Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Yet another bogus Families USA story

Linda Gorman, Director, Health Care Policy Center, Independence Institute, Golden

Published May 3, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Letters to the Editor

More stories »

On April 22, Rocky Mountain News.com carried "Report ties Medicaid cuts to job losses" (http://rocky mountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/ 22/report-ties-medicaid-cuts-job- losses/). The story simply repeated the substance of a press release from Families USA.

In fact, the Bush administration has not proposed Medicaid budget cuts. Its FY 2009 budget proposal increases Medicaid spending by $12 billion to $13 billion over expected spending in FY 2008. This is in addition to FY 2005-2007 spending increases of about 10 percent. What the Bush administration is proposing is a slightly smaller budget increase, about 7.1 percent rather than 7.4 percent. The 2009 budget numbers are available on Page 61 at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/ 09budget/2009BudgetInBrief.pdf.

If Families USA were a real family making $50,000 a year, these budget numbers would be the equivalent of having an expected windfall of $53,700 reduced to $53,550.

Families USA is known for approaching health care with a well-defined ideological slant and for producing lousy numbers on all manner of health-care issues. One hopes that, next time, the Rocky will take the Families USA reputation for inaccuracy into account, and that it will check before it unquestioningly reproduces their press releases as news.

Comments

  • May 3, 2008

    6:12 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    LetsThink writes:

    An excellent exposure of deception, Ms. Gorman.

    Thank you very much for the truth.

  • May 3, 2008

    6:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    And it looks like they were cuts in additional future spending. Why is it we never hear about cuts in old spending? It seems whenever something gets on the state or national budget it stays there forever?

  • May 3, 2008

    7:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Michael writes:

    The liberals have been playing this deceitful card for YEARS. Rarely - if ever - does a federal government program actually get a "cut" in funding. What happens when the liberals make this claim is (as so accurately pointed out by Linda Gorman) is the projected INCREASE in the funding to that specific program has been dialed back a bit. But the funding is still actually RISING from the previous fiscal year.
    If a program originally was slated for a 10% increase in funding from the previous year and when the budget is actually finished and implemented that program or department actually gets only a 5% INCREASE in its funding level from the previous year, our liberal friends will make the absurd claim that that program's funding has been "CUT" by 50%. This is their game and their loyal followers buy this load of crap.

  • May 3, 2008

    8:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Elwood writes:

    You should see all the wasteful government spending at the end of the fiscal year, getting rid of any budget surpluses so the budgets won't get cut to what is actually needed next year.

  • May 3, 2008

    9:02 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    nonayerbsns writes:

    Talk about deceitful! The Independence Institute has misled on just about EVERY position they've been instructed to take. So, when Ms. Gorman is standing up there yelling the apples are not falling off the trees, when it is clear that they are, in fact, dropping by the Bushel (no pun intended) you just can't believe a word of it.

  • May 3, 2008

    12:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    nonayerbsns; "Independence Institute has misled on just about EVERY position"

    Is that right? Do you have some examples where they have misled?
    Are you saying this letter is misleading?

  • May 3, 2008

    12:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    "In fact, the Bush administration has not proposed Medicaid budget cuts."

    In fact, the Independence Institute's fuzzy math once again is its undoing. It's true the bush's cuts may not show up in fy2009...but our far right friends at the II simply pulled the wool over the footsoldiers' eyes once again by failing to acknowledge that bush's cuts take place over several years...not just in fy2009. nice try.

    brain, here you go:

    http://colorado.mediamatters.org/issu...

    here's some additional info on bush's plans for medicare and medicaid

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/24/was...

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/0...

  • May 3, 2008

    12:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Michael writes:

    Hey jay......did you even read the CBS article?????? It says EXACTLY what I posted above. This is a "cut" in the rate of growth. NOT...NOT....NOT and cut to the program. Are you for real? Are you an idiot??? Or do you just come in here and pretend to be one???

    "The spending decrease would come primarily from mandating a slower pace of growth of the massive senior citizen health care program. In recent years, Medicare has grown at more than 7 percent per year, and the Bush budget will propose slowing that growth to 5 percent a year." - CBS article that jay wants us all to read.

  • May 3, 2008

    12:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    The CBSnews story has this in it: Darn Micheal you beat me to it.
    The spending decrease would come primarily from mandating a slower pace of growth...

  • May 3, 2008

    12:52 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    so what you're saying is that bush's plan calls for less spending on medicaid...is that your position michael?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

  • May 3, 2008

    12:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    so would those be "cuts" in the amount of federal spending on medicare and medicaid, right michael? sounds like someone's trying to slip a little fuzzy math past the goalie in a feeble attempt to right the ship before the deficit numbers are finally in the books for the bush administration.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/sto...

    http://www.cbpp.org/2-4-08bud2.htm

  • May 3, 2008

    1:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Brain writes:

    jay, Maybe or apparently mediamatters is objective from your view point only because they sit where you sit in regards to the politcal spectrum so it looks to you like they are politically objective. Of course from my point of they are not anywhere close to being objective and I refuse to give their website a hit, the Independence Institute also is not objective and they do not give the impression that they are, they call themselves a conservative think tank.

  • May 3, 2008

    1:16 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    i don't see how the compilation of the independence institute's own inaccuracies isn't credible. is the II not a credible source on the II?

  • May 3, 2008

    7:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sean writes:

    Ah the "Let Us keep the US Dependent on Foreign Oil" is now entering the health insurance debate. This ought to be a complete and utter joke just like the Institute itself.

  • May 4, 2008

    8:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    davis_x_machina writes:

    One wonders how far the pallets full of cash that have disappeared, unaccounted for, into the maw of the mess-o-potamia, could have gone towards helping rectify some of the glaring inequities in this country?

  • May 4, 2008

    9:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Great points, Families USA, a compromising go-along group who lies to spin radical democrat spend first then double tax later policies

  • May 4, 2008

    4:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    yes bigfoot...a cut in the planned amount of spending is a cut in spending...no matter how much you'd like to stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

    maybe you should be asking yourself why you're apologizing for this kind of canabalism geared towards putting lipstick on the fiscal pig grown over the last 8 years by the republican party

  • May 4, 2008

    5:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jgd writes:

    Jay,

    So how much would the old programs have to be cut if they only got half on the anticipate increase in funds? Better yet why would those programs have to be cut at all?

  • May 5, 2008

    8:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rightwingnut writes:

    Jay,
    Come on buddy: PEER reviewed articles only. All you are doing is linking news stories that agree with you. Not factual at all.

  • May 5, 2008

    11:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rpmcmurphy writes:

    Jay, if a program gets $150.00 this year, and was hoping to get $195.00 next year, but ends up only getting $175.00, not $190.00, is this a "cut" in funding? Or, are you counting chickens before they hatch?