NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model Is a Budget Casualty

geege geege@barrera.org
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 18:28:07 -0800


federal: compensated at different rates wrt medicaid

state: different wrt to statutes governing eligibilty, by program

what's obvious:  washington's and oregon's priorities differ and different
folks benefited during the boom.  that washington's deliverables remained
static during the boom while oregon's increased can be interpreted more than
one way.



-----Original Message-----
From: johnhall [mailto:johnhall@isomedia.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 11:44 AM
To: 'geege'; fork@xent.com
Subject: RE: NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model
Is a Budget Casualty



> From: geege [mailto:geege@barrera.org]

>
> john asks "The state of Washington and the state of Oregon don't share
the
> same
> Federal Government?  And if they do, why is such a drastic difference
in
> increased spending not noteworthy?'
>
> depends on the program.  medicaid is compensated by the feds at
different
> rates, depending on the state's relative wealth.
>

Compensated at different rates, or more people are eligible?

In any case, do you have any evidence that there is a significant
difference between the states due to Federal discrimination against
Oregon?

Or might the difference be far more mundane.  Oregon's revenues
skyrocketed far more than Washington's during the boom because Oregon
has an Income tax.  With more money, they spent more.

Now it is time to pay the piper.