they lose a lot of their income and also their Medicare if they marry - nm
Posted By: Amanda on 2008-11-26
In Reply to: Either way - gourdpainter
x
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Check out his income tax returns. Bulk of his income
royalties he gets from his books, which are selling like hotcakes. Besides, he gets to spend his own salary, yes? Your second paragraph is incoherent and inaccurate. McC's age is an issue NOT because of his "image", but rather because of his ill-advised VP pick and the truly TERRIFYING idea that SP could ever get that close to the oval office. SP's beauty pageant competitions have little to do with image either, rather with perceptions. Your parting shot is ridiculous. Obama gives twice the average American to charity and his jet is something his contributors think is key to his ability to "spread himself around" and get the vote out. You or I cannot pretend to know what he will do with it once the election is over. One thing for sure is that he will not be lying about selling it on Ebay.
I do agree. It was a lose/lose situation for him either way.
Very sad.
Let me tell you something about Medicare
I am old enough to be on Medicare and thought I was going to have to take it, did not want to as I wanted to stay on my husband's insurance plan. I had heard things Medicare would pay or perhaps not and I have a PPO and wanted to stay that way. You have no choice if not on a company insurance and at 65 or so have to sign up for Medicare. If my husband were to be without his job, I can immediately switch over to Medicare without a break in my coverage. There are probably retirees out there who did not have their insurance continued because of their retirements who did not have the choice but to sign onto Medicare.
The right to marry each other
what rock have you been under? No one can marry someone of the same sex. Never in the history of the world. They believe that having this perceived right will somehow make their behavior more acceptable and the image of the homosexual will not seem as tainted. They would be wrong on all counts.
Except for the right to marry who they want....nm
x
you could always marry a horse
x
Gays have a right to marry
I sincerely believe that all are equal on this planet. Why would we want to deprive them of happiness?
Let 'em marry if they want to
then they can have the same privilege straight couples have of paying thousands to divorce lawyers to get rid of what they were so sure was gonna last a lifetime. Straight or gay, that marriage license changes people. I seriously doubt that "gay" marriages are going to last any better than straight marriages. Yeah and they want to adopt kids. What are the 2 biggest problem areas in straight marriages? You got it. Money and kids. So let 'em have at it. Make the divorce lawyers richer. As It happens I don't believe in marriage between 2 people of the same sex and I believe homosexuality is a choice but then I'll leave the sorting out to God. Same as being an alcoholic is a choice. One can choose to fight the temptation or they can embrace it. JMO.
Eligible for Medicare.............sm
does not mean free health care. My mother is a widow of almost 4 years now and draws a smidgen over $900 a month in SS benefits. Out of this, she has to pay almost $400 in health insurance, which is Medicare and AARP. She is also on several medications for age-related diseases and disorders. While her Medicare Part D does cover part of the cost of the medicines, it does not cover it all. In addition, she falls in the "donut hole" every fall and has to pay full price for her medications until the new year arrives. While her house is paid for, there are always repairs to be made specific to an aging house. In the last year alone, she has had to replace a dead stove, refrigerator and freezer. She also has to pay around $250 everytime the propane truck fills her tank, which is about every other month, especially in the winter.
Like the other poster mentioned, the reason "they" have their houses paid off is because they managed their money properly and did not live above their means. My dad never made more than $6/hour his entire life and he and mom raised my brother and me on that salary alone. We never knew we were "poor" because mom worked hard to stretch dad's paycheck and didn't spend it on getting her nails done or expensive clothes. She made every stitch of clothing I ever had with the exception of my wedding dress and bought my brother 3 pairs of Sears' Toughskin jeans at the beginning of every school year and they lasted all year. Dad had 3 suits of khaki work clothes most years. Sometimes when there was no money to buy new, she would patch the old ones to make them last. She never bought new clothes for herself but instead made them as she did for me.
While it infuriates me that I likely won't ever draw SS because it will be dried up and gone before I am eligible, it makes me madder still that our generation and the ones after us have caused this problem for our parents. What ungrateful children we are.
It has never been a right for gays to marry....
--
You don't believe in Social Security and Medicare?
What would your plan be for the elderly population then?
No drug laws? I thought libertarians only objected to posession of marijuana as a crime. I didn't know you actually objected to all drug laws. So then, you believe all drugs should be legalized?
You don't believe in a standing military. I am not sure I remember that right. It's hard to remember that very long list without it in front of me. So is your plan then that we should all live in a drug-haze, leave all other countries to their own devices and we won't need a military because we won't be bothering anyone and who will care anyway because, of course, we will all be stoned? I can't say that I see any cogent thought behind this list. It's a morally relative list of Doctor Feel Good. I thought libertarians had more sense. What a bummer dude.
I'm quite aware of how Medicare works...
I have been dealing with my mother's for years. You won't have to worry about your mother not being able to afford her medications for 4 months because the way it is being set up, your government will decide if your mother even needs that drug and if so, how many "pills" she can be dispensed and how long she can take it and if the GOVERNMENT doesn't feel it is helping, she will not be allowed to get any of it......PERIOD! They will decide if she is still young enough to make the government's handing her the meds worth their money or not. If not, they will allow her to do without and if that kills her, so be it. They have determined she is a lost case and doesn't deserve her medications, the medications I and you pay for.....but of course, Obama lovers just know their government knows best. Now they can decide if you live or die depending on your age. Just stick around folks.......it's gonna be sickening!!!
Medicare and social security
This today regarding Social Security and Medicare. For the person below who thought this money could not be used for other purposes, please note the *** paragraphs and the final paragraph stating this administration would run a deficit this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.
Washington – The financial health of Social Security and Medicare, the government's two biggest benefit programs, have worsened because of the severe recession, and Medicare is now paying out more than it receives.
Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner. Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
*******The trust funds — which exist in paper form in a filing cabinet in Parkersburg, W.Va. — are bonds that are backed by the government's "full faith and credit" but not by any actual assets. That money has been spent over the years to fund other parts of government. To redeem the trust fund bonds, the government would have to borrow in public debt markets or raise taxes.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the head of the trustees group, said the new reports were a reminder that "the longer we wait to address the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security, the sooner those challenges will be upon us and the harder the options will be." Geithner said that President Barack Obama was committed to working with Congress to find ways to control runaway growth in both public and private health care expenditures, noting the promise Monday by major health care providers to trim costs by $2 trillion over the next decade. However, Republicans pointed to the newly dire assessments as evidence the Obama administration has failed to come forward with actual entitlement reform to close the funding gaps. "Instead of getting existing public programs in order right now, some are saying we should create a new government-run health insurance plan," Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, said in a reference to the administration's health care proposals. "When we can't afford the public health plan we have already, does it make sense to add more?" House Republican leader John Boehner said the trustees report "confirms what we already knew: Our nation cannot afford to continue this reckless borrowing and spending spree." The findings in the trustees report, the annual checkup given the two benefit programs, did not come as a surprise. Private economists had been predicting that the dates the programs would begin to pay out more than they take in and the dates the trust funds would be insolvent would occur sooner given the economic recession.
The deep recession, the worst the country has endured in decades, has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million jobs since it began in December 2007. The unemployment rate hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April.
Fewer people working means less being paid into the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that Social Security will collect just $3 billion more in 2010 than it will pay out in benefits. A year ago, the CBO had projected that Social Security would have a much higher $86 billion cash surplus for the 2010 budget year, which begins Oct. 1. The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring. That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report. At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083.
*******To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries. While the government is obligated to redeem those bonds, it has already spent the excess Social Security collections over the years to fund general government operations, providing the trust funds with IOUs.
While the smaller surpluses that will begin this year will not have any impact on Social Security benefit payments, the government will need to borrow more at a time when the federal deficit is already exploding because of the recession and the billions of dollars being spent to prop up a shaky banking system. Medicare's condition is more precarious, reflecting the pressures from soaring health care costs as well as the drop in tax collections. Obama on Monday praised the pledge by the health care industry to achieve $2 trillion in savings on health care costs over the next decade, but it was unclear how much help those pledges would be in achieving Obama's goal of extending coverage to some 50 million uninsured Americans. The administration is pushing Congress to pass legislation in this area this year, preferring to tackle health care before Social Security. The trustees report is likely to set off renewed debate over Social Security and Medicare. Critics have charged that the Obama administration has failed to tackle the most serious problems in the budget — soaring entitlement spending.
*****The administration on Monday revised its federal deficit forecasts upward to project an imbalance this year of $1.84 trillion, four times last year's record, and said the deficits will remain above $500 billion every year over the next decade.
You consider Social Security and Medicare expanding government projects, t hen?
Help me understand this concept. I am afraid the logic escapes me.
Income between 31K and 63K ?
Poster tried to get you to read this before but obviously ignored by most. You might want to remember this at the polls......... This was just back in March when this was attempted by Obama.. your hero!
WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaign schedules to return to the Senate for votes on taxes and spending likely to become key points of contention in the race for the White House.
Votes on tax cuts and on a one-year ban on pet projects topped the Senate’s agenda before an expected late-night vote yesterday to pass a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint. The nonbinding plan predicts a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when President Bush’s tax cuts expire in about three years. This was found out and release the morning after they tried to get this passed in the mddle of the night back in March.
Obama(D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.
right - available to the low income -
You said that the insurance program to everyone would become a free program. That is not what it is. It is going to cost. My point was that Medicaid was already there as a government program for free.
Income tax
Rich are given lots of stuff for free. There is no way to hold them accountable to declare it all. Look at the goody bags they get at the award shows. They are worth tens of thousands of dollar. Only just recently has it been taxed.
It will be just like the income tax
1. They'll sell it "for a good cause". The income tax was supposed to be a temporary tax that was sold to the people on the basis of paying off war debts.
2. It will start off small and end up big.
3. It will never end.
4. It will prove incredibly burdensome to whoever has to actually keep all the records and submit the tax to government.
5. It will act as another drag on economic growth.
6. It will serve as yet another brake on the entrepreneurial engine that has always been unique to America.
If a tax revolt of one kind or another isn't coming, I'll eat your hat, with or without feathers. It's gone way past the point of ridiculous now.
My MT pay is certainly not the main income....
in this household. Sure, we could lose our jobs, however, we are quite prepared for something like that. We have an emergency fund in place that would last at least a year (a year's worth of mortgage and utilility payments), we don't have a car payment, all credit cards are paid off and we have CDs, retirement funds, etc. It's called planning for the future and planning for the unexpected. We have paid into unemployment, so of course we would take it if we had to.
It is based on income . . .
not on grades. You have to keep your grades up to keep receiving it, BUT the primary requirement to receive it is low income. So do you thing those who have done well for themselves should be required to give money to those who are below them if they are trying to do better? Because that is what is sounds like. As long as it is benefiting you, it is okay because you are trying to do better?
No matter how you slice it, you are still taking from those who have and giving it to havenots. Just stay consistent with your argument. Who is to say who HONESTLY deserves aid?
Well sure, look at the source of her income or
!!
this is phased out at $47,000-50,000 income nm
x
One income already does not pay the bills! nm
x
I am not willing to lose what
I've earned through my hard work to give to some lazy bum who would rather mooch than work for a living. I'm not willing to lose my freedom. To me....it seems like government wants to take control over more things and when will it end.
I do not support our president because I do not believe his goals and agenda will help anyone who really needs the help. It will continue to enable moochers to keep on mooching. It will hurt charities by taxing the rich.....who, BTW, are the biggest donators to charities. It will hurt businesses by taxing them more and in turn they will cut back and lay off workers, not hire more employees. Cap and trade will hurt everyone as gas prices will sore, utility costs will sky rocket, and the price for all goods and services will go up. That doesn't help people who have to decide which is more imporant....gas to get to work or food to put on the table.
To stand by and let these things happen because we support our country and just have to see how things come together......to me that is just ignorant. That is how we ended up in this situation in the first place. We supported our country and put our trust in government (dems and pubs alike) and we ended up getting it stuck to us.
Exactly. It is income redistribution, even though he denies it...
and that does not work. Stirring up class warfare does not work. And that $200,000 puts small businesses' necks on the block. Because many S corporations and other small businesses pay the personal tax, not the business tax. He will effectively kill them and jobs will be lost and even MORE people added to the lower bracket. Do people really not see the socialist implications here?
i don't care what the individual income is
how is it anyone else's right to tell me that i have to give ANY portion of my income to help those less fortunate? I don't care if the income is $200,000 or $20,000!
Yes, my income grew after 2001...nm
Moved home, and I took my primary account home with me as an IC, and then promptly found two other accounts. I've always worked more than one job, and being at home is no different. And it's always been just me doing the work, no one else.
However, in the last two years, since dems have had control of Congress, my income has plummeted by 20,000. The most I ever made was close to $80,000 a year, and that was working 12 hours a day, every day, seven days a week.
Now, I have to work more day, get paid less, and make somewhere around $55 or 60,000.
I'm an IC MT/editor/QA type person, who does all three, for different clients, depending on who I work for.
Not an MTSO, but took advantage of all the tax breaks for small businesses, as well as HSA account for health purposes, just for my husband and myself.
Soooo...to answer your question to sam....Yes, I did well in the first four years after 9/11. I work my butt off, to be able to live where I do. We're middle class America....but dropping fast.
I cannot afford to have more taxes. I cannot afford to pay for more social programs for those who do not work.
As someone said recently on this board. Why should I work my butt off to make $60,000 a year, to be told I am in an upper middle class bracket, and have to dole out thousands more in taxes to the people who refuse to work? (And if they can't work, there are progrmas for them) I'd do just as well working only 40 hours a week, instead of the 80 to 100 I do work.
Do not believe for a moment, that Obama knows what he's doing for the economy. It's all a subterfuge to raise taxes anything that isn't tied down, and then some. A one time tax rebate to lower and middle America, to buy their votes. Then tax, tax, tax.
No thanks.
okay - what do you think earned income credit is?
My sister pays no taxes - she has no taxes taken out of her check every week - she works a full time job, but she still every year gets back $5000-6000. Now why do you think that is any different than what you are talking about now? It is the same thing...
Income tax versus sales tax......sm
Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........
Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move? Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?
I'll post my opinion separate from this.
The U.S. didn't lose.
We weren't allowed to win.
How many did you lose on Sept 11?
Probably none. I did. I still can hardly believe that they country I live in, have ALWAYS felt safe in and never, EVER thought anything like that would happen in...did. Don't you get it? It did. I for one do not ever, EVER want it to happen again. I'd give every dime I have and every dime I'll ever make to have those back that I lost.
Yes, investors have a lot to lose....
and investors are not just "the rich." Many companies' 401Ks for their employees are in the stock market. People should be VERY careful about what they think they want...the effects could be disastrous for an already weak economy.
here are a few if my candidates lose -
1. Get up Wed. AM, after election, turn on TV. See my faves didn't win. My reaction: 'Oh, cr@p!'
2. my actions: Eat cereal and drink coffee.
3. Where to go from thERE?
BACK TO BED!
4. What will I flee? My low-paying MT job, which most likely will never get any better.
Don't lose sleep over it
Win or lose, we'll be rebuilding the Republican party. That means purging the RINOs, too. That's more than can be said for the Dems.
I believe they lose a portion of their
social security. I agree that it is unfortunate and absurd that senior citizens are treated as they are. As far as her obit, that was the family. Could be they did not agree with the situation or had a problem with him. At least he was mentioned although it must have hurt him deeply. Long-time same sex partners are usually not mentioned at all.
they did not lose one person
They lost an entire generation and their children too probably. Can you say 529 no more?
The $83,000 question. SCHIP income guidelines
I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about. I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well. I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden. It's for a good cause, darn it!
"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?
When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.
Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.
Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.
Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.
In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.
Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.
But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.
Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”
States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.
In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.
States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.
While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.
In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.
Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.
Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.
Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”
Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.
Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear
Instead of trying to move the lower income levels....
out of those levels by incentivizing them to work instead of stay there, he wants to move the upper income levels DOWN closer to them. Socialism. Makes absolutely NO sense. If he really cared about lower income levels, he would be trying to figure out a way to help them OUT of it, not keep them IN it and bring others DOWN. That is his idea of "economic parity." Misguided, to say the least.
Spread the wealth, redistribution of income...that is the big O's
plan...AKA I'll give to those who don't deserve it by taking it from those who have worked hard to get it. O wants to take the hard earned money from many Americans and then HE will decide who he gives it to. Sounds a bit like socialism to me. Just where is he going to get the money for all the programs he wants to GIVE to us? Oh, and remember the words of Biden, it's patriotic to pay taxes. So what does that make the 40% of Americans who DON'T pay taxes?
Yes, earned income credit, we pay our taxes....
Whaddya you make? 7 cents a line? LOL. You call that paying taxes? HAHAHAHA!
No, it's more than jus the earned income credit and kids.
This is adding in things like tuition and related school expenses, but not claiming the grant money they've recieved to pay for that - which you legally have to do. That's what makes me so mad!
Are you complaining about the "earned income credit?" nm
x
Sorry, earned income credit, I have to pay taxes.....
I have no dependents, alas. I don't get food stamps or Welfare, either. Unlike you, the prophet, I will wait and see what direction our President takes us. You might be disappointed or I might be disappointed, but, obviously, it will all roll out in the end, won't it? Yes, I know about gas. Unfortunately for you, it has no escape route because you are too full of $hit to allow its escape. Sorry about the blockage.........honest, it isn't brain matter - it is fecal.
novelty VP choices always lose
Geraldine Ferraro. Gore and Lieberman, etc.
I agree with you. He/she should lose license. nm
.
Dang! 208 to 228 didn't lose by much (sm)
Both Suzy Orman and Jim Cramer were on the Today show and they thought it was a good deal which, I might add, surprised me.
I wonder what will happen now.
There goes my 401K!
Lose the "denial" accusation will ya.
x
Thinking that the democrats would lose is exactly, well....
Thanks for proving my point for me.
win or lose......it's not our place to intervene
we continually give Israel the very tools they use to give to terrorists groups who when the terrorists groups no longer do Israel's bidding, then Israel wants to turn on them. They may have good reason down the road but Israel needs to stop playing the terrorists like pieces on a chess board if they don't want them turning around decades down the road and turning on them.....
Let's lose the "teabagger" thing, okay?
X
I thought this article clarified the income issue
You guys are probably sick of hearing my opinions on this if you read the last thread, but I wanted to re-post this section of an article that addresses the income level concern. It sounds like the only state that asked for income guidelines to go as high as $83,000 was New York, and their request was denied, so that income level is not a part of the current bill. (To me it sounds like even the $60,000 guideline may be limited to New York, but I'm honestly not sure on that and will try to find out).
--The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.
Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."
The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.
link to the entire article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685
|
