The majority (those folks that decide what they want in elections) are for more services, not less. They could care less who pays, and even less than that, if we should we go bankrupt.
Them's the facts, like it or don't.
Posted on 03/15/2006 7:50:49 AM PST by Pookee
The expansion of benefit programs since 2000 has led to the greatest increase in social spending in American history – with entitlement programs now accounting for more than half of all federal spending.
A USA Today analysis released Tuesday of 25 major government programs – including health care, college aid and food stamps – revealed that enrollment surged an average of 17 percent from 2000 to 2005, while the nation's population increased by only 5 percent.
It marked the largest five-year growth in enrollment since Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs were created during Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" movement in the 1960s.
Spending on social programs was $1.3 trillion last year, an inflation-adjusted increase of 22 percent since 2000, according to the USA Today report.
Enrollment growth accounted for most of the spending increase:
The worse may be yet to come: The nation's 79 million baby boomers will begin to qualify for Social Security in 2008, and for Medicare in 2011.
The Nightmare of Medicaid
As NewsMax reported last year, the extension of taxpayer-funded Medicaid to the working poor has been the single largest factor in the greatest expansion of government entitlements since the Great Society was launched in the 1960s.
The soaring costs of Medicaid – which more than doubled last year to close to $330 billion since 1999 – is largely due to legislation that extended Medicaid coverage to many Americans who have low-paying jobs.
The government's free health-care offering swelled Medicaid's numbers as many low-income workers are choosing Medicaid rather than insurance from their employer because it is free or nearly free and often provides more benefits.
The result has been a staggering growth in the welfare state – as the federal government has become the health insurer of 100 million Americans – about one of every three citizens.
The growth of the health entitlement program – which critics say has become national health care by stealth – has been embraced by both Republicans and Democrats.
President Bush has even proposed $1 billion in spending for the next two years "to encourage eligible families to sign up for Medicaid," USA Today noted.
Some experts blame the growth of Medicaid on 1996's landmark welfare reform legislation, which moved millions of welfare recipients off the welfare rolls and into low paying jobs.
To make sure these newly employed didn't lose free health benefits, the federal government enacted legislation to extend Medicaid to lower-incomed workers.
"Health coverage has been a costly side effect of welfare reform," the newspaper disclosed.
Now a great number of workers – many of whom were never on welfare - can also sign on for free health care.
Under federal rules, a family of four can earn as much as $40,000 a year in most states and still get government health insurance for children.
The Medicaid program has grown from covering 34 million individuals in 1999 to 47 million last year, and Medicaid costs have soared from $159 billion in 1997 to $295 billion in 2004 – an increase of 85 percent.
This year Medicaid spending is projected to hit $329 billion. Added to the staggering costs are new rules that provide Medicaid to illegal aliens – tacking on another $2.5 billion to annual costs.
Critics say Medicaid's expansion is adding to the crushing Federal deficit and luring workers from insurance plans offered by employers.
Supporters, on the other hand, maintain that Medicaid will prevent higher costs in the future by reducing emergency room visits by the uninsured.
But the expansion of benefits to low-income workers has made federal and state taxpayers "the health insurance provider for millions of workers at Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other low-wage employers," USA Today reports.
The federal government pays 59 percent of Medicaid costs; the states pay the rest. The rising costs are crushing many states, who say rising health costs are contributing to deficits.
Medicaid enrollment now even outpaces enrollment in Medicare, and many states are spending more on Medicaid than on anything else, including education.
Said Michael Cannon, director of health-care studies at the Cato Institute: "Shame on us for creating perverse incentives that cause people to give up private coverage for Medicaid."
thank you republicans.
Bush proposed Social Security reform. Democrats and spineless republicans said "no."
The wink stays.
These bums are playing with dynamite!!
When the economy collapses......they will be easy to find and punished.
I now call them hte respendicans.
Bush proposed reform, but it would do little good at this late date. This country is headed for bankruptcy, there is no way to avoid it. The budget when Clinton was in office is equal to the cost of social programs in '06 + debt payments. In 20 years, 100% of taxes received, will be needed to pay social services at the current rate. The debt service load will be at a trillion a year. I am sure we can grow out of this with tax cuts and a growing economy. (sarcasm off)
Bush proposed Social Security reform. Democrats and spineless republicans said "no."
-----
The word "reform" is a very bad word -- every time it gets applied to some effort in Washington, it ends up costing the taxpayers even more money. The term "partial privitization" is a far better term and more accurate - :-).
The libs and RINOs do not want to give up one cent of the SS TAX, yes, I use the word tax, since it is, because they SPEND EVERY CENT OF IT every tax year...therefore it is a tax. Certainly not the ruse that Washington ran for so long saying there was an SS trust fund -- such a total lie -- a stack of never-to-be-paid IOUs is our SS trust fund.
Yes, Bush tried. Sort of. But Washington is drunk on our tax dollars, especially the socialists, so forget taking a single tax dollar away from them --- their worst nightmare. Money is power and power is all they care about anymore.
You guys gonna moan endlessly that these twits won't do what they're elected to do, or actually throw them out and put people up there that will.
This is the result of a Republican majority in both the Senate and the House, as well as a Republican White House.
Absolutely, dishearteningly disgusting.
Hey, look at this way. He out-strategerized the Dems on social spending. Now voters know they can suckle at the public teat just as much with Republicans in charge.
The majority (those folks that decide what they want in elections) are for more services, not less. They could care less who pays, and even less than that, if we should we go bankrupt.
Them's the facts, like it or don't.
Time to stop paying then. I don't want to be a slave forced to pay for the largess of others.
I can't read the whole article because it will upset my digestion and my composure.
This is not only criminal but it ruins lives. It ruins people to turn them into takers. Depending in gov't money creates and maintains tremendous evil and turns people into pimps and prostitutes (metaphorically speaking).
Who to vote for if the Repubicans are shoving the Democrats out of the way to become the biggest pigs at the trough?
"Money is power and power is all they care about anymore."
With the added benefit of creating hell on earth. Which also attracts their minds.
Okay.
In the interest of fairness, truth, and the American way ... explain just how we accomplish that feat.
I continue to be amazed that so many Freepers think the Republicans are the same as democrats in regard to spending. Yesterday the AP ran an article showing the Bush administration is being more stingy with emergency disaster loans than any administration in history.
Bush did try to privatize part of social security.
Kerry and a democrat congress would have fully nationalized health care by now and created exponentially more entitlements.
It is apparent that their is a wide differential between the House and Senate. The House is somewhat sane. The Senate has almost no fiscal conservative values. It is quite difficult to change senate seats. We face a tyranny of 100 presidential wannabes.
It can be done but it requires sustained effort directed at changing the senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.