Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WSJ: Surging Costs for Medicaid Ravage State, Federal Budgets

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 12:23 PM
Original message
WSJ: Surging Costs for Medicaid Ravage State, Federal Budgets
Critical Condition

Surging Costs for Medicaid Ravage State, Federal Budgets

In Mississippi, Governor Sees 'Cancer on Our Finances' Amid $268 Million Gap

New Pressure From Bush Cuts

By SARAH LUECK
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 7, 2005; Page A1

JACKSON, Miss. -- To see how Medicaid is devouring state budgets across the country, take a look at Mississippi.

Over the past five years state and federal spending in Mississippi on Medicaid -- the health program for the poor and disabled -- has doubled to $3.5 billion. Fully one-quarter of state residents are in the program. "Medicaid is a cancer on our state finances," says Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, the former head of the Republican National Committee and a close ally of President Bush.

(snip)

Forty years ago, Congress, as an afterthought to the Medicare program for the elderly, created Medicaid to help pay for the medical needs of about four million low-income people. Today, the program covers 53 million people -- nearly one in every six Americans -- and costs $300 billion a year in federal and state funds, recently surpassing spending on the federal Medicare program. In some states, Medicaid accounts for one-third of the budget.

The benefits offered by Medicaid have steadily expanded over the decades. The program now pays for 60% of the nation's nursing-home bill. It covers eight million disabled people and 25 million children. At many hospitals that cater to indigent people, Medicaid accounts for more than 40% of the revenue. "It has become a program that takes care of the worst situations," says John Holahan, director of the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center.

Now a state-versus-federal battle over Medicaid may be looming. President Bush, faced with a swelling federal deficit, will propose Medicaid changes in the budget he sends Congress today. The administration wants to cut about $60 billion from what it projects it will spend on the program over the next decade, mostly by cracking down on techniques used by states to collect extra federal payments.

(snip)

Write to Sarah Lueck at sarah.lueck@wsj.com

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110773763704247315,00.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hadrons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. according to Rush & Co, Mississippi as a low-tax state ...
should have plenty of revenue to cover the cost since according to them lower-tax rates = higher tax revenue ... didn't quite work out, huh

at least the morans don't have gays getting married

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can we say single payer National Health -or nust we wait till we're busted
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I've actually heard insurance companies
Edited on Mon Feb-07-05 12:50 PM by Wright Patman
argue that it would not be good public policy because tens of thousands of insurance company workers would be laid off under a streamlined single-payer system.

We should also bring back manual typewriters to create more secretarial employment. It could also be seen as an anti-obesity measure as more calories are burned up per keystroke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. The insurance company non-executives continue as always under
single payer national health.

Right now Part B Medicare is not done by anyone else other than insurance company workers under a contract called "administrative services only"

Indeed many huge private companies go the ASO route.

The forms review, verification, check cutting will all still be required.

We just will not need the salesmen, advertising, and other overhead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. So they are saying
that "tens of thousands of insurance company workers" jobs (and CEOs, etc. getting millions in salary and stocks per year) is more important than (millions more) people having health care.

That is what it boils down to.


Frame the debate....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. Bush & BushCo are responsible for this
This is their doing.

They are responsible.

They are to blame.

Bush did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-07-05 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Those Damn trial Lawyers again
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC