jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (41 posts)

Did you know the percent of population on medicaid in CA is 30%?

  1. jackclee lm profile image73
    jackclee lmposted 3 months ago

    I just saw some data reporting that medicaid and CHIP recipients in the State of California reached 12 million people. The total population of CA is 40 million. That means it is 30%.  WOW, how can this be?
    The most populace State is also the poorist...

    1. jackclee lm profile image73
      jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this
      1. Paul Wingert profile image77
        Paul Wingertposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        30% of CA population are trumptards. Makes sense.

        1. jackclee lm profile image73
          jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Yes but 70% voted for Hillary!!! Touche

    2. lions44 profile image96
      lions44posted 3 months ago in reply to this

      Between the dam, Jerry Brown, the bullet train, poverty rates, and crime, I think it's safe to say that CA is poorly governed. Yet they elect the same morons every year.  You get the leadership you deserve.

    3. Will Apse profile image91
      Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      California is pretty much always in the top three richest states in the US. You need to revisit your rather odd assumptions.

      1. jackclee lm profile image73
        jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        If 30% of the population is on medicaid, I hardly call that rich. Yes, they may have millionaires in Hollywood and silicon valley but the masses are poor...

        1. jackclee lm profile image73
          jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          Last I check, the poverty rate in the US is 13.5%.

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            Maybe research your own questions.  Medi-Cal is available to people up to 138% of the official poverty wage. So which of the two is larger?  Seems obvious to me.

            The wealthy people in the state choose to provide more for the poor people of the state.  Good on them.  Maybe they see the benefits of growing a healthy workforce.

            1. jackclee lm profile image73
              jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Or may be they want to create a dependent society that will vote Democratic 70% of the time???

              1. ahorseback profile image44
                ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Or maybe a twenty BILLION  dollar deficit says it all !

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          It would be interesting to see what the distribution of wealth in California is, and compare it to the country as a whole, don't you think?

      2. lions44 profile image96
        lions44posted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Will, income inequality is getting worse in CA. My "assumptions" are not odd.    I'm fine with everyone getting great medical care, but if you're not making any money, you eventually can't live there and might be forced to a place without good medical care.

        http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_516SBR.pdf


        https://calmatters.org/articles/income- … ood-thing/

    4. psycheskinner profile image80
      psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      You seem to assume Medicaid is uniform over the country and the only difference is how many people use it.  This is not true.  Medi-Cal is covers more classes of people and to a higher income level than most states, because that is what the people in that state voted to do.

      Its starting to get out of date but if you really want to know about it try this report: http://www.chcf.org/~/media/MEDIA%20LIB … dUrban.pdf

      TL;DR: more people are on Medi-Cal because California is more generous than other states.

      1. ahorseback profile image44
        ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        Depending on who you believe of al available sources , Cali- has a 16 - 20 BILLION dollar deficit !   One day  our US dollars will have to bail them .

        Better clean up your own financial house !

  2. profile image0
    calculus-geometryposted 3 months ago

    California is on the bad end of wealth inequality compared to other states.
    http://www.epi.org/publication/income-i … 7-to-2012/
    No surprise that a state full of millionaires has 12 million on some form of public assistance.

    1. jackclee lm profile image73
      jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      But then what do you think is a proper percent for assistance?
      Is it 30%, 50%, or 90%.
      The way we are headed, it is no wonder our country is broke and in deep debt of 20 trillion.
      Just example Greece today, is this what we are headed?

  3. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 3 months ago

    At least many of the poor get medical care in California. Around 45,000 deaths annually have been linked to lack of health coverage. Uninsured, working-age Americans have 40 percent higher death risk than insured counterparts.

    I copied and pasted some of that from here: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 … -coverage/

    Given the source, the Harvard Gazette, I imagine it will be denounced as false news, lol.

    Soon they will be taking out anyone with a degree and burning them.

    1. jackclee lm profile image73
      jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

      So what's your point? People die from all sorts of things including suicide and drug abuse and drunk driving...why do you assume it is the responsibility of the state to provide health care. If people are not responsible to take care of their own health and buy insurance, is it the job of government to force them to comply? where does freedom end and Big brother begins?

      The idea that 30% of any population rely on public assistance is a horror. I have compassion for the down trodden and the disabled and the elderly and the mentally ill. You cannot convince me that it is as high as 30%. Something is drastically wrong with our society if that is the case. No time in history has our human society degraded to such depth. It is the fault of a progressive society that beliefs in cradle to grave coverage by an ever growing government. IMHO.

      1. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        You think it is right that people die unnecessarily to satisfy your heartless ideology? The only winners are the health corporations.

        1. jackclee lm profile image73
          jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          my ideology is not heartless. It is what works in the long run. My conservative believes is what works for me and for others if they would only learn it. We cannot have a society of dependency. Yes, there will always be a small fraction that needs help and they will get it. It is the progressive ideology that is killing our free spirit and self reliance...
          Are you willing to let the inner cities continue in this carnage? or is that acceptable in your ideology?
          I for one wants to improve everyone and give them a chance to succeed on their own...
          Teach some one to fish instead of just giving him a fish...

          1. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            People pay taxes, people benefit from public provision, That is not dependency. That is society. And if something is state provided in a democracy, the public have the final say in what happens through the ballot box.

            Controlling rip-off corporations is a whole lot harder. Especially, if you assume the wealthy always know better you do.

            And bottom line, the only way that you can be okay with tens of thousands of avoidable deaths is heartlessness.

            1. jackclee lm profile image73
              jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              As usual, you miss characterize what I said and assume things...
              Yes the people pay taxes and voted on these programs. We have social security and medicare and medicaid and food stamps and a slew of other social programs.
              What is the effectiveness of these programs is what being discussed.
              If a program grows to 30% of the population, that is a bad sign don't you agree?
              If not, I would like to know what is your acceptable percent?
              For everyone collecting medicaid, another few tax payers are footing the bill.
              It is simple economics.
              At what point does the system break down? As we are seeing with social security...
              It is now less than 3 workers paying for 1 retiree...
              When it started, it was 30 to 1.

              Tell me who is heartless, the person pushing these progressive agenda or the person shining a light on a failed system?

            2. jackclee lm profile image73
              jackclee lmposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Oh by the way, your name calling does not help your case...
              Use logic and make your case will go a long way to convince people.
              Just helping you out a bit...

            3. ahorseback profile image44
              ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Liberals seem always to be  "Just A- Okay " with the economic dependency on government services for the few ,to be paid for by ALL  others , yet you never get a clear answer to that out of ideological discussions .  No where in the constitution does it even hint at the  taxation of ALL OTHERS  for the benefit of the few  in health care  .   
              That is a huge part of what divides the right from the left , personal accountability in finance and financial services of government   . It always baffles me to hear a liberal say "I am  for lower economic  taxation "  I say ,  Bull !

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                So where do you stand on State's rights of self-government and democracy in general?

      2. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 months ago in reply to this

        It is the responsibility of the state to provide health care when the economic and political system makes them unable to reasonably afford it on their own. Because a first world country like the USA should not allow people and their dependents die from easily preventable or treatable disorders.  It is inhumane and uneconomic.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

          It always seems odd to suddenly hear that the state now has an additional responsibility to the citizens that it never had before.

          Who is making these additions, is deciding that some of the citizenry must provide more than they were?  Why does it never go the other way - the citizen is responsible to either the state or themselves for additional support?  How is it that it is a never ending cycle of increasing socialism?

          1. ahorseback profile image44
            ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            That's right Wilderness , "It is the responsibility of the state ..........."     I'd like to know where it says that in the constitution , other than in the socialism or communism  manifesto ,   Like social security , unemployment  compensation , minimum wage ,  all of these basic  American  "safety nets "  whether national or state , have become the Christmas wish list of the recently  entitled in American liberal  .

            California  is and has been for quite some time ,  the  quintessential poster child location  for state provided  entitlement programs in America  ,  If Cali- state  said  they were  going to  hand each state resident a state provided home , income , health care package , and vehicles   -------That would be the new liberal agenda calling card for the remainder of liberal states in America , New York ,Vermont , Washington Oregon etc.......

            I repeat ,California ------20 Billion , [B-BILLION] dollars deficit

          2. Will Apse profile image91
            Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

            You do grasp that the state is whatever people want it be in a democracy?

            1. ahorseback profile image44
              ahorsebackposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              Hence the vast differences between states and the need for central [gov.] regulatory -legislative needs . Education , healthcare , law , etc.........

              1. Will Apse profile image91
                Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                Translation, anyone?

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

              It is...as long as "the people" is defined as those voting themselves bread and circuses at the expense of others.  If "the people" refer to all the people, it very often is not what "the people" want.  Only the majority, however slim.

              1. Will Apse profile image91
                Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                So the state is not necessarily an alien entity that preys on people like you? And that you need guns to defend yourself against?

                It could possibly be a benevolent entity in which you have some kind of say, through the ballot box?

                Sounds like the recipe for something big.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                  You need to read again, for the post is almost the exact opposite of that. 

                  The "state" is always an alien entity, even in a democracy where you are the majority.  The "state" is very seldom interested in your welfare, or even it's own; instead it is interested in the welfare of those individuals that run it. 

                  And yes, without the means to defend yourself the state will usually take total control.  That was known over 200 hundred years ago; it is surprising that so many seem to have lost the knowledge (or has the state merely convinced them that it is untrue, as it gains ever more control?).

                  1. Will Apse profile image91
                    Will Apseposted 3 months ago in reply to this

                    There we have it. You have never experienced a government orientated to the needs of ordinary people. You have experienced right of center Democratic governments and right-wing Republican governments. Both kinds focus on the needs of investors. Both kinds use repressive tactics to suppress dissent.

                    Obviously, you loathe government.

                    Try to imagine an alternative.

  4. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 3 months ago

    30 %  ?  =illegal * ,  recently legalized  or  actual new citizenship , And older Americans ?
    Betcha!

 
working