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.
There are 185 welfare programs estimated to cost over $10 trillion between 2009 - 2018.
"The 1996 reform of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) returned the share of federal spending on the program to each state in the form of a block grant. The grant was to be used for new welfare programs redesigned by each state based on mandatory work for the able-bodied. Prior to this reform, federal funding for AFDC was based on a matching formula: The more a particular state spent on the program, the more it got from the federal government. In effect, the federal government was paying the states to spend more. The key to the 1996 reform (signed into law by Bill Clinton) was that the new block grants were finite—federal funding did not vary with the amount each state spent. If a state's new program cost more, the state had to pay the extra costs itself. If the program cost less, the state could keep the savings."
There was a lot of handwringing at the beginning of welfare reform and claims that children would be starving but that didn't happen. Welfare rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide. By 2000, the poverty rate for black children was the lowest it had ever been and because people were forced to go to work familes saw their income increase by 25 percent. The authors say in 10 years, the total spending (Federal and State) for welfare was down 31 percent.
The purpose of this post:
The authors of the article, and Paul Ryan, pitch the same block grants for Medicaid. They say that because Medicaid underpays doctors and hospitals the poor have major difficulties gaining access to essential health care under the program. Under block-grant reform, states would be free to provide financing to the poor to purchase private health insurance. Obamacare expands Medicaid so much so that the CBO estimates that in 10 years, 100 million people will be on Medicaid.
My guess is the federal bureaucracy would be greatly decreased (a big cost savings) if the States did their own administering under their own plans. The authors also think governors in both political parties would like this.
So, should the federal government give the states finite block grants for Medicaid and creatively allow them to create and manage their own Medicaid programs as they see fit?
There are 185 welfare programs estimated to cost over $10 trillion between 2009 - 2018.
"The 1996 reform of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) returned the share of federal spending on the program to each state in the form of a block grant. The grant was to be used for new welfare programs redesigned by each state based on mandatory work for the able-bodied. Prior to this reform, federal funding for AFDC was based on a matching formula: The more a particular state spent on the program, the more it got from the federal government. In effect, the federal government was paying the states to spend more. The key to the 1996 reform (signed into law by Bill Clinton) was that the new block grants were finite—federal funding did not vary with the amount each state spent. If a state's new program cost more, the state had to pay the extra costs itself. If the program cost less, the state could keep the savings."
There was a lot of handwringing at the beginning of welfare reform and claims that children would be starving but that didn't happen. Welfare rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide. By 2000, the poverty rate for black children was the lowest it had ever been and because people were forced to go to work familes saw their income increase by 25 percent. The authors say in 10 years, the total spending (Federal and State) for welfare was down 31 percent.
The purpose of this post:
The authors of the article, and Paul Ryan, pitch the same block grants for Medicaid. They say that because Medicaid underpays doctors and hospitals the poor have major difficulties gaining access to essential health care under the program. Under block-grant reform, states would be free to provide financing to the poor to purchase private health insurance. Obamacare expands Medicaid so much so that the CBO estimates that in 10 years, 100 million people will be on Medicaid.
My guess is the federal bureaucracy would be greatly decreased (a big cost savings) if the States did their own administering under their own plans. The authors also think governors in both political parties would like this.
So, should the federal government give the states finite block grants for Medicaid and creatively allow them to create and manage their own Medicaid programs as they see fit?
Yes. The "treat" bucket is empty. Those with the least political power will go to the end of the line. I would offer that seniors (medicare), who vote, will lose much less than the poor (medicaid), who generally do not vote.
There was a lot of handwringing at the beginning of welfare reform and claims that children would be starving but that didn't happen. Welfare rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide. By 2000, the poverty rate for black children was the lowest it had ever been and because people were forced to go to work familes saw their income increase by 25 percent. The authors say in 10 years, the total spending (Federal and State) for welfare was down 31 percent.
[snip]
So, should the federal government give the states finite block grants for Medicaid and creatively allow them to create and manage their own Medicaid programs as they see fit?
This brilliantly illustrates why government "poverty" statistics are misleading and of little meaningful use.
Under government-think, families on welfare saw their income increase by 25 percent and their poverty rate went down...but did the families actually become better off?
Probably not, and definitely not as much as the spinmeisters would have you believe.
Under government-think, a family on welfare can be considered "poor" while enjoying thousands of dollars in (non-cash) medical, housing, food, heating, and other assistance.
Send the parents to work, and their 'income' goes up 25 percent, and magically they are no longer 'poor', their non-cash assistance shrinks (or goes away entirely) and they're actually now worse off than they were when they were getting all the goodies.
Adults that are able to work are given cash and free health care because they don't work.
This must stop .
Where is this happening? There is virtually no cash for adults who are able to work - whether or not they can actually find work. Only a few states ffer cash assistance these days, and what little they offer doesn't come close to providing a subsistence lifestyle.
Could you live on $150 a month? Where I live, you can get a room for about $100 or so per WEEK.
Medicare helps enable people who shouldn't have kids to do so. People shouldn't be having kids if they can't raise them without public assitance! At the very least they need to put a freeze on enrollment.
Where is this happening? There is virtually no cash for adults who are able to work - whether or not they can actually find work. Only a few states ffer cash assistance these days, and what little they offer doesn't come close to providing a subsistence lifestyle.
Could you live on $150 a month? Where I live, you can get a room for about $100 or so per WEEK.
You should really do some research before making such ignorant statements.
If states want to enact some form of MedicAid, or health care reform, or any other social program they have that authority. The federal government does not. All federal MediCare/MedicAid should be abolished.
If states want to enact some form of MedicAid, or health care reform, or any other social program they have that authority. The federal government does not. All federal MediCare/MedicAid should be abolished.
The welfare of the citizens is the responsibility of the state they live in. People will vote with their feet and move to where they can get the most by contributing the least. That is called competition.
My guess is the federal bureaucracy would be greatly decreased (a big cost savings) if the States did their own administering under their own plans. The authors also think governors in both political parties would like this.
How about instead of guessing, you do some actual research and find that out. Just because your emotion tells you this is true, doesn't mean that you should leave it at that. Go find out and then make a post.
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.
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.
