U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-19-2014, 06:07 AM
 
29,764 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675

Advertisements

Medicaid Paying for More U.S. Births: Study - MedicineNet

Quote:
THURSDAY, Sept. 5 (HealthDay News) -- The number of births paid for by Medicaid is increasing, with nearly half of U.S. births covered this way in 2010, according to a new study.
The program, which provides free or low-cost coverage to families and individuals who qualify, paid for 48 percent of the 3.8 million births in the United States in 2010, up from 40 percent of births in 2008.
Considering the above, should we be surprised by the retirement savings data?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2014, 06:21 AM
 
16,437 posts, read 19,129,232 times
Reputation: 9518
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Especially with the market being on a mini roll and new money doing very well and old money again approaching all time highs and or highs not seen in 14 years. A lot of financial ailment could have been solved in the last five years especially for younger folks and those fairly early in the ball game. A lot of old timers have thrived. Many have been hurt by the great recession and many others have prospered. It is the latter who rarely have their story told in main stream media. It is a mixed picture and still playing out for millions.
I'm just barely able to retire if nothing ever, ever goes wrong the rest of our lives. That's depressing until I realise I'm in much better financial shape than the vast majority of other Americans my age. It's impossible to predict how this will all play out. There will be surprises, I'm sure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:00 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,469,891 times
Reputation: 27565
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Medicaid Paying for More U.S. Births: Study - MedicineNet



Considering the above, should we be surprised by the retirement savings data?
And that figure is from 2010. I imagine we've crossed the tipping point by now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:05 AM
 
29,764 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
And that figure is from 2010. I imagine we've crossed the tipping point by now.
This is why so many states have declined to expand Medicaid eligibility they are already low in wealth and high in poverty. I believe it was Louisianna that had 70 percent of births either on Medicaid or low income not I expanded Medicaid eligible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 07:07 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 72,469,891 times
Reputation: 27565
Here's another data point (2010 figures).

There are 98,817 public schools/charters and 66,646 of them receive Title 1 Funds.
To get Title 1 funds a school must have 10% of the student population in poverty.

So 67% of US public and charter schools are receiving Title 1 funds.

Table 2. Number of operating public elementary and secondary schools, by school type, charter, magnet, Title I, and Title I schoolwide status, and state or jurisdiction: School year 2010–11
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,541 posts, read 17,525,434 times
Reputation: 27576
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
This is why so many states have declined to expand Medicaid eligibility they are already low in wealth and high in poverty. I believe it was Louisianna that had 70 percent of births either on Medicaid or low income not I expanded Medicaid eligible.
Essentially, the wrong people (those who can't afford children) are having the most of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 08:38 AM
 
29,764 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations View Post
Essentially, the wrong people (those who can't afford children) are having the most of them.
The common challenge we will soon be facing is will the increasing demand for Medicaid services by the young or non elderly ill restrict the availability of Medicaid funding for the elderly and ill needing nursing home care? With in many states a decreasing tax base who will be prioritized for the funding available? North Carolina is facing that challenge now as are many other especially Southern States. Others don't realize what it means not having as significant a wealth base as some other states do. North Carolina is not all the Triangle and Charlotte. While those areas have both wealth and poverty many other areas have mostly poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,541 posts, read 17,525,434 times
Reputation: 27576
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
The common challenge we will soon be facing is will the increasing demand for Medicaid services by the young or non elderly ill restrict the availability of Medicaid funding for the elderly and ill needing nursing home care? With in many states a decreasing tax base who will be prioritized for the funding available? North Carolina is facing that challenge now as are many other especially Southern States. Others don't realize what it means not having as significant a wealth base as some other states do. North Carolina is not all the Triangle and Charlotte. While those areas have both wealth and poverty many other areas have mostly poverty.
While there's only so much money to go around and how the scarce funds get allocated is more of a political question than anything else, I'd rather see it go to the elderly than the young and poor.

I know a lot of people back home who are working minimum wage jobs or nearly so, and are simply unwilling to move. If you're at a junk job, you have nothing to lose and should just get a bus ticket and go somewhere like TX where there are jobs.

These people are screwing themselves daily and either are too stupid to realize it or just don't care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Verde Valley AZ
8,611 posts, read 9,672,539 times
Reputation: 10948
Quote:
Originally Posted by neguy99 View Post
It is getting more and more difficult to work two entry-level jobs. Low-skill jobs increasingly use just-in-time scheduling, where employees have no idea what hours of the day or which days of the week they will work in a given job until just a day or two ahead of time. A high percentage of establishments in retail, food service, call centers, etc are using that model.

How can you commit to two jobs when they both expect you to be available at all hours, on no notice, and will fire you if you say "no" very much?

It also makes it very tough for single moms on welfare to transition to work. How can you arrange day care work when you have no idea when you'll be working?

For example,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...ing-hours.html
I know my schedule two weeks ahead BUT it's a mixed bag of hours. Luckily I work for a company that DOES let me set my own hours, within reason. They often have to work around school schedules, family obligations, etc. and are very good about it. My schedule now is Thurs-Mon and I'm 'available' from 7 AM to 9 PM. I am soon going to change that to 7 AM to 7 PM and only work four days. What I dislike the most is being scheduled to 9 PM one day and have to be back at 7 AM the next day. I mean I really really hate that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2014, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,541 posts, read 17,525,434 times
Reputation: 27576
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat View Post
I know my schedule two weeks ahead BUT it's a mixed bag of hours. Luckily I work for a company that DOES let me set my own hours, within reason. They often have to work around school schedules, family obligations, etc. and are very good about it. My schedule now is Thurs-Mon and I'm 'available' from 7 AM to 9 PM. I am soon going to change that to 7 AM to 7 PM and only work four days. What I dislike the most is being scheduled to 9 PM one day and have to be back at 7 AM the next day. I mean I really really hate that!
You're lucky to be in this position. Many low end positions are now requiring on-call availability, which limits your ability to go to school or take a second job that will hopefully get a person out of these jobs in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top