Redstate

It is surprising to see the Post write such a good story. This highlights the Congressional Democrats proclivity for partisanship even at the expense their fellow state level Democrats.

Clearly, they cannot be taken seriously as a political party with ideas.

is that governors have to balance their budgets, but Congress doesn't.  This has forced even Democrat governors like Phil Bredesen in Tennessee to admit that Medicaid's expenses are unjustifiable and need to be cut back to avoid bankrupting the budget, but Congress isn't accountable to any form of budgetary rules.  The fact that Republican congressmen are waking up to the need for some budget discipline is remarkable.  That Democrat congressmen still don't get it is predictable.

I'm not sure what driving a wedge between governors and national Democrats will do.  I doubt there will be any party switches, and frugal governors are just as likely to become spendthrift presidents when the reins are taken off no matter what their party affiliation is.  We can hope that prominent Democrat governors like Bill Richardson and ex-Virginia governor Warner will publicly question their party, but as both are probably looking for presidential nominations in '08, I doubt the criticism will be too strong if it ever comes above the disgruntled muttering level.

gives more power to governors, ergo most governors will be in favor of it. This will happen with any bill, whether of liberal or conservative bent. This is not an "issue" issue.

Notice that the Republicans are sticking it to the rich in this bill. Notice that the Democrats are siding with the rich.

I'm not srue what your definition of "rich" is but most of the people who engage in the sort of Medicaid planning that the bill presumably makes harder (and in certain states, it is currently very hard to do this) are decidedly middle class.  They are typically people who face the prospect huge nursing home bills and yet have enough assets and/or income such that they don't meet the medicaid threshold.  In such a case they are required to use up their own assets first before becoming eligible for medicaid, which can constitute a huge hardship if a spouse does not require such care and yet must sell the family home to pay for the bills.

In such a case they try to shed themselves of such assets, which has other consequences (e.g, gift/estate tax) that are unpalatable.  No one is giving away millions of dollars of assets to qualify for medicaid.

Read through the hundreds of thousands of hits you get and tell me if this is an uncommon practice. Many of the lawyers you'll find in this search are utterly shameless about how they can hide your assets to get you on Medicaid (read: tax dollars of your neighbor). Thus, the public policy question becomes: Is this what Medicaid is for?

The Washington Post article neatly exposes the wide rift between Democratic governors who actually have to throw a bone to fiscal responsibility, and national Demogogic leaders.

the governors have to balance budgets, while the dems in congress are just playing to the voter-it is pretty obvious that the realize well off old people vote.

Money doesn't grow on trees-the government needs to realize this.

your bills, not hide it, so that the taxpayer pays them.

My friends family did and my family did.  We certainly arent rich, but both families took advantage of the law and were able to save literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Which, my fellow citizens, you were good enough to pick up for us.  

I thought it was wrong then and I think it is wrong now.  I am sure this is the strategy for literally millions of people.  This is a decision that we need to confront: are we a socialist state?  And if we are, the Dems need to step up and propose the extra taxes to pay for it.

presumed that people would do this legally, if they're willing to commit fraud, that's another matter.

Wow,

I can't help but be amused by this one.

I'll go one step further.  I live in New York.  Earlier this year, we learned that Medicaid was purchasing Viagra for pedophiles.

Do we really need to have taxpayers purchase Viagra for pedophiles?  Is that what the Dems stand for these days?

Do we really need to have taxpayers purchase Viagra for pedophiles?  Is that what the Dems stand for these days?

No, and no.

...system should be ashamed of yourselves. My girlfriend, who is very ill with a severe case of lupus, barely gets by on Medicaid and SSI disability. She can't work & has no assets. The rent for her 1-bedroom apartment takes almost her entire monthly check. She also has an 11 year old son to raise (no child support). She gets by on very little money and the medical prognosis is not looking very good.

Then I read about affluent people transferring assets to relatives so they can get Medicaid to pick up the bill for their health care. This makes me sick. This is fraud and should be stopped - completely if possible.

There is, I believe, a 3 year window that has to pass before your gifted assets are ignored. The reason people do this is typically for nursing home coverage since Medicare doesn't cover it.

They were doing it because Viagra is covered. I would go so far as to say we should not be buying Viagra for anybody. Now we can pick up the tab for it on the Medicare side as well.

... and yet you speak for the Democrats?

How is this possible?

case with Viagra and NY it was Dems that actually stopped the situation, so it is safe it say "No" is the right answer.

You belong to neither party... and yet you speak for the Democrats?  How is this possible?

Nah, actually it's just a few simple steps:

1. Belong to neither party.
   
2. Speak for the Democrats.

Bring up gun control, and I'll speak for the Republicans, too!  (Without voting for any of them, either!)