IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

White House restricts states' expansion of Medicaid
By Robert Pear
New York Times News Service / January 4, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is restricting the ability of states to expand eligibility for Medicaid, part of an effort to prevent them from offering coverage to families of modest income who, the administration argues, may have access to private health insurance.
more stories like this

The restrictions mirror those the administration placed on the Children's Health Insurance Program in August after states tried to broaden eligibility for it, as well.

Until now, states had generally been free to set their own Medicaid eligibility criteria, and the Bush administration had not openly declared that it would apply the August directive to Medicaid. State officials in Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma said they had discovered the administration's intent in negotiations with the federal government.

The federal government has leverage over states, because it pays a large share of the costs for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, and states have to comply with federal standards to get federal money. The children's program was created for those whose families have too much income to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private insurance.

On Dec. 20, the Bush administration rejected a proposal by Ohio to expand its Medicaid program to cover 35,000 more children. Ohio now offers Medicaid to children with family incomes up to twice the poverty level, or about $41,000 a year for a family of four. The state had proposed increasing the limit to three times the poverty level, about $62,000.

I do not accept the premise that statements which you or anyone else make are factual based on nothing more than your assertion that they are. Let me issue a specific challenge

Two years ago, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and received eight weeks of radiation therapy at great cost

Quote:

I do not accept the premise that statements which you or anyone else make are factual based on nothing more than your assertion that they are. Let me issue a specific challenge

So, this statement is total bullshit, right...

Quote:

Two years ago, I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and received eight weeks of radiation therapy at great cost

The deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about three fourths of scheduled benefits through 2083.

Cyclo, You are making an assumption that our government will be able to pay back the social security trust fund in 2042?

Where did you get the notion that the 70% is a good number?

I have a bridge in Montana to sell to you!

We pay less than 70% of our bills right now, let alone our SS bills 32 years from now; and our government is neither bankrupt nor collapsing.

Your mathematics is as deficient as is your economics.

Cyclo wrote:

Quote:

We pay less than 70% of our bills right now, let alone our SS bills 32 years from now; and our government is neither bankrupt nor collapsing.

How did you arrive at 70%? Millions have lost their jobs, and thousands are losing their jobs daily. This trend is not going to be reversed any time soon.

Your pie in the sky optimism is not only unrealistic, but I'd like to see some evidence for your numbers.

On the other hand, Bush has referred to the system going "broke" in 2042. That date arises from the anticipated depletion of the Trust Fund, so Bush's language "seem[s] to suggest that there's something there that goes away in 2042." [5] Specifically, in 2042 and for many decades thereafter, the Social Security system can continue to pay benefits, but benefit payments will be constrained by the revenue base from the 12.4% FICA (Social Security payroll) tax on wages. According to the Social Security trustees, continuing payroll tax revenues at the rate of 12.4% will enable Social Security to pay about 74% of promised benefits during the 2040s, with this ratio falling to about 70% by the end of the forecast period in 2080. [6] The Social Security trustees recognize that the greatest risk faced by Social Security is not that the US Treasury will default on the bonds held by the Social Security trust funds, but that the Social Security program has consistently promised benefits that it could never afford to pay in the long run, and therefore at some point in the future Congress will be forced to either lower benefits or raise FICA taxes.

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.2 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.8
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.9
2008 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.2
2009 7.6 8.1 8.5 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4

You're describing something from Bush's tenure that doesn't apply today. You do notice the difference, don't you? See my above post on job loss, and how long this trend is going to last. Then figure out how that 12.4% of social security taxes on a much lower employment population as the retirement population grows is the same.

You are correct that soverign entities, able to print or otherwise create money, cannot go bankrupt. ....

Your blithe willingness to increase taxation (mostly on others) ignores the effects of such taxation