Yet another bogus Families USA story
Linda Gorman, Director, Health Care Policy Center, Independence Institute, Golden
Saturday, May 3, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
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
Posted by LetsThink on May 3, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
An excellent exposure of deception, Ms. Gorman.
Thank you very much for the truth.
Posted by Earl on May 3, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
when ever you hear someone say there is a budget cut it really means they didnt get every cent they wanted. the liberals are very well known for that piece of work. if they want an item to get 18% increase in funds and it only get 16% then those nasty hate filled republicans have cut the budget and plan on starving old folk on ssi.
Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on May 3, 2008 at 6:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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?
Posted by Michael on May 3, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted by Elwood on May 3, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted by nonayerbsns on May 3, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted by Brain on May 3, 2008 at 12:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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?
Posted by jay on May 3, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"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...
Posted by Michael on May 3, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted by Brain on May 3, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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...
Posted by jay on May 3, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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/...
Posted by jay on May 3, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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
Posted by Brain on May 3, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted by jay on May 3, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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?
Posted by Sean on May 3, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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.
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 4, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"This is a "cut" in the rate of growth. NOT...NOT....NOT and cut to the program."
For liberals and progressive socialists, a cut in the rate of growth is an absolute reduction because it gives them less than they want; even though its a year/year increase. This is how liberal/progressives and socialists always do their welfare accounting. When you are a welfare junkie living off the public dole, more is always less and its never enough--where's mine, you owe me.
Posted by davis_x_machina on May 4, 2008 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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?
Posted by jacka on May 4, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Great points, Families USA, a compromising go-along group who lies to spin radical democrat spend first then double tax later policies
Posted by titancain on May 4, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate republicans. Lets spend money on iraq. Thats the ticket. They attacked us on 9/11. Those damn iraqis. Prise gezus.
Posted by jay on May 4, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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
Posted by jgd on May 4, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
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?
Posted by rightwingnut on May 5, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Jay,
Come on buddy: PEER reviewed articles only. All you are doing is linking news stories that agree with you. Not factual at all.
Posted by rpmcmurphy on May 5, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
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?
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.