- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jindal Drains Medicaid fund to balance budget
Posted on 2/24/14 at 3:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 2/24/14 at 3:38 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I would MUCH rather the state have a trust that they can use earnings from to pay for reoccurring expenses rather than have the tax payers foot the bill every year.
So would I
quote:
That is exactly what this thread is about, Jindal has raided a trust that was set up to use INTEREST from to help fund Medicaid. To say that he is balancing the budget while raiding the principle in a trust is a bit insincere. What do we do when the principle is all gone? Raise taxes - BUT - he will not be governor when we have to raise the taxes, so he doesn't care what condition he leaves us in as long as he can point back and say, "Well, the budget was balanced when I was in charge..."
I'd prefer to see Jindal raid the trust in bad economic times and yes take the principle too before raising taxes during those hard times.
If the taxes have to be raised later, then they have to be raised later; however, if dumbass in the WH had any kind of pro growth agenda and the economy in La. grew along with the national economy, I suspect taxes would not have to be raised at all because economic growth could then pay the bill and eventually more rainy day money could be put aside.
Why have rainy day money that you can't use when it's a flood of bad economic news?
2
Posted on 2/24/14 at 3:49 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
i would rather him raise taxes
I wouldn't
Posted on 2/24/14 at 3:55 pm to LSURussian
quote:
So, exaggerate much, Drama Queen???
The anti Jindal crowd is so comically awful.
Sure, he could be better. I don't think hes held state legislators accountable enough.
But, the state has made it trough the toughest national economic stretch since the Great Depression relatively unaffected. The image of LA has taken a significant improvement post Katrina. NOLA is now ranked as one of the best places to do business. Remarkable improvement from the governor on national (and international) TV blabbering like a fool like Blanco.
But you make state workers share the burden of the recession with the rest of the private sector employees and dare to hold teachers accountable? Thug POS. Worst governor ever. Can't get rid of him soon enough.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 3:57 pm to elprez00
quote:
state has made it trough the toughest national economic stretch since the Great Depression relatively unaffected.
Contradicts this:
quote:
share the burden of the recession with the rest of the private sector employees
Posted on 2/24/14 at 3:57 pm to doubleb
and when is it a good times to raise taxes? most people say never but with an economy thats is pretty strong and your unemployment numbers you posted support that raise taxes for a short term and fix budget ..but that would be un republican
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:02 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
i get we didnt have better choices but that doesnt make what he is doing right for louisisana.
Who was the better choice? Someone in your imagination?
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:06 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
and when is it a good times to raise taxes?
The better question is 'when is it a good time to LOWER taxes?' Why do you assume that taxes must always go up?
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:08 pm to doubleb
quote:
I'd prefer to see Jindal raid the trust in bad economic times
No, because that means he doesn't have to fix the problem. Good times will not help our imperiled health care system (and YES, read his stump speeches from his first gubernatorial campaign, our health care system was in DEEP trouble before Obamacare) the system needed a major re-design that it has not gotten.
So if the program that you're funding with rainy day money will not be solvent even in good times, using your principle for recurring expenses is NOT a good idea.
quote:
Why have rainy day money that you can't use when it's a flood of bad economic news?
Because ultimately we are not talking about a rainy day fund, we are talking about a trust which produces annual revenue to cover annual expenses. When the trust is gone, that revenue stream is gone.
It's just like selling buildings to cover operating expenses. It works for a little while, but eventually you run out of buildings, and if you haven't solved the fundamental problem of the program, you will not have any more funds to use to fund it. ETA: AND you lose the potential revenue stream that leasing the buildings would have provided.
This post was edited on 2/24/14 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:12 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
and when is it a good times to raise taxes? most people say never but with an economy thats is pretty strong and your unemployment numbers you posted support that raise taxes for a short term and fix budget ..but that would be un republican
In the perfect world taxes would never go up. Economic growth would generate enough revenue to run a surplus.
Surpluses could be used to start a rainy day fund. A rainy day fund could then offset poor economic times so that taxes would not have to be raised.
Eventually the hope would be taxes could be lowered, and the state would prosper even more.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:21 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
No, because that means he doesn't have to fix the problem
What is the problem?
quote:
Good times will not help our imperiled health care system (and YES, read his stump speeches from his first gubernatorial campaign, our health care system was in DEEP trouble before Obamacare) the system needed a major re-design that it has not gotten.
If good times can't fix the problem then we have over promised don't you think?
quote:
So if the program that you're funding with rainy day money will not be solvent even in good times, using your principle for recurring expenses is NOT a good idea.
So what do you suggest? Raising taxes? or Cutting services?
Me, I think we should only offer what we can afford. Of course we don't have all the say so there. Aren't we stuck with Federal involvement?
quote:
Because ultimately we are not talking about a rainy day fund, we are talking about a trust which produces annual revenue to cover annual expenses. When the trust is gone, that revenue stream is gone.
So let's not touch the rainy day funds, let's not touch the trust. Let's let some banks make money with our money while we soak the tax payers.
Nope, that's not for me.
quote:
Because ultimately we are not talking about a rainy day fund, we are talking about a trust which produces annual revenue to cover annual expenses. When the trust is gone, that revenue stream is gone.
So would you keep the buildings even though you don't need them, pay to keep them up, and pay to keep them secure? If the buildings are not required, why not sell them? Why not take the money to offset expenses in bad times? It makes sense to me. It's better than raising taxes.
Now there could be a better way to provide for our indigent, our poor and people who need help; but raising taxes on the people who are paying the bills should be the very last resort.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:32 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
and when is it a good times to raise taxes
never.
cut spending. get the government out of the way of the private sector and watch the pie grow, without corrupt government taking their cut.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:40 pm to doubleb
quote:
What is the problem?
Jindal was quite clear about it in 2006, our medical system, specifically Medicaid, was unsustainable. He even had a chart (I can't find it now) that showed projected growth in spending on these programs as eventually being over 100% of the projected budget. Expenses were growing faster than revenue. Keep in mind, this is BEFORE the market crash and BEFORE Obamacare.
quote:
If good times can't fix the problem then we have over promised don't you think?
That's not necessarily the only valid conclusion one can draw. I can imagine a scenario where there is a program that has a budget deficit in the bad times, and then when the good times roll around, there is still a deficit. Then with a little investigation, it turns out the program director was stealing all the money. In that scenario, what was promised to the people may not have been out of line in the first place.
Perhaps there is a structural problem with waste, and yes, perhaps we've promised too much.
Jindal promised to fix our health care system, and he hasn't. He has only gotten by with emergency funding that cannot last.
quote:
So what do you suggest? Raising taxes? or Cutting services?
Restructuring the programs as Jindal promised.
quote:
Let's let some banks make money with our money while we soak the tax payers.
What in the holy frick are you even talking about? Do you let your broker make off with all the profits of your investments? There was a trust. The trust earned interest. That interest was used by the state to help fund Medicaid. The trust is gone. There is no more interest being paid to the state by the trust. That revenue stream is gone.
So now we have neither the revenue stream nor the trust. But we still have the crappy programs that got us into trouble in the first place.
quote:
So would you keep the buildings even though you don't need them, pay to keep them up, and pay to keep them secure? If the buildings are not required, why not sell them? Why not take the money to offset expenses in bad times? It makes sense to me. It's better than raising taxes.
I would examine what the most efficient use of state assets would be. If it would generate more net revenue to lease the buildings (minus over head) than the revenue generated by selling them and forming a trust with the proceeds and creating a revenue stream with the net payments (interest minus overhead), then I would keep the buildings. If the trust would generate more net revenue than leasing the buildings, I would sell the buildings and form a trust.
The problem is that even in good times we are operating at a deficit. We need to restructure our programs and our budget, not just selling shite off and hoping that a leprechaun will appear one day riding a unicorn with a pot of gold. that's what my sister does, and she never has furniture in her house - when she even has a house. She just keeps hoping for a sunny day while she bleeds cash.
quote:
Now there could be a better way to provide for our indigent, our poor and people who need help
Yes, and selling off all of our assets while maintaining this crappy system is what the problem is. At the end, we will still have crappy programs - but we will have no assets.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Jindal promised to fix our health care system, and he hasn't. He has only gotten by with emergency funding that cannot last.
I think I mostly agree about raiding the trust fund. Should have cut rates to nursing home providers and just used the earnings. However the legislature wouldn't let Jindal do that, so he turned to the principal instead. Some, like Jeff Sadow, thinks this is a ploy by Jindal: once the fund is empty, the legislature will have to agree to rate cuts. I am not sure I agree. Regardless, I think this is a mistake (and this much different than the rainy day fund use, IMHO).
That said, I think you give Jindal WAY too little credit on healthcare reform. He moved medicaid to a managed care model with Bayou Health and has pretty much completely privatized the old charity hospital system. Either one of those reforms are huge. It is really almost unimaginable that he did both.
He has dealt with not only the post-Katrina drop in revenues, the national recession drop in revenues, but also the decreased FMAP rate which really screwed us. That means he had less state money to meet a lower federal match. Ouch! I would say that we have a better healthcare system then before he became governor and for a lot less money.
Now is some of that built with one-time money? Sure and that is going to bit us in the rear at some point. But I think he deserve a lot of credit for what he did do.
This post was edited on 2/24/14 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 2/24/14 at 4:58 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Jindal was quite clear about it in 2006, our medical system, specifically Medicaid, was unsustainable. He even had a chart (I can't find it now) that showed projected growth in spending on these programs as eventually being over 100% of the projected budget. Expenses were growing faster than revenue. Keep in mind, this is BEFORE the market crash and BEFORE Obamacare
Any chart, plan, or strategy made in 2006 couldn't have foreseen what happened in 2008 and was doomed to fail. From 2008 to 2010 we saw our tax revenues drop 2+ billion dollars from 11 billion to around 8 and a half billion.
quote:
That's not necessarily the only valid conclusion one can draw. I can imagine a scenario where there is a program that has a budget deficit in the bad times, and then when the good times roll around, there is still a deficit. Then with a little investigation, it turns out the program director was stealing all the money. In that scenario, what was promised to the people may not have been out of line in the first place. Perhaps there is a structural problem with waste, and yes, perhaps we've promised too much. Jindal promised to fix our health care system, and he hasn't. He has only gotten by with emergency funding that cannot last
He promised not to raise taxes, and he hasn't. If he had one promise he wasn't going to break, that was it. He didn't take the easy way out, he made tough decisions and did what he could to pay the bills as revenues fell.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:00 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
What do we do when the principle is all gone? Raise taxes
fricking liberals
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:02 pm to BigJim
quote:
That said, I think you give Jindal WAY too little credit on healthcare reform. He moved medicaid to a managed care model with Bayou Health and has pretty much completely privatized the old charity hospital system. Either one of those reforms are huge. It is really almost unimaginable that he did both.
He has dealt with not only the post-Katrina drop in revenues, the national recession drop in revenues, but also the decreased FMAP rate which really screwed us. That means he had less state money to meet a lower federal match. Ouch! I would say that we have a better healthcare system then before he became governor and for a lot less money.
Now is some of that built with one-time? Sure and that is going to bit us in the rear at some point. But I think he deserve a lot of credit for what he did do.
Excellent post.
I agree, perhaps I don't give him enough credit. But when I saw he was still raiding that fund, I felt betrayed. It reminded me of every other Louisiana governor (besides Treen).
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:05 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
What in the holy frick are you even talking about? Do you let your broker make off with all the profits of your investments? There was a trust. The trust earned interest. That interest was used by the state to help fund Medicaid. The trust is gone. There is no more interest being paid to the state by the trust. That revenue stream is gone. So now we have neither the revenue stream nor the trust. But we still have the crappy programs that got us into trouble in the first
I'm talking about selling surplus properties, empty building. state assets that aren't needed and assets that aren't bringing in revenues.
You brought up the subject not me.
quote:
I would examine what the most efficient use of state assets would be. If it would generate more net revenue to lease the buildings (minus over head) than the revenue generated by selling them and forming a trust with the proceeds and creating a revenue stream with the net payments (interest minus overhead), then I would keep the buildings. If the trust would generate more net revenue than leasing the buildings, I would sell the buildings and form a trust. The problem is that even in good times we are operating at a deficit. We need to restructure our programs and our budget, not just selling shite off and hoping that a leprechaun will appear one day riding a unicorn with a pot of gold. that's what my sister does, and she never has furniture in her house - when she even has a house. She just keeps hoping for a sunny day while she bleeds cash.
All of that is fine, and good. But I don't want the state in the leasing business. I want less state govt, not more. I'd rather sell a property than to have the state leasing property that they have to maintain, insure, and collect rent on.
quote:
Yes, and selling off all of our assets while maintaining this crappy system is what the problem is. At the end, we will still have crappy programs - but we will have no assets.
The problem was here before we decided to sell assets. The problem is La. has promised too much to too many and can't pay for it while the economy is so poor.
And the economy has remained in poor shape longer than predicted because of the Federal Govt. regulations and policies.
La. is paying its bills. La. is trying to recover as best it can. Jindal has been fairly businesslike in his approach.
No he isn't doing as good of a job as I would like, but he isn't raising state taxes, he isn't making govt. bigger, and he has cut out some of the waste.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:08 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I agree, perhaps I don't give him enough credit. But when I saw he was still raiding that fund, I felt betrayed. It reminded me of every other Louisiana governor (besides Treen).
Raiding a trust fund should be a last resort, but if you can't do it in the worst of times when raising taxes will hurt far more than it would help; when can you do it.
If your answer is never, we disagree.
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:10 pm to hawkeye007
quote:Doesn't understand the state of Louisana's Constitution.
hawkeye007
Posted on 2/24/14 at 5:15 pm to doubleb
quote:
He promised not to raise taxes, and he hasn't.
Are fees considered to be taxes, these days?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News