>
>
> > Dear Penners: Thursday's Wall St. Journal had a particularly odious column
> > on the OP ED page by some Cato Institute folks who trotted out the old lie
> > that welfare is very generous (more generous than wages) --- the did this by
> > putting in MEDICAID. We all know that's a crock. We need someone who can
> > get his/her hands on Medicaid data state by state (my 1993 Green Book is a
> > bit out of date, the 1994 one doesn't seem to have Medicaid data --- anyoone
> > see the 1995 edition) and give a couple of examples to expose how dishonest
> > the presentation is --- and then make the comment that Medicaid cannot be
> > counted as INCOME to the poor. It's income to the doctors, etc.
>
> But Medicaid IS income to the poor; it does represent the purchase of
> medical goods and services, such as they are, which poor people
> actually use. [Think about it: if we go to the doctor, we give
> income to doctors, no matter whether we get Medicaid or not. ]
> The problem is that it is *tied* income, which even
> straight neoclassical theory suggests reduces its value.
>
> Counting Medicaid further misses the point if one fails to note that
> poor people are subjected to much greater health hazards (gunshot
> wounds, for starters) and have less ability to practice preventative
> care. I bet if someone calculated a Gini coefficient based on the
> distribution of income as measured by the General Progress Index
> (or whatever it was called), one would get a more severe reading on
> income inequality, even if Medicaid were included. Gil Skillman
>
There are two problems:
1) you can't take the average state medicaid out and
use it as cash and 2) it makes it appear that the sicker
you are then the better off you are.
J. Hartman
