was this a class project, and did one of your students compile the data and create that chart?

is that ALL the info one gets?

that chart tells me zero in relative comparison between states and spending budgets of each and the overall net impact to each....

are the poorer states suffering from this....

are the richer states absorbing more b/c they have the cash....

is the goal to show overall dollars spent as a percentage? that's worthless....all state budgets aren't equal....one states percentage means something different than another states percentage.....

how are the percentages derived? what is the metric use to calculate? I get what is stated....but a macro view in this instance doesn't tell me squat relative to an individual state....I would like to see the data used and how it was compiled....

I'm certain there are many others....

another worthless bar chart.....

(10-21-2015 10:33 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  was this a class project, and did one of your students compile the data and create that chart?

is that ALL the info one gets?

that chart tells me zero in relative comparison between states and spending budgets of each and the overall net impact to each....

are the poorer states suffering from this....

are the richer states absorbing more b/c they have the cash....

is the goal to show overall dollars spent as a percentage?

how are the percentages derived? what is the metric?

I'm certain there are many others....

another worthless bar chart.....

Very worthless bar chart. How about a line graph showing the spending vs budget of the last 5 years, one for expansion states and one for non expansion states.

(10-21-2015 10:38 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 10:33 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  was this a class project, and did one of your students compile the data and create that chart?

is that ALL the info one gets?

that chart tells me zero in relative comparison between states and spending budgets of each and the overall net impact to each....

are the poorer states suffering from this....

are the richer states absorbing more b/c they have the cash....

is the goal to show overall dollars spent as a percentage?

how are the percentages derived? what is the metric?

I'm certain there are many others....

another worthless bar chart.....

Very worthless bar chart. How about a line graph showing the spending vs budget of the last 5 years, one for expansion states and one for non expansion states.

that and it needs to be broken down state by state....lumping it into a doo-doo pile means nothing....

at some point one has to understand overall dollars taken in and dollars being spent by states in comparison to other states.....5% of missippy is 0.x% of california....

then maybe a trend could be developed relative to rich/poor states....then maybe attempt to understand the impact in relative terms....

one can't attempt to solve a problem unless one has all the details.....it would be like saying, "hey officer, I just got robbed......when do I get my stuff back?" .... and the officer responding, "we're on it" with a rolleyes

All this shows is that the feds DID 'rob' from states that didn't expand and used those funds to 'bribe' those that did.

That was certainly the plan all along, wasn't it?

Of course, what this REALLY shows is that those states who 'expanded' medicaid didn't really need to expand it... They were already there, above it, or close to it (as I have repeatedly demonstrated)... and those that declined did so because it would have cost them even MORE to comply. Not necessarily because they didn't offer the services... but because they didn't offer them through Medicaid. In Texas, there are county taxes that fund county clinics and services. If you now count that as 'medicaid spending' as this does, it will likely (based on the description of how spending is calculated) show an 'increase in medicaid spending' without actually increasing the governmental spending.

Not so fast my friend...

Quote:Unfortunately, some reporters misread the study and have concluded that it was in fact less costly for states to expand Medicaid through Obamacare.

What tripped up these reporters were figures in the study that related to state government’s share of total spending. Kaiser found that state spending on Medicaid increased 3.4 percent in expansion states, but 6.9 percent in non-expansion states.

However, state spending on Medicaid appeared to decrease because the federal government is temporarily picking up the tab in expansion states. These states will soon start having to pick up more of the cost of Obamacare, as federal funding is scheduled to decline from 100 percent to 90 percent in the coming years.

The impact of that 10 percent federal funding reduction on expansion states’ budgets will be magnified because it will apply to a large share of those states’ (now much bigger) Medicaid populations.

Medicaid spending will likely continue increasing in all states due to rising health care costs and population growth—and all will have to cover their shares of that increase.

Quote:Expansion states will also face the added burden of needing to replace declining federal support with more state tax dollars. The study, using total growth rate, found that all states had higher Medicaid enrollment and spending and the increase was much greater in the Obamacare expansion states.

Thus, the relative growth rates (what a state is paying for this year) that the reporters focused on will likely reverse in the coming years—with state Medicaid spending growing faster in the expansion states than in the non-expansion states.

Indeed, as Kaiser noted in the full report on its survey of state Medicaid officials, expansion states are already looking for ways to fund those anticipated state spending increases.

Yet, if Medicaid expansion didn’t cost states, or increase a state’s general revenue spending on the program—as it has so often been sold at the state level—then why would a state have to figure out ways to pay for it in the future?

http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/20/the-ke...hffacebook

The full Kaiser report

you two guys are good...well done....

(10-21-2015 10:38 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 10:33 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  was this a class project, and did one of your students compile the data and create that chart?

is that ALL the info one gets?

that chart tells me zero in relative comparison between states and spending budgets of each and the overall net impact to each....

are the poorer states suffering from this....

are the richer states absorbing more b/c they have the cash....

is the goal to show overall dollars spent as a percentage?

how are the percentages derived? what is the metric?

I'm certain there are many others....

another worthless bar chart.....

Very worthless bar chart. How about a line graph showing the spending vs budget of the last 5 years, one for expansion states and one for non expansion states.

You can find out more information here

http://kff.org/

This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

(10-21-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

When are the subsidies going to expire?

(10-21-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

When are the subsidies going to expire?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

(10-21-2015 11:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

When are the subsidies going to expire?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

This is excellent news.

(10-21-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

When are the subsidies going to expire?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

This is excellent news.

Because it could lead to higher state taxes in each state that expanded? Thus further affecting the middle class and destroying the little infrastructure we have left?

(10-21-2015 11:36 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

When are the subsidies going to expire?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

This is excellent news.

Because it could lead to higher state taxes in each state that expanded? Thus further affecting the middle class and destroying the little infrastructure we have left?

Shhh thats too much common sense for the left to handle.

(10-21-2015 11:36 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This was always going to be the result. Obamacare is set up to entice states in by making it financially attractive early, then pulling the plug once they are locked in. So right now the states buying in are getting subsidized. When the subsidies go away, they are hosed. That's why states that opted out did so. I don't have a cite handy, but that's the rationale that I've heard multiple times. If you have a source to deny that, post it and I'll see if I can find a rebuttal.

When are the subsidies going to expire?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

This is excellent news.

Because it could lead to higher state taxes in each state that expanded? Thus further affecting the middle class and destroying the little infrastructure we have left?

No because the changes are incremental and not total. Which means it gives states time to adjust to the changes. What did you want the Feds to foot the bill forever?

(10-21-2015 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:36 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:12 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  When are the subsidies going to expire?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

This is excellent news.

Because it could lead to higher state taxes in each state that expanded? Thus further affecting the middle class and destroying the little infrastructure we have left?

No because the changes are incremental and not total. Which means it gives states time to adjust to the changes. What did you want the Feds to foot the bill forever?

No, I'd prefer the federal government leave state government alone and let them do their own thing without threats or what they call "incentives". ACA will and has been destroying the middle class with much higher priced premiums and the rest, all of this is an attack on a weak middle class, we needed to focus on strengthening the economy first before we made healthcare moves like this.

And the federal government wrote these laws Fit. Not my State, not my County, not my Township, not my City. Maybe they should foot the bill since they wrote the bill.

Bingo.

The middle-class, especially the relatively young and healthy, are the ones taking the brunt of the negative effects of ObamaCare.

They(we) are paying ridiculous premiums to help pay for old folks and the perpetual underclass.

I pay $800/month for a family of three. I'm middle-middle class.

(10-21-2015 11:43 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:38 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:36 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:33 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-21-2015 11:30 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-med...expansion/

• The Federal Government pays 100% of expansion costs for the first three years and 90% thereafter until 2022.

so 10% expires in 2017. I wonder what will happen after 2022.

This is excellent news.

Because it could lead to higher state taxes in each state that expanded? Thus further affecting the middle class and destroying the little infrastructure we have left?

No because the changes are incremental and not total. Which means it gives states time to adjust to the changes. What did you want the Feds to foot the bill forever?

No, I'd prefer the federal government leave state government alone and let them do their own thing without threats or what they call "incentives". ACA will and has been destroying the middle class with much higher priced premiums and the rest, all of this is an attack on a weak middle class, we needed to focus on strengthening the economy first before we made healthcare moves like this.

If the feds left states to their own thing, we'd still have segregation in the South.

The feds have to provide a carrot to get some states to move forward with change.

Frankly, they are lucky they are getting a subsidy in the first place.