We should all be so proud.
The state of North Carolina has won a big financial bonus from the federal government-- $21 million.
Why? The state has made it easier for working class and lower middle class families to apply for welfare benefits for their children.
North Carolina's Democratic establishment buys votes with various welfare programs; and the Obama administration rewards them for their efforts. How nice.
It's always been interesting to me that when slashing government "benefits" (I use the term loosely), our President/the Congress ALWAYS goes after Medicare first - where arguably, the people getting the "benefits" have paid into the program for YEARS & YEARS, and deserve to get what they paid for.
At the same time, Medicaid is passed around like candy for anyone who wants it (the stories I could tell) - especially in North Carolina.
And yes, Joe. It IS about starting 'em young on entitlement - and buying votes.
However, in terms of the Medicaid moneys improperly managed and sqaundered over the years in this state, $21 million is next to nothing.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | December 30, 2011 at 10:16 AM
I agree, Mary. I had seen recently some data reported that people are still moving into the state of North Carolina. I wonder how many are doing so in order to get on Medicaid.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 30, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Very few, most likely.
The population data you cited (covering the 15 months from the 2010 Census to July 2011) are state-level only, i.e. they aren't broken down by county or metro area. But I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that most of the growth occurred in Wake and Mecklenburg counties. I have no more actual data than you do, but those two have been the fastest-growing counties in the state in terms of both population and jobs. That's how it works: population growth tends to follow job growth, not welfare benefits.
For what it's worth, this 2007 Public Citizen report...
http://www.citizen.org/documents/2007UnsettlingScores.pdf
... ranked North Carolina's Medicare program 24th in eligibility (with a high rank indicating more generous eligibility rules in PC's view), 32nd in scope of services, and 29th in quality of care. Not exactly high grades, though NC gets "better" scores (i.e. better according to this liberal group) than most of its Southeastern neighbors.
So, if we look at the subset of people who (a) didn't move here for work and (b) moved from a nearby state, then yeah, some of them might be here for the welfare benefits. And for some of them, Medicaid might have been the specific welfare program that drew them. All in all, that doesn't sound like a big number.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | December 30, 2011 at 08:08 PM
What really matters, Andrew, is the folks moving here from nearby states to get on Medicaid. I do not claim that is the majority of those moving to North Carolina; but I remember seeing a media report indicating that the Medicaid-seekers are a significant number. It only makes sense they would come here if we are generous compared to our southern neighbors.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 30, 2011 at 08:23 PM
If all you're saying is that the number who moved here for our mid-tier Medicaid benefits is bigger than zero, then fine. I have no reason to believe that number is zero.
But if you want to claim that the number is actually "significant," you'll have to do better than allude to a vaguely remembered "media report." When it comes to reporting on research results, I trust the media less than you do.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | December 30, 2011 at 09:13 PM
I don't think the media was necessarily reporting a research result. It was reporting an observable trend.
The report was probably from a couple of years ago. I don't remember where I saw it.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | December 30, 2011 at 10:16 PM
Observable trends are research results, even if the research is simply breaking down Census numbers.
Put differently, an observable trend that isn't a research result is either an urban myth or a made-up fact.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | December 31, 2011 at 09:56 AM
I should have said: Something that's claimed to be an observable trend but isn't a research result is either an urban myth or a made-up fact.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | December 31, 2011 at 09:59 AM
"Put differently, an observable trend that isn't a research result is either an urban myth or a made-up fact."
On the other hand, we know quite a few "research results" that are demonstrable urban myths or made up facts. You manage to provide these things on all sorts of issues on a regular basis.
Take the myths promulgated by Krugman and heartily endorsed by you, for example.
Posted by: bubba | December 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Nice to hear from you, too, Bubs. Happy New Year.
Posted by: Andrew Brod | December 31, 2011 at 10:08 AM