<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Subsidizing the Rich</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/</link>
	<description>Health Care Policy and Reform Insights &#124; NCPA</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 07:13:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda Gorman</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55744</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda Gorman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:50:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55744</guid>
		<description>ArtK,

Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state.  According to the Kaiser Foundation, over 10% of New York Medicaid recipients have incomes above 300% of the FPL. In Texas, the number is 7.3%. You also fail to consider the number of illegal immigrants in each state--they are not supposed to be eligible for Medicaid but, especially before 2006, routinely enrolled. Many appeared to have switched to SCHIP after real ID went into effect. Numbers from the GAO in May, 2004, suggest that Texas had 1,041,000 illegal residents and that New York had 489,000.

In short, your numbers say nothing about whether New York or Texas enrolls too many or too few Medicaid recipients.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ArtK,</p>
<p>Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state.  According to the Kaiser Foundation, over 10% of New York Medicaid recipients have incomes above 300% of the FPL. In Texas, the number is 7.3%. You also fail to consider the number of illegal immigrants in each state&#8211;they are not supposed to be eligible for Medicaid but, especially before 2006, routinely enrolled. Many appeared to have switched to SCHIP after real ID went into effect. Numbers from the GAO in May, 2004, suggest that Texas had 1,041,000 illegal residents and that New York had 489,000.</p>
<p>In short, your numbers say nothing about whether New York or Texas enrolls too many or too few Medicaid recipients.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55665</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55665</guid>
		<description>Apparently Mississippi getting over on all of us!  
All I asked was what goes into the Federal Benefit computation.   My only point was the expeditures are not just welfare - and that states that are getting money from the government may not be high users of welfare services.  Therefore, state electorates that do not support government welfare programs may not be on them but are still receiving federal dollars which they cannot control. Many of these states might actually be fine with getting less money, if it meant getting more control of the state overall, like taking land back from the BLM, some I am sure are fine with &quot;sticking it to the tax payers.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently Mississippi getting over on all of us!<br />
All I asked was what goes into the Federal Benefit computation.   My only point was the expeditures are not just welfare &#8211; and that states that are getting money from the government may not be high users of welfare services.  Therefore, state electorates that do not support government welfare programs may not be on them but are still receiving federal dollars which they cannot control. Many of these states might actually be fine with getting less money, if it meant getting more control of the state overall, like taking land back from the BLM, some I am sure are fine with &#8220;sticking it to the tax payers.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55657</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:10:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55657</guid>
		<description>&quot;Hating welfare doesn’t me you don’t love getting it&quot;
You did.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Hating welfare doesn’t me you don’t love getting it&#8221;<br />
You did.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: artk</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55621</link>
		<dc:creator>artk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55621</guid>
		<description>Who mentioned welfare, money is money?  A federal expenditure in a state benefits the economy of that state.  If a state pays more then it receives, it&#039;s a outflow to supports the states that collect more then they contribute.  Our outflows for foreign oil may run out cars and enable Saudi potentates spend money on private 747s, but the outflow benefits the oil producer.  The same goes for states.  What&#039;s the great federal program in Mississippi twice in federal expenditures what they pay in taxes?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who mentioned welfare, money is money?  A federal expenditure in a state benefits the economy of that state.  If a state pays more then it receives, it&#8217;s a outflow to supports the states that collect more then they contribute.  Our outflows for foreign oil may run out cars and enable Saudi potentates spend money on private 747s, but the outflow benefits the oil producer.  The same goes for states.  What&#8217;s the great federal program in Mississippi twice in federal expenditures what they pay in taxes?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55620</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55620</guid>
		<description>&quot;States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements.&quot; Even the tax foundation link provided doesn&#039;t equate there reports as being welfare spending only, but only total Federal Dollars.

A place like New Mexico then with large government expeditures on Nuclear Research among other things, other states with many large Military bases, or even states with large federal ownership of land or national parks would not represent just welfare but total federal dollars, meaning unless we can see only what is paid out in Welfare dollars and then a definition of what welfare dollars are, assuming that all federal government payments are welfare would be inaccurate or purposefully misleading.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements.&#8221; Even the tax foundation link provided doesn&#8217;t equate there reports as being welfare spending only, but only total Federal Dollars.</p>
<p>A place like New Mexico then with large government expeditures on Nuclear Research among other things, other states with many large Military bases, or even states with large federal ownership of land or national parks would not represent just welfare but total federal dollars, meaning unless we can see only what is paid out in Welfare dollars and then a definition of what welfare dollars are, assuming that all federal government payments are welfare would be inaccurate or purposefully misleading.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: artk</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55600</link>
		<dc:creator>artk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:35:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55600</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s the reference for federal expenditures vs taxes for each state.  You will notice that the vast majority of the &quot;Blue&quot; states, the ones that most dislike federal spending, get considerably more federal dollars then they pay in taxes.  Hating welfare doesn&#039;t me you don&#039;t love getting it.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s the reference for federal expenditures vs taxes for each state.  You will notice that the vast majority of the &#8220;Blue&#8221; states, the ones that most dislike federal spending, get considerably more federal dollars then they pay in taxes.  Hating welfare doesn&#8217;t me you don&#8217;t love getting it.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55595</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55595</guid>
		<description>What is included in &quot;Federal Benefits Received by state?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is included in &#8220;Federal Benefits Received by state?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: artk</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55551</link>
		<dc:creator>artk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:36:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55551</guid>
		<description>It’s amazing how you publish such a biased set of statistics without any analysis.  Let’s compare Texas and New York in detail.  

The population of Texas is about 24,000,000 with 16.7% of the population living under the poverty line, or about 4,000,000. The total Medicaid enrollment for Texas is about 2,900,000.  The population of New York is about 17,000,000 with a 14.2% of the population living under the poverty line, or about 2,400,000.  The total Medicaid enrollment for New York is about 4,200,000.    Now, Medicaid eligibility is supposed to be twice the poverty line.   It’s obvious to me that Texas must make it much more difficult for Medicaid eligible people to enroll.  Not inconceivable in a state that prides itself on having one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. If you look at Medicaid spending per person covered, I’m sure you’ll find the number are much closer.  


Since we&#039;re on the topic of transfer payments, lets look at the ratio of federal taxes paid to total federal benefits received by state.  My geography isn&#039;t perfect, but its clear that three of the states in black are New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.  The ratio of federal benefits to federal taxes paid for those three states are .79, .61 and .82.  So, in fact the &quot;most socialist&quot; states pay more then they receive.    Now, lets look at three of the light colored state, who most of you think are the least socialist.  Those are Texas, Mississippi and Georgia.
For every dollar of federal taxes paid, they receive .94, 2.02 and 1.44.  The only one that pays more in taxes they they receive in benefits is Texas, and by a smaller margin then the three dark colored states.  So much for that theory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s amazing how you publish such a biased set of statistics without any analysis.  Let’s compare Texas and New York in detail.  </p>
<p>The population of Texas is about 24,000,000 with 16.7% of the population living under the poverty line, or about 4,000,000. The total Medicaid enrollment for Texas is about 2,900,000.  The population of New York is about 17,000,000 with a 14.2% of the population living under the poverty line, or about 2,400,000.  The total Medicaid enrollment for New York is about 4,200,000.    Now, Medicaid eligibility is supposed to be twice the poverty line.   It’s obvious to me that Texas must make it much more difficult for Medicaid eligible people to enroll.  Not inconceivable in a state that prides itself on having one of the highest uninsured rates in the country. If you look at Medicaid spending per person covered, I’m sure you’ll find the number are much closer.  </p>
<p>Since we&#8217;re on the topic of transfer payments, lets look at the ratio of federal taxes paid to total federal benefits received by state.  My geography isn&#8217;t perfect, but its clear that three of the states in black are New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.  The ratio of federal benefits to federal taxes paid for those three states are .79, .61 and .82.  So, in fact the &#8220;most socialist&#8221; states pay more then they receive.    Now, lets look at three of the light colored state, who most of you think are the least socialist.  Those are Texas, Mississippi and Georgia.<br />
For every dollar of federal taxes paid, they receive .94, 2.02 and 1.44.  The only one that pays more in taxes they they receive in benefits is Texas, and by a smaller margin then the three dark colored states.  So much for that theory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Williams.</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55536</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Williams.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:34:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55536</guid>
		<description>The inefficient allocation of resoucres demonstrated by this map must drive (real) economists crazy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The inefficient allocation of resoucres demonstrated by this map must drive (real) economists crazy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rust W.</title>
		<link>http://healthblog.ncpa.org/subsidizing-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-55519</link>
		<dc:creator>Rust W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/?p=9475#comment-55519</guid>
		<description>Linda makes an interesting observation. The states getting the most federal dollars are not only  wealthy, they are also the most socialist -- at least on health care issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Linda makes an interesting observation. The states getting the most federal dollars are not only  wealthy, they are also the most socialist &#8212; at least on health care issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

