Medicaid For GC with No Work History

[TheRealCanadian]

But the point is ... once a person has satisfied the requirements, they should be allowed to get the benefit given to all people in that same category.

Which, generally speaking, is how it works. People who have just immigrated do not satisfy the requirements (40 quarters of contribution) and therefore do not get the benefits. Simple as that.

So if a state program offers medicaid for GC holders ... why would we rabble rouse against an individual, you should be telling the state to stop it, but telling the individual on which forms to fill up to get the aid, and also provide a list of most preferred states to get such an aid.

Speaking only for myself, I think it's because there's a strong self-reliant streak in America. Social benefits are more of a "safety net" for people who have tried and missed, rather than elderly immigrants who never tried at all.

To give an example on similar lines ... I so much like the Arizona (and now Georgia I believe) program to fix the illegal problem as best as they can. However, as hypothetical, if Maine gives a drivers license to anyone without any proof, while I not like the person who was trying to abuse it to get a DL, the fact remains that the bigger problem is the state.

That's a fair point.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

#1. 60% ? That sounds so high.

It's more under 60%. Take a peek here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg

Add up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and you're seeing around 49% of the federal budget, and that's not counting the fact that Medicaid is primarily funded by the states.

Why is it lower in other countries? Why cant we bring it down to lower number? Simple answer - political patronage to insurance companies, pharma and so on.

Two things - first, I was referring to retirement more than medicare, and when you compare against other countries (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/43/47365777.pdf) you start seeing that most western countries pay a lot more as a percentage of GDP than the US, and in 2050 it's likely to get even worse. The US is actually in pretty good shpe for the future compared to most other countries. Ask the Greeks what good a generous promise is, when 20 years later it's time to collect and there's no money.

The second thing is that the hightened costs of the US system aren't as you describe. There isn't a giant bribe of 7% of GDP going to big pharma. Healthcare is growing ahead of inflation in most Western nations, the US merely has a higher base. In Canada at least, much of the cost increases have gone straight into salaries.

#2. Transfer payments .... you mean to say all 60% is transfer?

Look at the pie chart, and tell me what is transfer payments. I count Social Security, Unemployment, Medicare, Medicaid as straight transfers and social programs, and that's 56% of the budget. (I'd also suggest that Veterans Affairs is primarily health care for former military adding another 1%). This is why to me claims of cutting discretionary program spending are silly; any solution to our fiscal mess involves Social Security, Medicare and Defense.

please note that the politicians use a confusing set of statements much like this to give the impression of something draconian while serving the interests of their friends and their real paymasters.

Politicians real paymasters are the voters. If the voters are under the crazy impression that they can get whatever they want without paying for it because of mythical waste in the system or taxing someone else (which both parties seem to advocate), they're fools. Politicians are pavlovian.

 

[sanjoseaug20]

IPoliticians real paymasters are the voters.

This could get into a never ending political debate, so I will stop it here. I think both sides points or at least talking points have been presented. However, I have 2 last qualms with your statements above ...

A) what you said about politicians having voters as paymasters is true in theory, but in practice the wall street is the real paymaster of the politicians. Only Obama in recent times got his money from voters, but there are 1000s of politicians who have much easier ways to get money.

B) Social security and medicare are not transfer programs. If I work for 40 years to pay into it, why would you call my benefits transfer payments? It is as if you are doing charity to me. But the facts are that rich people do not even pay beyond 100K (the limits change) for social security and poor people get only in proportion to what they paid. So it is not that one group is being looted to pay for the other group. If you say there is 25% transfer (25% of 56% being 14%), I can understand it, but the whole 56% projected as transfer ... no way.

 

[TheRealCanadian]

B) Social security and medicare are not transfer programs. If I work for 40 years to pay into it, why would you call my benefits transfer payments?

Because you don't pay into it in the conventional sense. Almost all public pensions in the First World are "Pay as You Go" systems, where current contributions are used to pay for current payments, with the surplus into government bonds. As your annual Social Security statement says in the disclaimer, Congress is capable of changing the law regarding payments to dramatically reduce them.

While this scenario is hyperbole and would never happen, it's illustrative. Congress cannot confiscate my 401k because the Fifth Amendment clearly states that they cannot take my private property without compensation. However, Congress could abolish Social Security tomorrow and none of us could contest it in court. It's also worth noting that Social Security has no private counterparts since any non-government retirement program that operated like SS would get shut down by the SEC on Day 1.

But the facts are that rich people do not even pay beyond 100K (the limits change) for social security and poor people get only in proportion to what they paid. So it is not that one group is being looted to pay for the other group.

Absolutely there is looting going on - but not on a class basis; a generational basis. The current generation is paying contributions to pay for current payments. For every dollar that my generation pays into SS relative to benefits, it is a far worse ratio than current SS recipients have paid.

If you say there is 25% transfer (25% of 56% being 14%), I can understand it, but the whole 56% projected as transfer ... no way.

Again, the entire thing is a transfer, as are all PAYG systems.

 

[sanjoseaug20]

If the entire thing is a transfer, why are we worried about the OP?
OP is paying into social security and medicare through taxes.
His parents want the benefit !!
It is transfer to the same family, with maybe a 50% cut taken by the government.

 

[ItsoFototo]

Wow, really? Do you know how much of "your" tax money is going to the military machine? Do you know how much bankers and wall street thieves are stealing from your tax money? Do you know how much are insurance companies stealing from people? And you're worried about someone's parents? Medicaid gives you a very limited and lowest quality healthcare anyway. What if this was your parents?

 

[Concerned4us]

"Provide for the common defense" is the first obligation of the US government. The "military machine" is not that but people who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect the US. They deserve your undying thanks and and respect - not your contempt.

If I ran the zoo, anyone applying for permanent residency would be required to perform military service or an equivalent public service to prove their loyalty and commitment to the goals of the US. Too many come only for their own benefit. It is a two way street. Quit taking and start giving!