To contact us Click HERE
It is a fact that with the debt that China holds of ours, they are fenced in to making sure we survive this down turn, and we are just as sure to keep China's industries growing to keep our heads above the financial waters.
We need each other, as most industrial nations are intertwined in industrial production. It's how the system of free trade is supposed to work, only it would be nice if we weren't so far in debt to just about everyone.
Why Americans Should Root for a Strong Chinese Economy
Source: Josh Boak, "Why Americans Should Root for a Strong China Economy," Fiscal Times, September 21, 2012.
September 24, 2012
With both political campaigns pointing the finger at China for bad trade deals that steal American jobs, it is necessary to step back and realize the importance of a strong Chinese economy. The U.S. economy is heavily intertwined with the Chinese economy, and a slowdown for them could mean a slowdown for the U.S. economy, says Josh Boak of the Fiscal Times.
American jobs and the entire economy are dependent on China:
•More than 800,000 jobs relied on the $103.9 billion in goods and services shipped to China.
•U.S. exports to China have increased by 541 percent in the last decade.
•China holds $1.15 trillion in debt, which enables government expenditures on social programs and the military.
•Chinese firms invested $4.5 billion directly into the United States through mergers or the opening of new factories.
•Furthermore, the one million Chinese tourists that came to the United States last year spent an average of $6,500 each. The Commerce Department estimate that in 2016, 3.25 million Chinese will come to the United States to tour.
•Ohio alone exported $2.7 billion to China, an 838 percent increase since 2000.
•Finally, Chinese demand for American cars increased exports to China by 457 percent, or $4.55 billion.
However, opponents of China's industries do have some valid concerns. For example, it is estimated that the United States lost 1.9 million manufacturing jobs after China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO). Compounding this problem is that China has been able to artificially lower the value of their currency against the dollar. The Obama administration is currently pursuing a complaint with the WTO against China for subsidizing their auto parts industry.
China's economy can feel the impact of stagnant American and European economies. Chinese manufacturing has declined for the past 11 months as demand for products have gone down. Chinese corporate profits and property values have fallen 1.19 percent in the past 12 months, which has impacted American growth. Rather than bashing China, Americans should realize the importance of China's role in the import of goods and the benefits that are derived from trading.
26 Eylül 2012 Çarşamba
ObamaCare Costs A Trillion $ : 88% More then Obama Said
To contact us Click HERE
WOW - Here is just another 'good' reason to vote for Obama. But with all this information at the disposal of the general public, why would they willing vote for someone that will insure their future demise? The sick, seniors and any other groups that depends on government for their health care.
Why do Lemmings plunge off the cliff? Easy, they are just following the nutjob in the lead!
$1.8 Trillion Shock
Source: Paul Bedard, "$1.8 Trillion Shock: Obama Regs Cost 20-Times Estimate," Washington Examiner, September 20, 2012. Wayne Crews, "Tip of the Costberg," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fall 2012.
September 25, 2012
The Obama administration has passed a slew of regulations, including the new health care law, which together are poised to cost taxpayers and businesses more than originally assumed. According to estimates by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the cost of regulations will be about $1.8 trillion annually, nearly 20 times the $88 billion initially assumed, says the Washington Examiner.
The regulations are as onerous as they are numerous and will end up hurting many businesses. Some of the most expensive regulations include:
•The baseline for annual economic regulation: $373 billion.
•The baseline for aggregate annual social regulations: $406 billion.
•Regulations on the Department of Health and Human Services: $184.805 billion.
•Federal Communications Commission: $141.58 billion.
•Department of Homeland Security: $55.331 billion.
The roundup of the costs looks at the costs estimated by federal agencies as well as hard-to-calculate costs such as antitrust intervention, regulation of electricity networks and costs of constrained access to natural resources. The $1.8 trillion estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration, which the White House is eager to distance itself from.
Why do Lemmings plunge off the cliff? Easy, they are just following the nutjob in the lead!
$1.8 Trillion Shock
Source: Paul Bedard, "$1.8 Trillion Shock: Obama Regs Cost 20-Times Estimate," Washington Examiner, September 20, 2012. Wayne Crews, "Tip of the Costberg," Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fall 2012.
September 25, 2012
The Obama administration has passed a slew of regulations, including the new health care law, which together are poised to cost taxpayers and businesses more than originally assumed. According to estimates by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the cost of regulations will be about $1.8 trillion annually, nearly 20 times the $88 billion initially assumed, says the Washington Examiner.
The regulations are as onerous as they are numerous and will end up hurting many businesses. Some of the most expensive regulations include:
•The baseline for annual economic regulation: $373 billion.
•The baseline for aggregate annual social regulations: $406 billion.
•Regulations on the Department of Health and Human Services: $184.805 billion.
•Federal Communications Commission: $141.58 billion.
•Department of Homeland Security: $55.331 billion.
The roundup of the costs looks at the costs estimated by federal agencies as well as hard-to-calculate costs such as antitrust intervention, regulation of electricity networks and costs of constrained access to natural resources. The $1.8 trillion estimate is close to the $1.7 trillion estimate from the Small Business Administration, which the White House is eager to distance itself from.
Green Energy Production Failed BUT No Fossil Fuel Either
To contact us Click HERE
Again, this is not news - anyone with half an once of common sense knew this as the Obama administration jammed this nonsense down our throats. And it's not just wind power, it's the total failure of the solar industry which, again, was pushed by the progressive liberals as the wave of the future.
In a way they were right in saying wind and solar would the wave of the future in energy generation, it foretold the demise of the coal industry where thousands lost here jobs. Oh, and even knowing that the coal industry supplies over 40 percent of the electrical generation in this country, the progressives' agenda was on track to slow this countries progress into the future.
So, here is another good reason to veto for our progressive socialist leader, complete shut down of electrical generation for us and future generations. No coal, No natural gas, No oil and No nuclear power.
Cool! Really, living in card board box, if you can find one, won't be all that bad if you can place the blame on someone else, not the person in mirror. Oops, can't be that person, no mirror!!
Tax Credit in Doubt, Wind Power Industry Is Withering
Source: Diane Cardwell, "Tax Credit in Doubt, Wind Power Industry Is Withering," New York Times, September 20, 2012.
September 25, 2012
The wind turbine industry is struggling to sell its product, which, along with political setbacks, is forcing companies to scale back their operations and layoff employees, says the New York Times.
•The wind industry receives a tax break of $1 billion a year.
•However, the subsidy has become a wedge issue in the election, dooming any chances of an extension and at the very least delaying it.
•Furthermore, there has been reduced demand for electricity from wind energy, competition from cheap natural gas, and other Asian competitors.
•As a result, 10,000 jobs have disappeared since 2008, when the industry employed about 85,000 people.
The impacts of layoffs are not isolated to one area of the country or the world, but are being felt all across the industry. For example:
•Siemens recently announced it would lay off 945 workers in Kansas, Iowa and Florida.
•Katana Summit, a tower manufacturer, said it would shut down its entire operation if it could not find a buyer.
•Vestas, the world's largest turbine manufacturer, laid off 1,400 workers globally in addition to the 2,300 layoffs announced this year.
•Clipper Windpower, a manufacturer located in Iowa, is cutting its employment numbers down from 550 to 376.
As it stands, the tax credit subsidizes wind power by 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour, which has prompted many people to invest in wind power. However, opponents of the subsidy argue that the industry has had long enough to stand on its own feet and doesn't need the government's support anymore. And with wind representing such a small percentage of total energy generation, the taxpayers are not getting enough of a return on their investment.
In a way they were right in saying wind and solar would the wave of the future in energy generation, it foretold the demise of the coal industry where thousands lost here jobs. Oh, and even knowing that the coal industry supplies over 40 percent of the electrical generation in this country, the progressives' agenda was on track to slow this countries progress into the future.
So, here is another good reason to veto for our progressive socialist leader, complete shut down of electrical generation for us and future generations. No coal, No natural gas, No oil and No nuclear power.
Cool! Really, living in card board box, if you can find one, won't be all that bad if you can place the blame on someone else, not the person in mirror. Oops, can't be that person, no mirror!!
Tax Credit in Doubt, Wind Power Industry Is Withering
Source: Diane Cardwell, "Tax Credit in Doubt, Wind Power Industry Is Withering," New York Times, September 20, 2012.
September 25, 2012
The wind turbine industry is struggling to sell its product, which, along with political setbacks, is forcing companies to scale back their operations and layoff employees, says the New York Times.
•The wind industry receives a tax break of $1 billion a year.
•However, the subsidy has become a wedge issue in the election, dooming any chances of an extension and at the very least delaying it.
•Furthermore, there has been reduced demand for electricity from wind energy, competition from cheap natural gas, and other Asian competitors.
•As a result, 10,000 jobs have disappeared since 2008, when the industry employed about 85,000 people.
The impacts of layoffs are not isolated to one area of the country or the world, but are being felt all across the industry. For example:
•Siemens recently announced it would lay off 945 workers in Kansas, Iowa and Florida.
•Katana Summit, a tower manufacturer, said it would shut down its entire operation if it could not find a buyer.
•Vestas, the world's largest turbine manufacturer, laid off 1,400 workers globally in addition to the 2,300 layoffs announced this year.
•Clipper Windpower, a manufacturer located in Iowa, is cutting its employment numbers down from 550 to 376.
As it stands, the tax credit subsidizes wind power by 2.2 cents a kilowatt-hour, which has prompted many people to invest in wind power. However, opponents of the subsidy argue that the industry has had long enough to stand on its own feet and doesn't need the government's support anymore. And with wind representing such a small percentage of total energy generation, the taxpayers are not getting enough of a return on their investment.
Federal Reserve's QE3 : A Progressive Democrat Institution
To contact us Click HERE
The Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing (QE3) is just another attempt to keep the stock market level until the election, nothing more. The first two didn't work so why try another with the risk of inflation and or total collapse of the dollar which just fell another 6% against other currencties? What this looks like is the Fed has become just another arm of the progressive socialist Democrat party.
The Federal Reserves reputation has been completely compromised as a nonpartisan institution.
The Fed Doubles Down
Source: John H. Makin, "The Fed Doubles Down," American Enterprise Institute, September 13, 2012.
September 25, 2012
The Federal Reserve is working tirelessly to increase economic growth and reduce unemployment. According to a recent statement by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the Fed's new conditional approach allows it to affect real variables like the level of unemployment by precommitting it to further action if goals are not met and precommitting it to maintain a highly accommodative policy stance, says John H. Makin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
At a glance, the FOMC statement looks like another round of quantitative easing:
•The Fed will purchase mortgage-backed securities at $40 billion per month.
•Additionally, the existing Operation Twist measures will continue as an attempt to push down long term interest rates.
However, the difference between quantitative easing and what the Fed says in the statement is that the FOMC will monitor economic and financial conditions and if the labor market does not improve substantially, the committee will "employ its other policy tools as appropriate until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability." This allows an extreme amount of flexibility for the Fed, which means that:
•The purchase of assets and use of other tools will continue until the labor market improves.
•Furthermore, it assumes there is no possibility of failure, as asset buying will continue until the market improves.
•Also, there is ambiguity about the response to asset buying in the case of a rise in inflation.
•Finally, the Fed expects that a highly accommodative stance will go on for at least three years.
The Fed's bold strategy represents a high-risk, high-reward type situation. If inflation doesn't rise and the economy picks up, the banks are in for good news as the Fed will be able to hold down short term interest rates. However, if the Fed tries to hold down long term rates while the economy is recovering, the risk of inflation is greatly enhanced.
The Federal Reserves reputation has been completely compromised as a nonpartisan institution.
The Fed Doubles Down
Source: John H. Makin, "The Fed Doubles Down," American Enterprise Institute, September 13, 2012.
September 25, 2012
The Federal Reserve is working tirelessly to increase economic growth and reduce unemployment. According to a recent statement by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the Fed's new conditional approach allows it to affect real variables like the level of unemployment by precommitting it to further action if goals are not met and precommitting it to maintain a highly accommodative policy stance, says John H. Makin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
At a glance, the FOMC statement looks like another round of quantitative easing:
•The Fed will purchase mortgage-backed securities at $40 billion per month.
•Additionally, the existing Operation Twist measures will continue as an attempt to push down long term interest rates.
However, the difference between quantitative easing and what the Fed says in the statement is that the FOMC will monitor economic and financial conditions and if the labor market does not improve substantially, the committee will "employ its other policy tools as appropriate until such improvement is achieved in a context of price stability." This allows an extreme amount of flexibility for the Fed, which means that:
•The purchase of assets and use of other tools will continue until the labor market improves.
•Furthermore, it assumes there is no possibility of failure, as asset buying will continue until the market improves.
•Also, there is ambiguity about the response to asset buying in the case of a rise in inflation.
•Finally, the Fed expects that a highly accommodative stance will go on for at least three years.
The Fed's bold strategy represents a high-risk, high-reward type situation. If inflation doesn't rise and the economy picks up, the banks are in for good news as the Fed will be able to hold down short term interest rates. However, if the Fed tries to hold down long term rates while the economy is recovering, the risk of inflation is greatly enhanced.
ObamaCare Misses Millions of Uninsured : 100's of Billions More $$
To contact us Click HERE
ObamaCare (ACA) advocates have always said that cost will be reduced when their plan goes into effect. Really? How do costs become less when 10's of millions of new people become eligible for care, people that have no way of paying a cent for this care?
This program will cost 100's of billions more then the progressive socialist say it will and pay no mind to the fact that many of these on the list have no jobs and the economy collapsing. Just where is the money going to come from to pay for all of this insanity.
The Obama administration doesn't care about how it will be paid for, it's about establishing a huge dependent base that the progressive socialist believe will always vote for them to keep the benefits coming. But the problem is when the money runs out, who will suffer the most?
Believe the administration doesn't worry about that as it is a near future problem. What the administration's agenda demands is the more people that can be forced into dependency in the near term the more voters that can rely on this November as the progressive socialites begin the complete destruction of our way of life.
Can't happen here you say? You're too late for that thinking, as of January 1st, 2013, brings the largest tax hike in the history of our country for everyone, that's every tax payer, not just the rich that will hide their money. So who will pay this nightmare? Surely you aren't that stupid!
The Crisis of the Uninsured Is Far from Over
Source: Devon Herrick, "The Crisis of the Uninsured Is Far from Over," National Center for Policy Analysis, September 25, 2012.
September 25, 2012
The number of people who lack health coverage fell to 48.6 million in 2011 -- down slightly from 49.9 million the year before, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A bright spot in the new report is that about 407,000 fewer adults between the ages of 35 and 44 were uninsured in 2011, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
However, the crisis of the uninsured is far from over. Moreover, it is unlikely to be resolved by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- the federal health reform law.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 30 million people will remain uninsured a decade from now when the ACA is fully implemented. One of the stated goals for passing the ACA was to boost access to health coverage. Yet, a significant number of people will remain uninsured even after the law is fully implemented.
•Consider, when they go into effect in 2016, penalties for going without health coverage will be far less than the cost of coverage -- if the penalties are enforced at all.
•A further concern is that up to 30 percent of businesses will likely find it to their advantage to drop their employee health plan when their workers have access to subsidized coverage in the state health insurance exchanges, beginning in 2014.
•Up to half of the uninsured were expected to gain coverage after states expand Medicaid eligibility to all legal residents earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($15,415 for one person, or $31,809 for a family of four). But this is unlikely to occur now that the Supreme Court has ruled that states are not required to expand state Medicaid programs.
Moreover, about 13 million foreign-born residents are uninsured -- accounting for one-quarter (27 percent) of those who lack health coverage. Nearly half (44 percent) of foreign-born noncitizen residents currently lack health coverage. Only immigrants who have been legal residents for more than five years qualify for public coverage, and most will not qualify for health insurance subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges.
The uninsured include diverse groups, each uninsured for a different reason. These groups include:
•Low-income families (19.2 million individuals).
•Middle-income families (nearly 14.7 million individuals).
•The young and healthy (about 19.2 million 18-to-34 year olds).
•Middle-aged adults (about 13.4 million 45-to-64 year olds).
This program will cost 100's of billions more then the progressive socialist say it will and pay no mind to the fact that many of these on the list have no jobs and the economy collapsing. Just where is the money going to come from to pay for all of this insanity.
The Obama administration doesn't care about how it will be paid for, it's about establishing a huge dependent base that the progressive socialist believe will always vote for them to keep the benefits coming. But the problem is when the money runs out, who will suffer the most?
Believe the administration doesn't worry about that as it is a near future problem. What the administration's agenda demands is the more people that can be forced into dependency in the near term the more voters that can rely on this November as the progressive socialites begin the complete destruction of our way of life.
Can't happen here you say? You're too late for that thinking, as of January 1st, 2013, brings the largest tax hike in the history of our country for everyone, that's every tax payer, not just the rich that will hide their money. So who will pay this nightmare? Surely you aren't that stupid!
The Crisis of the Uninsured Is Far from Over
Source: Devon Herrick, "The Crisis of the Uninsured Is Far from Over," National Center for Policy Analysis, September 25, 2012.
September 25, 2012
The number of people who lack health coverage fell to 48.6 million in 2011 -- down slightly from 49.9 million the year before, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. A bright spot in the new report is that about 407,000 fewer adults between the ages of 35 and 44 were uninsured in 2011, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.
However, the crisis of the uninsured is far from over. Moreover, it is unlikely to be resolved by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- the federal health reform law.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that 30 million people will remain uninsured a decade from now when the ACA is fully implemented. One of the stated goals for passing the ACA was to boost access to health coverage. Yet, a significant number of people will remain uninsured even after the law is fully implemented.
•Consider, when they go into effect in 2016, penalties for going without health coverage will be far less than the cost of coverage -- if the penalties are enforced at all.
•A further concern is that up to 30 percent of businesses will likely find it to their advantage to drop their employee health plan when their workers have access to subsidized coverage in the state health insurance exchanges, beginning in 2014.
•Up to half of the uninsured were expected to gain coverage after states expand Medicaid eligibility to all legal residents earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level ($15,415 for one person, or $31,809 for a family of four). But this is unlikely to occur now that the Supreme Court has ruled that states are not required to expand state Medicaid programs.
Moreover, about 13 million foreign-born residents are uninsured -- accounting for one-quarter (27 percent) of those who lack health coverage. Nearly half (44 percent) of foreign-born noncitizen residents currently lack health coverage. Only immigrants who have been legal residents for more than five years qualify for public coverage, and most will not qualify for health insurance subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges.
The uninsured include diverse groups, each uninsured for a different reason. These groups include:
•Low-income families (19.2 million individuals).
•Middle-income families (nearly 14.7 million individuals).
•The young and healthy (about 19.2 million 18-to-34 year olds).
•Middle-aged adults (about 13.4 million 45-to-64 year olds).
25 Eylül 2012 Salı
Pensions Plans in States Failing : Reform to Hard
To contact us Click HERE
This is not hard to understand as most government agencies that are under water, and continuing to fail, are headed by progressives that believe there is no tax to high to implement to bring in more revenue to spend.
Just look what happened in Wisconsin under the direction Scott Walker, a Conservative. Now look at what is happening in Illinois and California under the direction of possessives socialist Democrats.
Pension Woe Mounts As States Forsake Reform
Source: Steven Malanga, "Pension Woe Mounts As States Forsake Reform," Real Clear Markets, September 12, 2012.
September 21, 2012
States are scrambling to find a solution to soaring pension debts. Since 2009, more than 40 states have reported enacting some manner of changes to their pension systems to save money. However, these changes do nothing and make governments spend more of their budgets on their pension system, says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
•From 2008 to 2010, unfunded pension and retiree health care benefits grew 38 percent to $1.38 trillion.
•Since 2008, pension liabilities have soared to an estimated $4.6 trillion, a $2 trillion increase.
•The average investment returns on all public pension funds was only 1.1 percent, compared to the anticipated 7.5 percent to 8 percent.
Many states have pursued feeble strategies to take care of their pension problems but have been met with fierce opposition from union lobbyists.
•California passed a watered down version of a bill that would have saved $50 billion over the next 30 years.
•Twenty-three states have raised the retirement age for new workers and increased the number of years those employees need to work before they access benefits.
•However, these reforms don't affect the current workforce.
•Similarly, New York created a less expensive pension system for new employees that would save $21 billion over the next 30 years. However, the savings don't mean much in the context of the $259 billion New York will have to contribute to its pension funds.
The reason states end up passing laws that only affect new employees is that many states write into their constitutions that no changes can be made to benefit levels of current workers. New Jersey is considering proposals to their constitution that would allow benefits to be cut to current employees.
Utah and Rhode Island provide examples of states that show promise in their pension system reforms.
•After the stock market decline of 2008, Utah's pension went from 95 percent funding to 87 percent.
•Furthermore, they closed down its defined benefit pensions to new workers and opened a 401(k) style retirement savings account.
•This reduced the risk that Utah would go bankrupt from 50 percent to 10 percent.
•Similarly, Rhode Island suspended annual cost-of-living adjustments for retirees.
•Furthermore, new employees were put in a system where they have small defined benefits and a 401(k) style plan.
•This is estimated to have cut the pension system's unfunded liabilities in half to $3 billion.
Just look what happened in Wisconsin under the direction Scott Walker, a Conservative. Now look at what is happening in Illinois and California under the direction of possessives socialist Democrats.
Pension Woe Mounts As States Forsake Reform
Source: Steven Malanga, "Pension Woe Mounts As States Forsake Reform," Real Clear Markets, September 12, 2012.
September 21, 2012
States are scrambling to find a solution to soaring pension debts. Since 2009, more than 40 states have reported enacting some manner of changes to their pension systems to save money. However, these changes do nothing and make governments spend more of their budgets on their pension system, says Steven Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
•From 2008 to 2010, unfunded pension and retiree health care benefits grew 38 percent to $1.38 trillion.
•Since 2008, pension liabilities have soared to an estimated $4.6 trillion, a $2 trillion increase.
•The average investment returns on all public pension funds was only 1.1 percent, compared to the anticipated 7.5 percent to 8 percent.
Many states have pursued feeble strategies to take care of their pension problems but have been met with fierce opposition from union lobbyists.
•California passed a watered down version of a bill that would have saved $50 billion over the next 30 years.
•Twenty-three states have raised the retirement age for new workers and increased the number of years those employees need to work before they access benefits.
•However, these reforms don't affect the current workforce.
•Similarly, New York created a less expensive pension system for new employees that would save $21 billion over the next 30 years. However, the savings don't mean much in the context of the $259 billion New York will have to contribute to its pension funds.
The reason states end up passing laws that only affect new employees is that many states write into their constitutions that no changes can be made to benefit levels of current workers. New Jersey is considering proposals to their constitution that would allow benefits to be cut to current employees.
Utah and Rhode Island provide examples of states that show promise in their pension system reforms.
•After the stock market decline of 2008, Utah's pension went from 95 percent funding to 87 percent.
•Furthermore, they closed down its defined benefit pensions to new workers and opened a 401(k) style retirement savings account.
•This reduced the risk that Utah would go bankrupt from 50 percent to 10 percent.
•Similarly, Rhode Island suspended annual cost-of-living adjustments for retirees.
•Furthermore, new employees were put in a system where they have small defined benefits and a 401(k) style plan.
•This is estimated to have cut the pension system's unfunded liabilities in half to $3 billion.
Medicaid Costing States Huge Revenue
To contact us Click HERE
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says the new ObamaCare act (ACA) will increase the burden for states to care for the millions of new participants in the health care program jammed down every ones throats.
Wait, this isn't news, this has been known from the beginning and just one of the many reasons every Republican voted against ObamaCare. Dumping the majority of the costs on the states is just a tool used by Obama to hide the real cost of 'single payer' health coverage.
Every thing Mr Obama said about ObamaCare has proven to be false and he knew this from the beginning. Mr Obama believes, and rightly so, no matter what he says, a huge number of the population will believe him and the main stream media will carry the lie as long as necessary.
Medicaid Expansion Will Become More Costly to States
Source: Drew Gonshorowski, "Medicaid Expansion Will Become More Costly to States," Heritage Foundation, August 30, 2012.
September 21, 2012
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal government has given many options to state governments that seem attractive on the surface but may end up being very costly, says Drew Gonshorowski, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
•Under the ACA, states can choose to expand their Medicaid populations to include individuals below 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
•The federal government will pick up 100 percent of payments for the first three years and then roll back its payments.
•The expansion would increase federal spending by $642 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.
•This option is meant to induce states to choose to expand Medicaid because of the perceived low costs.
However, President Obama has already proposed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that reduces the federal match rate on the expansion, which would have several implications for states. Indeed, the proposed blended rate in the budget would cost states up to $3.4 billion a year.
Several scenarios were simulated to show the different results a state could experience if the federal match rates are reduced. In the first simulation, the 100 percent match rate as specified by the ACA is assumed. In the second scenario, a 90 percent match rate is assumed. The third scenario is reduced by 10 percent but keeps the same schedule as the ACA. In the fourth and final scenario, the match rate is reduced to the blended rate. Some examples are given on how they would affect individual states:
•Ohio would see increased spending by $407 million in the first five years under the first scenario, $1.3 billion in the second scenario, and $2.5 billion in the last scenario.
•Similarly, Illinois would spend $840 million in the first scenario, $2 billion in the second scenario, and $6.6 billion under the proposed blended rate.
•Finally, in Georgia, spending could increase by $200 million in the first five years. However, ithe match rate is lowered, costs could go up to $1.2 billion.
State legislatures must be cautious in assessing the costs and benefits of expanding Medicaid. While the federal government makes claims of lowered overall costs, the proposed blended rates actually place a heavier burden on the states to pay for Medicaid.
Wait, this isn't news, this has been known from the beginning and just one of the many reasons every Republican voted against ObamaCare. Dumping the majority of the costs on the states is just a tool used by Obama to hide the real cost of 'single payer' health coverage.
Every thing Mr Obama said about ObamaCare has proven to be false and he knew this from the beginning. Mr Obama believes, and rightly so, no matter what he says, a huge number of the population will believe him and the main stream media will carry the lie as long as necessary.
Medicaid Expansion Will Become More Costly to States
Source: Drew Gonshorowski, "Medicaid Expansion Will Become More Costly to States," Heritage Foundation, August 30, 2012.
September 21, 2012
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the federal government has given many options to state governments that seem attractive on the surface but may end up being very costly, says Drew Gonshorowski, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
•Under the ACA, states can choose to expand their Medicaid populations to include individuals below 138 percent of the federal poverty level.
•The federal government will pick up 100 percent of payments for the first three years and then roll back its payments.
•The expansion would increase federal spending by $642 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office.
•This option is meant to induce states to choose to expand Medicaid because of the perceived low costs.
However, President Obama has already proposed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that reduces the federal match rate on the expansion, which would have several implications for states. Indeed, the proposed blended rate in the budget would cost states up to $3.4 billion a year.
Several scenarios were simulated to show the different results a state could experience if the federal match rates are reduced. In the first simulation, the 100 percent match rate as specified by the ACA is assumed. In the second scenario, a 90 percent match rate is assumed. The third scenario is reduced by 10 percent but keeps the same schedule as the ACA. In the fourth and final scenario, the match rate is reduced to the blended rate. Some examples are given on how they would affect individual states:
•Ohio would see increased spending by $407 million in the first five years under the first scenario, $1.3 billion in the second scenario, and $2.5 billion in the last scenario.
•Similarly, Illinois would spend $840 million in the first scenario, $2 billion in the second scenario, and $6.6 billion under the proposed blended rate.
•Finally, in Georgia, spending could increase by $200 million in the first five years. However, ithe match rate is lowered, costs could go up to $1.2 billion.
State legislatures must be cautious in assessing the costs and benefits of expanding Medicaid. While the federal government makes claims of lowered overall costs, the proposed blended rates actually place a heavier burden on the states to pay for Medicaid.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)