It's more than just about Medicaid...
Groups survey 20 "meanest" cities for homeless - U.S. Life - MSNBC.com
Bah, Humbug! I guess homeless people aren't a large enough bloc of voters for the politicians to care.
But seriously. I found this link. It is a transcript of what Senator Gregg's view is on this Medicaid cut. In it, he is essentially saying (as I understand it) that these cuts are for the children--that he does not want to see the children of today being burdened by the amount of taxation required "to support this entire generation, which is so huge." So, old folks, you're being bumped by little Baby Billy.
Sad thing is, the senator's right. We can't afford to cover *everyone*. There is no good answer. Even boosting taxes isn't going to help. Take a look at his chart, on that same link, regarding Medicaid spending. $40 billion in 1990. $192 billion in 2006. $152 billion in 16 years!? That's almost a $10 billion a year INCREASE. $5 billion over 5 years is nothing. By 2030, another 24 years, that's MORE than $300 billion in Medicaid spending alone, and that's if the graph is LINEAR. In 2010, the "Baby Boomer" generation starts retiring. So this graph will no longer be linear. We could be looking at half a trillion dollars or more. Can we handle that? You'll have a huge amount of the population with little or no disposable income...which means less tax revenue from the retirees. Where else is the government going to get tax revenue?
Senator Gregg paints a bleak picture for working Americans and--yes--today's children.
What is the GOOD answer? Is there some way to rein in the costs of medical treatment? That's really the only thing that's going to stop this potential nightmare.
I realize I've been talking about retirees and children, in regards to Medicaid. The fact of the matter is, if there's less money for these groups of people, there's less for homeless people. To rectify that situation, the government needs to eliminate homelessness. To do that, they need to get these people meaningful jobs. You can still have a job and be homeless. Do you think a person making $7 to $8 an hour at McDonalds in New York City can afford an apartment!? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. No. The government needs to funnel money into education and treatment.
I haven't done the research on it yet, but I do know that President Bush (and Congress I'm assuming) have cut funds to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR): a service designed to help people handicapped either on the job or by nature's design find new, meaningful work. I know that funds were cut because my VR counselor TOLD me funds were cut.
How can we get homeless people GOOD jobs and therefore off the street, while at the same time take away money from training programs that can help these people get the jobs they need?
The problem of homeless people and Medicaid goes way beyond just Medicaid. And people need to understand that. The entire social system is interlinked. You make changes to one part of the system, and it can throw everything out of whack.
...Cities aren't getting any help from the federal government, Stoops said, citing legislation passed in December by the House and Senate that is meant to slash Medicaid funding by $4.8 billion and trim Supplemental Security Income assistance by more than $700 million over the next five years.
Bah, Humbug! I guess homeless people aren't a large enough bloc of voters for the politicians to care.
But seriously. I found this link. It is a transcript of what Senator Gregg's view is on this Medicaid cut. In it, he is essentially saying (as I understand it) that these cuts are for the children--that he does not want to see the children of today being burdened by the amount of taxation required "to support this entire generation, which is so huge." So, old folks, you're being bumped by little Baby Billy.
Sad thing is, the senator's right. We can't afford to cover *everyone*. There is no good answer. Even boosting taxes isn't going to help. Take a look at his chart, on that same link, regarding Medicaid spending. $40 billion in 1990. $192 billion in 2006. $152 billion in 16 years!? That's almost a $10 billion a year INCREASE. $5 billion over 5 years is nothing. By 2030, another 24 years, that's MORE than $300 billion in Medicaid spending alone, and that's if the graph is LINEAR. In 2010, the "Baby Boomer" generation starts retiring. So this graph will no longer be linear. We could be looking at half a trillion dollars or more. Can we handle that? You'll have a huge amount of the population with little or no disposable income...which means less tax revenue from the retirees. Where else is the government going to get tax revenue?
Senator Gregg paints a bleak picture for working Americans and--yes--today's children.
What is the GOOD answer? Is there some way to rein in the costs of medical treatment? That's really the only thing that's going to stop this potential nightmare.
I realize I've been talking about retirees and children, in regards to Medicaid. The fact of the matter is, if there's less money for these groups of people, there's less for homeless people. To rectify that situation, the government needs to eliminate homelessness. To do that, they need to get these people meaningful jobs. You can still have a job and be homeless. Do you think a person making $7 to $8 an hour at McDonalds in New York City can afford an apartment!? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. No. The government needs to funnel money into education and treatment.
I haven't done the research on it yet, but I do know that President Bush (and Congress I'm assuming) have cut funds to Vocational Rehabilitation (VR): a service designed to help people handicapped either on the job or by nature's design find new, meaningful work. I know that funds were cut because my VR counselor TOLD me funds were cut.
How can we get homeless people GOOD jobs and therefore off the street, while at the same time take away money from training programs that can help these people get the jobs they need?
The problem of homeless people and Medicaid goes way beyond just Medicaid. And people need to understand that. The entire social system is interlinked. You make changes to one part of the system, and it can throw everything out of whack.
posted by xanadian at 8:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home