Gingrich wants Medicare and Medicaid responsibility shifted from feds to state....what exactly does

I just heard on Fox news that Gingrich wants to shift Medicare and Medicaid responsibility from the federal level to the state level. Haven't been able to find anything in black and white yet.

Questions: Does that "responsibility" include financing the programs or just authorizing recipients? If it is state financial obligation, who pays? What happens if a state is broke? What happens if each state doesn't have universal rules, regulations, do the "harsh" state recipients move to a more lenient state?

I think this is wrong on so many levels. What say YOU???

reply to post by Gridrebel


Essentially, his plan involves giving block grants to the states to design their own programs. If implemented properly a plan such as this would save the nation and states $billions of dollars over the next 5 to 10 years. Think about the massive reduction in the Federal bureaucracy alone and the power returned to the states to tailor a program to fit the needs of its residents.

I'm liking what Newt has to say lately.

everything ive heard out of newts mouth recently has been a direct mirror of ron pauls ideals. to bad hes got to many skeletons in his closet to even stay in the lead. the msm will propel him to the top and reality will bring him back down. wheres santorum at hes next

reply to post by Gridrebel


I say, Gingrich, and all the other GOP candidates, are working their butts off to try and steal as much of Ron Paul's platform as possible in a frantic attempt to win over some of his support.

Those programs need to be completely phased out with the SS program, and replaced by some free-market products that provide real options and real price point choices. The States already regulate and license the insurance providers in their state. It doesn't take much of s shifting of responsibility, it just takes a leader with the cahones to get the Federal Govt out of businesses where it never belonged.

Gingrich would make a nice addition to a Ron Paul ticket. I'll just consider this as his endorsement of the only decent candidate in the party. Maybe he's vying for the VP nod?

As someone who walks a Libertarian fence balancing with a pro Social Security vent?

Hell, there ain't nobody that gets away that easy. Newt is damaged goods. Palin would eat him alive in a primary.

I think the GOP is in denial of the fact that they just are not gonna really try in 2012.

Sounds like ol' Newt is borrowing a page from Ron.

With the exception of very few things, anything that is removed from the feds and placed into the hands of the states is a good thing. This means the states will have to have more fiscal responsibility than what they have in the past, but it is something that can work.

It means that New York won't be paying Californias problems nor any other state they should have never been created in the first place but you can't get rid of them this is the next best thing.



The above picture represent the real deal when it comes to Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid and welfare none of them will ever call those programs what they are and they are indeed all welfare.

Never mind the fact that half this country is paying their own way nope not good enough they have to pay the other halfs way.

Which is why never before in the entire nations history that more people are getting paid by tax revenue than introducing new wealth in to the already over burdened system which is why when you add all those up you are talking about over 100 trillion that can never be paid for.

Send them back to the states Newt is right.

This would be a start. I'd say shift a lot more power and responsibility to the states in almost every area. Doubt Newt intends to follow up on promises like this, though. Sounds like a pander to libertarians and independents who support Ron Paul.
Just skip Newt, and go straight Paul.

I've noticed that too, the GOPers all seem to be hijacking Ron Paul's speaking points in a pathetic (IMO) attempt to steal his votes. Not going to happen.

I'm all for returning as much power as possible to the states. I can agree with this completely, except that I don't trust Gingrich's intentions nor his follow-through.

Gingrich kind of creeps me out actually. He strikes me as someone whose intelligence and ability to reason could be detrimental to the American people, as he could overthink and overthink until he can work out ways to justify anything in his mind, no matter how corrupt or shady. Then phrase things in a philosophical way such that the sheople will blindly follow their brilliant "leader of the free world" right off the moral cliff.

He also seems cold to me and seems to lack an ability to empathize. I haven't seen a whole lot of compassion coming from him. I don't mean "compassion" in a doling out welfare kind of way, I just mean speaking from a place of understand and putting forth some kind of sign that if president, he might try to unify the people. This culture of extreme bipartisanship is so phony, unreasonable and destructive it makes me want to throw up.
I just don't think people should campaign on the idea of catering to one side of the spectrum by means of tearing the other apart and fueling the fire. I've heard some pretty bothersome rhetoric from his mouth lately, particularly at the Faith & Freedom Coalition in Iowa.

Well, he also wants to ease child labor laws so kids can be the janitors of their own schools. No doubt he is smart, he's just crazy-smart. No matter how you slice and dice it, he is not a serious canddiate.

My topic isn't about Gingrich or other candidates. Just wondering about each state being fiscally responsible for medicaid and medicare. If California, with an A- Negative rating and Utah with a AAA Positive rating (S&P), what would be the safeguard in place say for CA? Because of California's poor spending choices or less tax revenue or political corruption, or whatever reason they wouldn't have the funds, do the recipents in that state suffer? And political corruption in several states is at an all time high.

I believe in pulling one's own weight and I hate fraud and corruption. I also detest nanny states. But what about the truly needy?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
Well, he also wants to ease child labor laws so kids can be the janitors of their own schools. No doubt he is smart, he's just crazy-smart. No matter how you slice and dice it, he is not a serious canddiate.

edit on 21/11/2011 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

yeah, crazy-smart and too damned outspoken even for his likes. newts "people" are starting to tire of having to go to china to make their bucks, so might as well start on turning america into china. unions are bad, regulations are bad, minimum wage is bad, child labor laws are bad.......... he is essentially a real life "mr. wuncler" from the boondocks.

reply to post by kosmicjack


I agree he has no chance as the candidate.

But, what is wrong with kids cleaning up their own schools?

A couple of the biggest missing pieces in our current education system are: 1. Personal Responsibility, instead of the blame game that is so popular now, and 2. Useful Trade Skills. Not everybody is cut out to be an accountant or a lawyer, and somebody still has to do the dishes and take out the trash. Why not at least get good at it and embrace it?

I'm not saying we need child slave labor like Malaysia, but making them police their own playground, pick up their own trash, clean up their own messes, sounds good to me.

reply to post by Gridrebel


The safeguard is to move to a fiscally responsible state, or vote in better politicians that will stop giving all of your money away to people that haven't earned it!

reply to post by Gridrebel


State governments are corrupt because they have no liability. They can be as irresponsible as they want and they always have big brother Feds to pick up the pieces, and so the federal government is bankrupt. (Well, one of the many reasons why the federal government is bankrupt.)
I hate to say it but once the states have some liability and control (and yes this might hurt some people a bit at first), they will learn the hard way that they have to shape up and work for the people, because small governments are much easier for the people to control. You screw up and act irresponsibility, the people disapprove and you're out of office.
The way America was intended to work.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Gridrebel

 

I say, Gingrich, and all the other GOP candidates, are working their butts off to try and steal as much of Ron Paul's platform as possible in a frantic attempt to win over some of his support.

Those programs need to be completely phased out with the SS program, and replaced by some free-market products that provide real options and real price point choices. The States already regulate and license the insurance providers in their state. It doesn't take much of s shifting of responsibility, it just takes a leader with the cahones to get the Federal Govt out of businesses where it never belonged.

Gingrich would make a nice addition to a Ron Paul ticket. I'll just consider this as his endorsement of the only decent candidate in the party. Maybe he's vying for the VP nod?

I am so happy to see you say this.

Ron Paul has been saying this exact same thing for decades!! Now all the sudden people want to discuss it cause Newt said so and the fact is most GOP candidates are stealing bits and pieces of Paul's plans because not only do people support it, but it also works.

Originally posted by Gridrebel
My topic isn't about Gingrich or other candidates. Just wondering about each state being fiscally responsible for medicaid and medicare. If California, with an A- Negative rating and Utah with a AAA Positive rating (S&P), what would be the safeguard in place say for CA? Because of California's poor spending choices or less tax revenue or political corruption, or whatever reason they wouldn't have the funds, do the recipents in that state suffer? And political corruption in several states is at an all time high.

I believe in pulling one's own weight and I hate fraud and corruption. I also detest nanny states. But what about the truly needy?

They can move to a state that is willing and able to take care of their needs.
Your above assessment is exactly why the states should be allowed to determine their own destiny. Why should Utah be responsible for the terrible policy coming out of California when the people of Utah have no control over the enactment of such idiotic policy? Maybe some states would be more responsible and realistic? Corruption at the state and local level is, frankly, the fault of the citizens of that state. It's called responsibility. Maybe the citizens of California should get some.

reply to post by Gridrebel


Gingrich wants a lot of things. Things he thinks will get him elected. I can not believe this man has been resurrected. They must be running out of stooges to put in front of MSM cameras for their show.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Gridrebel

 

I say, Gingrich, and all the other GOP candidates, are working their butts off to try and steal as much of Ron Paul's platform as possible in a frantic attempt to win over some of his support.

Those programs need to be completely phased out with the SS program, and replaced by some free-market products that provide real options and real price point choices. The States already regulate and license the insurance providers in their state. It doesn't take much of s shifting of responsibility, it just takes a leader with the cahones to get the Federal Govt out of businesses where it never belonged.

Gingrich would make a nice addition to a Ron Paul ticket. I'll just consider this as his endorsement of the only decent candidate in the party. Maybe he's vying for the VP nod?

Couldn't agree more. The free-market fixing the problem has been RP's idea for years.

You know I love the looks on the other candidates faces when RP speaks the issues like in the last debate. It's almost like teaching a bunch on first graders how to multiply!

I don't mind the flavor of the week candidates stealing his ideas. When they drop out, those votes will most likely go to the man who created them.

Newt can try all he wants. I'm sure RP has his VP picked out already and Newt just has too much dirty laundry and would be Ron Paul's LBJ if he got elected. I think RP wants a VP who agrees with him on most of the issues and who would not be a shill for the elite. Forget Ventura...Although I like him, they would attack him endlessly on his conspiracy theories. Maybe Gary Johnson?