Why the Smart Money Rejects Federal Funds for Medicaid Expansion

Big government types constantly insist that states that refuse the federal funding associated with Obamacare's Medicaid expansion are neglecting the poor residents of their states leaving them with no health insurance.

The following paragraph from a recent New Republic story demonstrates the extent of the demagoguery:

But the state officials who have blocked expansion aren’t simply depriving some people of health insurance. They are depriving the entire state of federal funds. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government picks up 100 percent of the expansion cost for the first three years, then scales back its support to 90 percent.  At that point, states will have to find the money to cover that remaining 10 percent. It’s real money. But it’s tiny compared to what they get in return. The federal money goes is a huge influx of cash, which goes first to providers and suppliers of health care. That money, in turn, generates additional economic activity. 

Notice how responsible legislators are depicted as depriving people of insurance! But it is worse than that; they are depriving the entire state of much needed money provided by the benevolent federal government. These funds will, of course, stimulate the states' economy. It's the same old, tired liberal playbook!

First of all, the individual states are under no obligation to follow unconstitutional dictates from Washington, D.C. Obamacare is unconstitutional! The federal government does not have the power to dictate to the American people how or if they buy a product. Period! The only reason it passed was due to countless lies told to the American people by Obama and the Democrats. The law will be repealed and the states that refused to get in bed with the federal government will be much better off financially. 

Secondly, the claim that federal dollars redirected to the states serves to stimulate the economy has been roundly discredited. If this actually worked, The Great Depression would have ushered in a 25-year boom like the Reagan years did and the hundreds of billions of dollars in Obama's Stimulus Bill would have pulled the economy out of The Obama Recession.

The New Republic continued:

Conservatives like to point out that the federal dollars don’t materialize out of thin air—they come from the federal treasury. That’s true. But there’s a net transfer of money here, from the very rich (who pay higher taxes under the health care law) to the poor and middle class (who get either Medicaid or tax credits for buying private insurance). That’s perfectly consistent with a program that fosters growth, particularly at a time of low demand, since it’s taking money from rich people (who might otherwise save it) and puts it right back into the economy.

The level of economic ignorance on display in this paragraph is remarkable. Rather than addressing the root cause of the problem, looking at the big pictures and considering some alternative, free-market solutions, they rely on the same shallow class warfare, Robin Hood "take from the rich, give to the poor" redistribution of wealth rhetoric that they have been spewing for 100 years.

The bottom line with liberals and progressive is their answer to every problem is a bigger centralized government and/or more government spending. They never look at the results of their previously failed policies such as the War on Poverty, bankrupt liberal programs such as Medicaid, and Medicare, and Social Security. They never acknowledge that the problems with the healthcare system prior to Obamacare were almost all due to government interference with the free-market.

They never acknowledge that discouraging "rich people" from saving and investing and replacing it with "taking money from rich people" is detrimental to the economy. Saving and investing equates to buying, building, expanding, and hiring. In other words, a growing economy! Taking that money and "giving" it to the poor provides disincentives for all of these activities. In other words, a perpetual recession, with lower wages, lower median incomes, low labor force participation rates, and high unemployment. You get the picture. 

But I guess if you write for the New Republic, you are always preaching to the choir. The strength and validity of your argument will always go unchallenged as long as you are attacking small government constitutionalists.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120049/obamacare-medicaid-expansion-economic-cost-states-saying-no

The Truth About Unemployment

The unemployment rate in the United States is NOT 8.3% as the Obama Administration is touting. The government reports "seasonally adjusted" numbers each month, which is code for "manipulated".

The numbers are manipulated because the shrinking workforce is not properly factored into the unemployment rate. The workforce has shrunk by some six million jobs since 2007!

Below is some simple math to explain how the numbers are manipulated:

• If there are 100 jobs and 80 are filled, you have a 20% unemployment rate. 
• If there are only 90 jobs and the same 80 are filled, you have an 11% unemployment rate. 

Sadistically, a shrinking workforce benefits whoever is in the White House.

Here are some more facts about unemployment that you should be aware of:

• The United States is experiencing the longest stretch of high unemployment since The Great Depression  
• The official unemployment rate excludes people who want to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks. It also excludes those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work. If both of these populations were counted, the unemployment rate in January would have been about 15%.  
• U6 versus U3 employment numbers: When you see the unemployment number reported, dig deeper and understand the difference between the U3 number widely reported by the media and the U6 number (explained in the previous bullet point).
• The share of unemployed people looking for work for more than six months — the long-term unemployed—topped 40% in December 2009 for the first time since 1948.
• Don't let anyone tell you that the jobs environment is improving while, at the same time, we have perpetual weekly initial claims for unemployment benefits at 380,000+.