Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and insures >25 million children) -- cut dramatically. I'm curious as to what your source is for this. Running some quick figures on government non-veterans, non-Medicare health spending, which I think would be a pretty good proxy for the sort of things you seem concerned about, I have the following increases in real spending: Bush 90 - 15% 91 - 19% 92 - 23% Bush/Clinton 93 - 9% Clinton 94 - 5% 95 - 6% 96 - 1% 97 - 2% 98 - 5% 99 - 6% 00 - 7% Clinton/Bush 01 - 9% Bush 02 - 12% 03 - 10% 04 - 7% 05 - 5% (est.) If you want to talk in terms of percentage of GDP: Bush 90 - 1.01% 91 - 1.20% 92 - 1.43% Bush/Clinton 93 - 1.51% Clinton 94 - 1.54% 95 - 1.58% 96 - 1.55% 97 - 1.51% 98 - 1.52% 99 - 1.55% 00 - 1.59% Clinton/Bush 01 - 1.71% Bush 02 - 1.89% 03 - 2.03% 04 - 2.08% 05 - 2.11% (est.) Either way, it seems to me like the Republican record looks pretty good if you want to measure such thing in terms of spending. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:59:35 -0400, JDG wrote > At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > >Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and > insures > >25 million children) -- cut dramatically. > > I'm curious as to what your source is for this. All you have to do it look at today's news about the budget before Congress. Go to Google News and search on Medicaid and budget. And of course there is much more beyond current news. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:24 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> >Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and >> insures >> >25 million children) -- cut dramatically. >> >> I'm curious as to what your source is for this. > >All you have to do it look at today's news about the budget before Congress. >Go to Google News and search on Medicaid and budget. And of course there >is much more beyond current news. And even if these proposed, nobinding (yet) cuts were to take effect, how would the Republicans' overall record on social services spending compare to that, of say, Bill Clinton's? Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response from my last message in your answer. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote > Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response > from my last message in your answer. Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even as the nation gains wealth. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote > > > Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response > > from my last message in your answer. > > Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to > two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. > > Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even > as the nation gains wealth. > > Nick I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. Somehow I don't trust the ones provided earlier. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/3/05, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote > > > > > Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without > > > response > > > from my last message in your answer. > > > > Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves > > to > > two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. > > > > Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing > > even > > as the nation gains wealth. > > > > Nick > I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. > > I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. Somehow I amplification > ^^^ and Medicaid > don't trust the ones provided earlier. > > -- > Gary Denton > Easter Lemming Blogs > http://elemming.blogspot.com > http://elemming2.blogspot.com > ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Original Message - From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis On 5/3/05, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote > > > > > Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response > > > from my last message in your answer. > > > > Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to > > two ideological choices. I'm not going to start debating that ideology. > > > > Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing even > > as the nation gains wealth. > > > > Nick > I think I am in the odd position of disagreeing with both of you. > > I need to find a source for some valid figures of poverty. I think the census bureau's figures are pretty well trusted. Somehow I amplification > ^^^ and Medicaid > don't trust the ones provided earlier. the GAO is fairly decent at that. Medicaid spending has gone through the roof as the result of so many elderly in nursing homes who have worked through their savings...or have earlier passed savings on to their kids. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:33 PM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing >even >as the nation gains wealth. If that's true, then why did you single out Republicans for criticism? Moreover, if increased anti-poverty spending does not prevent poverty from increasing, why is increased anti-poverty spending so important to you? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:24:50 -0400, JDG wrote > why is increased anti-poverty spending so > important to you? I'm not advocating "spending," I'm advocating for doing a better job at creating a social safety net and opportunities, in a country where one out of six children lives in poverty. Our budgets and calendars aren't just about spending, they reveal our priorities more clearly than our words. I'm asking what you care about, how you see our responsibilities as a nation, with regard to the neediest. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 05:54 AM 5/4/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: >> why is increased anti-poverty spending so >> important to you? > >I'm not advocating "spending," Well, you managed to lambaste Republicans in several posts for not spending enough JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
