Perry might actually be right

[Horn6721]

to turn down Bo's expanded medicaid. Interesting article by a Medicare Board Trustee
"Medicare Board of Trustees member Charles Blahous released a Mercatus Center report on March 5 recommending states take advantage of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2012 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) ruling by mostly rejecting the law’s Medicaid expansion. Blahous concluded that states “all appear to face one common, powerful incentive arising from the court’s ruling: to decline to cover childless adults at or above the FPL [federal poverty line] under Medicaid.”


details at linkThe Link

It is pretty straighforward but among other offerings it brings up the strong likliehood that the Feds won't be able to live up to the promise of what the Fed would pay
which would leave the states on the hook
from link
"“From a practical perspective, it is quite unlikely that the federal government will make the full amount of Medicaid payments now scheduled under law. The federal government has now run four consecutive years of unsustainable deficits exceeding $1 trillion annually; most influential national policy makers and analysts acknowledge the need for substantial changes to current policies to avoid uncontrolled debt growth in future years.”



One thing to remember is that the children who would be added to medicaid off of obamacare Already qualify for CHIPS which means at that income level there is NO monthly fee for CHIPS and co pays are $5.00for dr visits and meds.

Hard to beliee but it looks like perry made the right decision here

 

[Hu_Fan]

Would it be true that Texas could literally pay it's own way without federal money? What if citizens of Texas paid less taxes and paid it all to the State? Could that work, as an economic model?

Texas has the equivalent of the 11th economy in the world.
Texas has a major port (Houston), thereby access to sea trade.
One of the largest depots for vehicle delivery and other imports/exports.
Texas has sufficient military bases and installations.
Energy. Natural resources.
As of recent studies, the three top ranked cities for economic vibrancy are as follows: Houston, DFW, Austin.
And I believe the Texas coffers are in the black with a surplus.

Meanwhile....
This?

Or This?

 

[Horns11]

The federal government could just as easily move Fort Hood to Oklahoma. I don't think Texas has to worry much about recouping its investment in the federal government. It's not like we're Massachusetts or something.

 

[zork]

If a family of 4 is paying 20K for health insurance they ought to have more than the 60% coverage the bronze plan from Obamacare is reportedly going to cover. Of course the large distortion in the amount paid vs the coverage is because the paying people have to pay for the families who won't be required to pay.

This is not going to end well.

 

[Horn6721]

Zork
No it won't end well but it will end worse for all those states who really think BO will pay 100% of all those newly added to the medicaid roles for 3 years and 90% there after.
When you start looking into the actual amount the people BO wants to add get in total federal aid you realize they have nothing to spend their money on
but Goodness No let's not ask them to contrivute to their own health care

The rest of us are pretty stupid to continue paying for others to live a pretty good life while we struggle

 

[Bevo Incognito]

Texas is becoming increasingly arid. I was out with some hydrologists in west Texas recently and the stories they were telling would be comical were the situation not so dire.

If the current trends continue, Austin will look like San Angelo within 30 years.

 

[Uninformed]

That is a big "if". If the trend reverses Austin will look like Houston in 30 yrs. Regardless, I don't like the current trend. I liked Austin how it was before Lake Travis water levels declined.

 

[Horn6721]

I hope Perry sticks with his decision and the lege does not try to overturn his decision.
No more added to medicaid under BO's rules!

 

[mcbrett]

Yeah Texas is in the black- I know this is hard for some as it requires longer term thinking, but a fossil fuel boom is great, but it isn't permanent, and that is what is largely driving the Texas economy today.

We have a moron gutting our schools and universities- ensuring other countries and states produce the longer lasting, and more value creating tech and science jobs everyone covets.

So- while I would bet that Texas should be in the black for a decade or two, I wouldn't make that bet over the long run. In no way does it make sense even for a second to think our state is somehow capable of being self sustaining.

I would trade the two Texas shale plays for all of the firms in Silicon Valley in a heart beat, and would make trillions more money over the long run for it too.

So yes, perry once again is a flaming moron embarrassing the state on a global perspective, gutting our schools, gutting universities- and not understanding that some health care aid actually reduces some medical expenses later on.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

Uninformed,

I get your idea. Yeah some firms and people relocate to Texas from California for lower taxes, cost of living etc. But, Mississippi also has low taxes and cost of living. It's not those two facets alone that create the environment to grow and sustain those Silicon Valley firms.

Do you know why Silicon Valley is in Silicon Valley? Stanford, Cal Tech and Berkeley. That's why. That's where the nerds came from, and the sons and daughters of nerds grew up playing with computers to create new nerdy companies the entire planet covets. We have UT Austin. Rice is good. And, that's it. UT Austin as we all know is being gutted and turned into a Thunderbird School of Management Online degree.

Companies, in the tech sector, can last longer (Intel, AMD, SAP) or shorter (web based, HTC, LG) depending on how durable their products are. They need to constantly reinvent themselves. It takes highly educated and talented people to do that, and who want to live where the company is based. And that's why Mississippi, despite also having low taxes and cost of living, is zero threat, and that's why getting a few people to relocate from California is nice, but not as vital as building the foundation that starts these firms and keeps them there.

Stanford is the best university in the US- hands down. It has its hands connected heavily in many of the best firms and technologies we create- and as I, a self professed Engineering nerd, read in the MIT Technology review- Stanford's labs are working on the next generation of technologies us Texans will all be buying. (Disclosure- I am an Mech Engr, from UT Austin.)

Companies re-invest in themselves- it's called R&D. They hire the bright, young smart people to create value. If Rick Perry ran a company as he does our state it would fold in months with no product anyone wanted to buy. Our people are our IT, our product, and where the value comes from that creates long lasting jobs and sectors. Oil and gas will be sucked out in a decade or two. It's difficult for people on this board to think beyond 2020 at best- I often think about 2050.

 

[Uninformed]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mcbrett]

Uninformed, we may work in a similar industry. I work in PE and have consulted some VC funds in the past, and attended one of those other schools near Boston for graduate work.

I do not agree with you that VCs can be grouped together as a homogeneous strategy seeking experienced management teams in an incestuous manner. Zuckerberg comes to mind and every other 25 year old who has become a millionaire because they had the right idea or website at the right time.

The networking effect you mention is more meaningful, but I believe the network begins and continues because of the constant nourishment in talent provided by quality schools Texas does not have. We have two schools that are top quality (Texas, Rice), California has 8 or so schools at that level. New England has 5 or so. Boston does have a smaller VC industry, and technology as well. I didn't attend MIT but would love to (for a semester or two)- if I didn't have to take anymore tests.

This is what pisses me off about Perry. He thinks he is pro-growth, he thinks he attracts businesses and improves Texas. He is doing the opposite- he is hooking up with a few firms for short term affairs, and is being propped up by a blessing of natural resources that is temporary in nature. The one thing you are supposed to do- foster an environment that promotes growth through technology and education (coupled with a friendly business environment which we do have) - he fails miserably.

Regarding your point- some high tech moves here, but they don't last if they can't repopulate their staff with quality graduates. And they don't start here either, unless you have the intelligent people. Tech firms, are hit or miss. They tend to last as long as technology trends do. Thus, I repeat my point- I'll take Silicon Valley (and their schools) over our two shale plays anyday.

 

[Uninformed]

Mcbrett, in my opinion, you are too caught up in local youthful talent. Only a modest percentage of scientists with whom I worked came from the Bay Area schools. A much higher percentage came from overseas. We had a fair number Russians, Indians, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, etc. We had smaller numbers of Western Europeans. And we also had many transplants from the East Coast. People from all over move to the Bay Area to work. And it is probably this large network of foreign born skilled labor that draws other foreign born skilled labor to the area. In the past, Texas has seemed like a whole 'nuther' country to these populations.

And, personally, I think you are also too caught up in high tech new ventures. I used to be as well during the internet boom. It was nice getting all those stock options (which are no longer available due to gov't accounting law changes put in place to hurt a few CEOs) and riding the wave. However, as I get older, I see the wisdom of Buffets aversion to such companies. As you say, all these companies must reinvent themselves. But since the mid 80s we have seen very few of these companies continue to grow through innovation. During my time in the 90s I saw so many companies like Silicon Graphics and Xcelera disappear and other companies such as HP dwindle. The sustainability of high tech is questionable as even Sun and Microsoft are having problems keeping on top.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against high tech. These provide the high growth, high salary jobs that can partially sustain our government (yes that's a dig at Washington and California). However, keep in mind that these businesses come and go and the markets come and go. PCs are no longer a high growth market and could just as easily be made in China as the US. PC makers might be able to re-invent themselves but most are going to have to contract before they can grow again.

Now so far, I have only been talking on the periphery of the point, "I think you are a little too enamored with high tech NEW VENTURES. My first point here was that the established high tech companies aren't necessarily the end all be all. Apple has done well but I'm not sure how it compares to Dupont and 3M in the long term: Texas, of course would be happy to get all 3 of them. New ventures are a whole different story. I watched so many biotech companies hemorrhage money, spending foolishly with no hope of ever making money in the long run. My joke at meetings was that the difference between pharmaceuticals and biotechs was that biotechs were pharmaceutical companies that didn't make a profit. Dot com was basically the same way. E-Trade and E-Bank and ePets were wildly over-valued. Once those companies were judged on PE some of the enamor wore off.

I realize I am on my high horse and have a touch of "get of my lawn" in my writing, but... I do believe you have fallen in love with new technology at the expense of having an appreciation for established success. And there is a huge difference between making money for venture capitalists and providing long term job growth for a community. Venture capitalists are happy to flip at the first signs of success. Long term jobs require sustainable profits.

 

[mcbrett]

Uninformed,

Maybe I misspoke and made it seem that the relevance of the universities was the youthful talent they provide- which yes does matter. What I didn't emphasize enough is their R&D, facilities etc that spawn off countless technologies, or partner with existing firms for research funds and programs.

True, much of the talent in the firms is international, and I too had a stint at a research facility (though on the business side) in San Diego briefly, and agree 100% about your biotech comments. Probably 80% of the 3,000 people were International. But, the facility was located in San Diego in part because of the networking effect we both mention, and the close ties to UCSD, Scripps etc.

We have gotten a little side tracked here- you clearly are very educated, and you probably would agree that the fossil fuel craze, while great, is a 2-3 decade phenomenon whereas technology and the base that helps it grow and stick around is something much more valuable and permanent.

If you want, PM me- would be interesting to swap notes.