Check this statement from Rand Paul:
U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul said today that Medicaid spending would be better controlled if managed at the state level.
“Medicaid can be more frugally managed as a block grant program” he said. “This change would improve America’s fiscal health without hurting poor people.”
“The same people who are now telling us bailouts and clunker car programs will save the economy were also wrong back in 1996 when they said welfare reform would increase poverty,” Rand Paul said.
“Entitlements and their unfunded mandates keep getting bigger and doing nothing about them is no longer an option,” Rand said. “We can’t hope to instill any kind of discipline in the system without slowing down the gravy train.”
Unfortunately for Rand Paul? Check this:
Medicaid is a state administered program and each state sets its own guidelines regarding eligibility and services.
Duh. Medicaid is already managed by each state.
Jesus H. The stupid. It hurts.
12 responses so far ↓
1 TJ // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:38 am
I agree with Rand, and so should most conservatives. Medicaid would be vastly improved if changed from a fully funded entitlement program to a block grant program.
2 David Adams // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:51 am
Big difference between a federally funded, state run program with no incentive to stop spending money and a block grant program in which states who run out of money would be forced to raise taxes or, heaven forbid, stop spending.
That’s the difference between states administering a federal program with no accountability and managing a block grant based on fiscal reality.
3 EdenSprings // Nov 24, 2009 at 11:52 am
Are you sure that’s from Rand Paul and not his sister, Ru Paul? (Anyway, she’s a lot more fun….)
4 tbrauch // Nov 24, 2009 at 2:10 pm
So let me gets this straight.
Rand Paul thinks Medicare could be better managed than it currently is by managing it the way it currently is?
5 curtis morrison // Nov 24, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Um, David. Medicaid is not solely funded by the federal government? It’s jointly funded by the states too. There IS an incentive to limit spending as the state has limited funds, silly. In fact, many jointly-funded programs aren’t even participated in by poor states like Mississippi because they can’t even afford their match.
6 David Adams // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Curtis,
The open-ended federal match incentivizes states to overspend on Medicaid because the federal government sends more money when they do. Freezing Medicaid’s spending where it is now and giving it to the states to decide how the finite amount of money is spent will encourage responsibility in a way the entitlement approach never will. Even Obama is talking about cutting deficits now. Just offering a good place to start.
7 jake // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:32 pm
I can’t believe you would comment on a “radical left” website, David.
8 David Jones // Nov 24, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Well, really we should not have any of these programs in the first place. They should be charity programs (try comparing FEMA to Habitat for Humanity.) If individuals and businesses had their tax money back from our large inefficient government, we wouldn’t be bankrupt, we would have more jobs, and we wouldn’t have as many people that need these programs in the first place. The existence of these programs sort of amplifies their reason to exist. The government does not need to take away yet another consequence, but instead, it should start adding back in the natural consequences it has attempted to remove over the years. This lack of consequences, or moral hazard, is a big part of our problems today.
As for adding to our health programs in anyway (block grants / or other) the CBO is generally off by about 50% on average in the good years, sometimes as much as 100% off in these sorts of estimates. With the economy where it is today and no stimulus (yet) for the states this year, we have never seen a more uncertain economy (or dollar). We are underestimating the costs of this program, and we have likely underestimated our military needs in a worldwide economic slump as well. It makes no sense to add to the very problems that have put us where we are today. When the CBO was off by 100%, the dollar was not declining so fast either. Today the market is around 10,000, 10 years ago it was also around 10,000, it is measured in dollars and the dollar has declined about 40% – much of that after Obama came into office. Seems like a bad time to even talk about adding health programs when we should be cutting out at least half of our overall Federal government just to get back on track.
9 ahem // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:36 am
Mr. Adams you are revealing yourself to not be a conservative government person but more of a libertarian which is fine but then you should be honest and register that way. you speak as though you are opposed to government period. I am a true conservative but there is a place for government…there are things in which even the conservative founders believed were reasons to form a government…you know silly things like establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty…all the things they listed in the preamble…the preamble of the constitution. and yes, a constitution constitutes by necessity a government. i too am for very limited government and think the government, particularly at the state and federal level, has it’s nose entirely too far into people’s business, but i recognize that there is a role for government…and yes, even a centralized federal government…which again, founders supported…since that time, we’ve debated enough power for the feds or too much…that won’t change. accept that there is a role for government period and we can then debate what that role is and to what extent it should be.
10 Andrew // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 pm
“ensure domestic tranquility” lol. well you’re right about the federal gov’t having a limited but important role such as national defense, but that’s exactly what Rand is talking about so i don’t even understand your point. as far as him being a libertarian, i think you have him confused with his father though.
11 jake // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Interesting that no one ever comments in support of Rand Paul from within Kentucky.
12 ERB // Nov 25, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Probably because real Republicans in Kentucky are getting ready for thanksgiving , focusing on their families and their live and work, the rest of you are probably feeding off the same bs in which you mock…
Leave a Comment