According to the organization Families USA, the number of workers who are parents with low incomes enrolled in Medicaid the states surveyed declined by 27 percent to 2.55 million in December 1999 from 3.5 million in January 1996.

Vowing to "end welfare as we know it," the Clinton administration led a bipartisan effort to pass legislation in August 1996. Clinton signed into law the elimination of many federal welfare programs, including Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which was part of the Social Security Act of 1935. Many state legislatures followed through with additional cuts.

Under federal law, people leaving welfare are automatically entitled to health insurance under Medicaid for six months to a year, but in a number of instances states have not provided even this coverage. According to the study, some parents who no longer received welfare were also automatically kicked off Medicaid because of computer programs that linked the two, even though their income levels still qualified them to receive Medicaid assistance.

Hundreds of thousands of children lost Medicaid coverage when their families lost welfare benefits.

From January 1996 to December 1999 enrollment of parents dropped by nearly 156,000 or 19 percent in California; 123,000, or 25 percent in New York; and 106,000 or 46 percent in Texas. The state of Georgia cut its Medicaid rolls by 50 percent, Ohio by 42 percent, and Florida by 37 percent.

Many of those losing these benefits found themselves working at low-wage jobs with no health insurance, or in some cases where coverage was offered premiums were higher than workers could afford to pay.

Most states now impose strict limits on the income that a person can earn and still qualify for Medicaid. In 32 states, parents who work full time at the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour are considered to have too much income to qualify for Medicaid. According to Ronald Pollack, executive director of Families USA, "In Louisiana, Virginia, and Texas, parents working at the minimum wage are disqualified from Medicaid if they work more than 12, 17, and 18 hours a week, respectively."

The attacks and probes against Social Security continue, in which it is presented as an individual retirement plan. Moves to allow individuals or the government to "invest" a portion of payroll taxes have been floated by both Democratic and Republican party politicians. This past week Democratic presidential candidate Albert Gore proposed a "retirement savings plus" plan, which he claims would be a supplement to Social Security based on investing in the stock market through a 401(k)-type retirement plan. The government would provide matching funds to encourage individuals to save up to $1,500 per year tax-free in accounts managed by private financial institutions, which will invest the money in "broad-based equities," bonds, and government securities.

Gore's plan comes shortly after Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush proposed allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in the stock market.

"There can be little doubt that the political sands are shifting in the Social Security debate," wrote Deborah McGregor in the June 20 Financial Times. "Only last month, Mr. Gore had attacked Mr. Bush's plan for individual Social Security investment accounts as 'stock market roulette.'"  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home