Comments on: Rand Paul Confused About Medicaid

By: ERB

ERB — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:06:13 +0000

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…

By: jake

jake — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:09:02 +0000

Interesting that no one ever comments in support of Rand Paul from within Kentucky.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:07:10 +0000

“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.

By: ahem

ahem — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:36:42 +0000

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.

By: David Jones

David Jones — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:50:50 +0000

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.

By: jake

jake — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:35 +0000

I can’t believe you would comment on a “radical left” website, David.

By: David Adams

David Adams — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:27:01 +0000

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.

By: curtis morrison

curtis morrison — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:27:04 +0000

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.

By: tbrauch

tbrauch — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:10:11 +0000

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?

By: EdenSprings

EdenSprings — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:52:57 +0000

Are you sure that’s from Rand Paul and not his sister, Ru Paul? (Anyway, she’s a lot more fun….)