those calling for cutting deficits always oppose cutting spending. The latest instance (the rest of the article covers about what I'd expect from a starting negotiating position, however this particular aspect should be something that any group of rational individuals could agree on):
Federal health officials would have to curtail research comparing the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness or injury. The Obama administration says such research can improve care. Many Republicans fear the results will be used to deny coverage of expensive treatments.Comparative effectiveness research and associated rule-making is perhaps the single best way to save money in both the public and private sectors of health care. If our goal is to save money and/or improve care, this research is essential. Even if there is no concern with money having data on which treatments are more effective will help to alleviate pain and suffering.
This is just further evidence leading me to believe that there is no real intention to cut spending. There is simply an ideological opposition to social programs. The goal is similar to that of the Ryan plan, privatize everything despite nothing but flimsy evidence based on heroic assumptions that the policies will lead to overall savings. Cutting spending has just become a polite term for opposition to social programs. If they wanted to cut spending, why is there no support for more efficient alternatives or cost saving measure to existing programs? It just doesn't make sense if the motivations are as claimed.