... are trying to encourage those who fall in the Medicaid gap they created to move out of their State? Hospitals in those States are reporting increased unpaid (meaning you paid) emergency room visits from this group.
Who do you think paid for medicaid patients? Hint: it wasn't them.
From what I hear, many of the Governors that are not participating are doing it for ideological reasons only. That is unacceptable.
Or maybe because the state doesn't have the funds to do it?
I understand that as long as that is the only reason, but I can't help but to note that red states with GOP governors seem to be making all the fuss.
Yeah, but to be fair it always seems to be the GOP that resists raising taxes on the general population just to give it to someone else while the Dems are happy to do just that (or borrow from our kid's future).
I suppose you could call that ideology, though...
It has been the GOP that has resisted everything Obama has proposed since 1/20/09, and I dare to say that the mule like intransigence and opposition was not all about ideology....
I fully agree. Our political system has become more about a power base for the leaders of one party or the other than about running the country. And it matters not one whit which party it is; they both do the same thing - witness the entire democrat allegiance vacating the state (Michigan? Minnesota?) to avoid a vote on a republican bill in the state legislature.
Yes, indeed, I agree with your opening sentence. The situation you mentioned happened in Wisconsin under Gov. Walker about 3 years ago. There was an impending vote in the state legislature to effective remove the right of collective bargaining by public employees. Rather than being required to vote and lose, the Democrat legislators scurried off to neighboring Illinois under the cover of darkness. Running was not right as we should accepted defeat with a determination to win the next round. Such restraint on the rights of public employees is not unusual, I worked under such terms. What poed me about Walker is that his restraint applied to all public employees save police and firefighters. Why were they exempted? If anything, the nature of their work would make such a labor restriction all the more imperative for them. Walker was playing politics exempting a portion of the public workforce that he believed were his political and ideological allies.
Senator McConnell (scarecrow) is already on some sort of vendetta against the President. Now that the GOP has taken control of both houses of Congress, now if something is broken they own it. The GOP will have to find the finesse to govern without the threat of shutting the Goverment.......
That's the one - Wisconsin, not Michigan or Minnesota. I knew it was up there somewhere.
My prediction - now that the GOP has control of both houses, the Dems will "scurry off". They, not the GOP will become the "party of NO", not the GOP. Neither one is interested in compromise, but only in pushing the party platform onto the country.
(And it wasn't the GOP that shut down the country - the Dems did that through Obama. There was offering from the GOP as a way to proceed and it was ignored and turned down. Typically, the one party said "Either my way or nothing" and Obama agreed, shutting down.
Yes, Obama's choice was to give up his first child, and he chose not to do it so he is blamed for shutting down the gov't. Give me a break @Wilderness, you know as well as I that the Republicans included "poison pills" (like defunding ACA) in every piece of legislation they put forward knowing full well the Ds could not and would not support it.
That is just like me asking you to divorce the wife you love in order for me not to burn down your house. Which do you love more, your wife or your house? That was the choice the Rs gave the Ds. The reverse was not true.
So Obama shut down the government, not the GOP. Which is what I said.
As far as the reverse not being true, the GOP was held hostage with the threat to shut down the country if they didn't go along with a bill the country can't afford. How is that not the exact reverse?
Sorry, Wilderness, I agree with Esoteric, that is the way I saw this sordid affair unfold as well. That debt ceiling issue 3 years ago, was an example of pure stubbornness from the GOP dominated house, a bunch of cowboys gunning for Obama. When the threat to shut down the Government was made before back in 1995, was it not the house under Newt Gingrich that was trying to intimidate Bill Clinton? Do you remember how it backfired?
Not to me. The Dems insisted they wanted "new money" in the bill, money the country didn't have. And when the GOP said no, they got blackmailed with a threat to shut down the government. Neither side backed off and Obama carefully chose those ares where shutdown would save the least and cause the most harm. Even to the point of shutting down access to privately owned resorts to save zero dollars.
Both sides thought it was all about posturing, neither side gave an inch and the people paid the price as when it was all over nothing was saved. Typical of the people running our country today no matter what party it is.
You are absolutely right! The Democrats in Indiana did the same thing rather than permit a vote on "right to work" legislation in Indiana by preventing a quorum. They have paid a terrible political price in each of the subsequent elections by losing so many seats in the Indiana General Assembly as to be absolutely irrelevant - of the 50 seats in the Indiana Senate Democrats hold 10, of the 100 in the Indiana House Democrats hold 30. Democrats are unlikely to recapture the General Assembly any time soon as the Republicans continue to give the state exemplary service.
Over 300 bills passed in the House of Representatives have languished on Harry Reeds desk. Three quarters of the legislation Obama has signed has originated in the Republican House. It is merely convenient to label the opposition as intransigent or in other words, ideologically expedient.
If they are funding bills, isn't that where most of them originate?
All spending must originate in the House, this makes Obamacare vulnerable as it originated in the Senate and passed as part of a reconciliation vote in the House. If the Supreme Court views this as a violation of the Constitutional structure, not the rules or practices, of the Congress then Obamacare could fall apart. Although no one can speak the mind of the court, Obamacare is in danger from the sloppy power grab necessary for its creation.
Obamacare settled law save for this subsidy in federal exchanges nonsense..
Section 7, Article 1 says "All Bill for 'raising' Revenue shall originate in the House ..." That doesn't say anything about programs and spending money; just taxes, which, of course, ACA included. Consequently, Obamacare did originate in the House as HR3590 on 9/17/2009. If Conservatives and Liberals didn't read the law by 3/23/2010, they are very slow readers indeed.
No such beast. There is nothing ever settled about Law, even Supreme Court Decisions. If there was Dred Scott would have been the end to that little conflict. Instead that settled law precipitated a little disagreement over the Law.
Obamacare is no Dred Scott; that wasn't law, it was an abomination. Very few SC decisions have been reversed by subsequent decisions, about 0.8%.
HR 3590 was not the ACA bill when it went to the Senate but left the Senate with all new language and passed in reconciliation. Just one more example of the disgusting and corrupt practices of Congress. There continues a resistance, by Republicans and Democrats - perfected by Democrats, to legislation clarity. The Congress does not possess plenary authority. The ACA received no Republican votes and it continues to hang Democrats.
Sorry to tell you this, but that is how a good many bills work their way through Congress ... since its inception.
And so what if the ACA received no Conservative votes, there is no benefit to them to help the Nations citizens anyway, which is why they vote NO on anything designed to help the poor and middle class.
I know it will piss you off, but 1 1/2 months after the Rs take office, another 6 million new people will be signed up to ACA just biting at the bit to vote against anyone who wants to screw with their insurance.
There is little evidence that the middle class benefits from Democrat policies. On the contrary, the middle class is shrinking. The wealth held by poor and middle class house holds is shrinking. The primary beneficiaries, out side of Congress, of Democrat policies are the wealthy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/busin … .html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upsho … &abg=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/shri … dle-class/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/05/upsho … &abg=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/2 … 14874.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/1 … 23290.html
You have no idea what "pisses" me off, but I can tell you that your country is lost and will not be found until the disastrous course steered by American liberals is reversed and the Federal government brought to heal.
While you have identified the right problem, you have picked on the wrong reason ... you need to look to the other side of the aisle. The middle class expanded, income and wealth disparity, and all American's participated in its growth when Conservatives were out of power, this would be roughly 1950 - 1980. Notice I did not say Republican, I said Conservative; for during that period Republicans came to understand the economic policies begun with FDR and refined after WW II led to economic stability and fairness. Reaganomics and the return to the conservative economics of the 1800s destroyed all of that resulting in the all of those headlines you provided.
"IT IS no coincidence that the American middle class began disappearing with the reappearance of conservatives on the American political scene; it is a guarantee.
Liberals are so entertaining. They feast on the nations feed corn and call it economic stability and fairness, all the while leaving the store house empty for the next generation. It is really too bad that liberals will all be dead by the time their grandchildren are grown, suffering under the stupid system their grandparents left behind and burning FDR and LBJ in effigy.
If the ultimate outcome of all these ridiculous notions of that "fairness" ( what ever that means in reality) is the destruction of the Black family, decades of welfare mentality, the erosion of the work ethic, collapsing infrastructure, degraded education, coarsening of society and the thinning of economy prowess. There have been TRILLIONS of dollars transferred from those who owned it to those who have done nothing for it over the passed 50 years, to what end? The recipients of all that confiscated largess live in the moral squalor of a social class that is discouraged from education, fatherhood and productive labor.
Well done liberals, if your idea of "fairness" is to trap people on a new plantation of dependence on property confiscated from your fellow citizens and used to purchase their allegiance and support, then you have succeeded beyond the dreams of tyrants.
It is even more entertaining to watch those on the far Right rewrite history.
Do you know when all of these things you mention, "... the destruction of the Black family, decades of welfare mentality, the erosion of the work ethic, collapsing infrastructure, degraded education, coarsening of society and the thinning of economy prowess. " began to happen (save for the welfare mentality)? It began with the reemergence of Conservatism and the decline of Liberalism/Progressivism in America in the 1980s and NOT the otherway around as you assert.
I hold out "welfare mentality" because the original laws were poorly crafted and weren't fixed until the Clinton-Gingrich compromise in 1996, or thereabouts.
All states take in a health amount of tax, what varies is what they choose to spend it on. And health care is not purely a cost, the preventive aspects and reduced use of emergency rooms can really make that money go a long way.
They are throwing away Federal money with weak excuse like 'they might stop paying it' -- which even if plausible would just meant the could withdraw the services again but this time for a halfway sensible reason.
With no derogatory intention... this is truly an instance where "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
"All states take in a health amount of tax, what varies is what they choose to spend it on."
You are right all states do receive money from the Fed earmarked for healthcare costs. And they receive it from a several different avenues. The largest ones deal with Fed money to hospital and medical care systems to help offset uninsured care provided, and, compensation for shortfalls in medicare/medicaid payments that are actually less than the costs of services provided.
You can Google the topic for the particular programs and clearer details - but that is the gist of it.
One looming problem for states is that the two major programs for hospitals and medical care systems, (worth hundreds of millions of Fed dollars), will be drastically reduced, (and in some cases eliminated), starting July 2015. (an action that was included in the ACA)
I'm shooting from the hip here, but I seem to recall one of the two largest hospital/healthcare systems in Florida, (covering the largest segment of uninsured residents - citizens and illegals), will lose around $500 million when these programs are cut.
So, while it is true, states do receive healthcare money from the Fed, it is not enough, and will soon be even less. Unless of course the state gives in and lets Nanny Fed share the driver's seat.
And do you really think a state could cut back its Medicaid enrollments down the road when the Fed says, "Its all on you now Mr. State?" I can see the headlines now, "XYZ STATE TO KICK CHILDREN AND MOTHERS OUT OF MEDICAID! WE CAN'T AFFORD YOU ANYMORE!
If you check into this topic a little deeper you will see that the rest of your comment , although a popular perception - misses the mark of reality also.
It is true that states that do not expand are passing up an opportunity for tons of Fed money that will initially, (long-term is unclear), pay for the expansion, but a lot of governors took a good look at the cost of accepting that money and decided it wasn't such a good deal as is portrayed.
If the Feds were going to pass all costs on to the States as you suggest they might, why haven't they done so already? I think that is a red herring.
Anyway, I looked up the $500 million. That is, as you related, from the Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) program that reimburses hospitals for additional costs incurred over and above revenues received from Medicaid for services rendered to Medicaid and uninsured patients. It was a $17.4 billion program in FY 11; $500 million is 0.3% of the total. The highest "planned" (not guaranteed) reduction is $5.6 billion in 2019, that is 32% for that year.
The amount "actually" reduced will end up being dependent on how many uninsured stop showing up at the hospital door; actuaries are estimating $500 million worth in 2015 (it was 2014, but was pushed a year, I think).
What this means:
1) States who expand Medicaid will get more Medicaid revenues but less DSH funding because hospital shortfalls will be reduced through lower uninsured visits.
2) States who fail to expand Medicaid will continue to get high DSH payments to pay for the uninsured citizens who they let fall through ACA coverage gap.
We seem to agree on the gist of the point, except for the non-expansion state DSH payment. And the fact that I did not suggest the Feds were going to pass on all costs. That point was in one of the linked articles as a listed uncertainty, (and possibility), after the Fed's documented commitments ended in 2022/2023. Of course it could be a Red Herring point if stated as you implied, but I read it as an uncertainly/possibility - not a sure thing.
I don't want to start a links duel, but the info I find repeatedly states non-expansion states will still see those program cuts.
Here is one link that seems to explain it clearly: (written in 2013, but updated with start date info)
From The Advisory Board Company, a healthcare research and think-tank organization:
"Despite lobbying, states that do not expand Medicaid will still see deep DSH cuts
The DSH payment reductions have been a major source of anxiety for hospitals in states that have opted not to expand Medicaid.
The cuts were developed as an offset for the cost of the ACA's Medicaid expansion and are based on the assumption that the ACA's coverage expansions would reduce a larger portion of hospitals' uncompensated-care costs. Altogether, the ACA requires $18.1 billion in total reductions from fiscal year (FY) 2014 through FY 2020, effectively halving the size of the safety-net program.
However, the Supreme Court's ruling on the ACA allowed states to opt out of the expansion. In theory, this meant that hospitals in states that do not expand Medicaid would lose DSH funding without benefiting from an influx of new Medicaid patients.
In an effort to avoid the financial blow in 2014, hospitals have urged the Obama administration to delay the scheduled pay cuts. And initially, the Obama administration appeared to be listening: In President Obama's proposed budget for FY 2014, the DSH cuts were delayed by one year, starting instead in 2015. But the proposal was never converted into regulation or leg
Source:For states not expanding Medicaid, DSH cuts will deal a tough blow
Also note that, (again, shooting from the hip because I did not save the link), a couple participating states have already produced stats that show your first point about new medicaid patients relieving the uninsured patients burden on hospitals has not proven to be the case.
The rule was passed in Sep 2013 which the Sep article you referenced is talking about. The one I found is an analysis from Kaiser in Nov. It basically covers all of the same technical points I found in your link but only had this to say about the effect on states who do and don't expand.
"If the current methodology were maintained for years beyond FY 2015, states that implement the Medicaid expansion could see fewer uninsured and therefore see larger percentage reductions in DSH compared to state that do not implement the expansion. However, states that implement the Medicaid expansion are expected to see new patient revenues associated with new Medicaid coverage that could potentially offset the DSH reductions while states that do not move forward will not see new revenues from new Medicaid coverage but continue to see high uncompensated care costs. "
So, however you want to interpret that. Here's the link, in case you are interested, it is very short. http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wor … he-aca.pdf
As to the laws impact, I'll wait until they have a year's worth of data across the 50 states before I can seriously review the numbers. Until then, it is just interesting anecdotes unless they are large and all in one direction.
Regarding both the DSH payments, and the mention of stats that say expanded Medicaid has not changed the uninsured rate of ER usage - I agree with you, more time and data are needed to be sure of its affects.
But I think the point of the original response - there is more to medicaid expansion than just the perception of uncaring partisan Republican governors - is still the valid point.
I grant the governors and other Conservatives aren't purposefully "uncaring" toward those in need, but that is the end effect of 1) the basic precepts of their ideology and 2) their war against Obama.
The going on position of your run-of-the-mill conservative and minimal-state liberals is government has no business interfering with anything other than protecting America from outside attack and maintaining order inside the borders. Beyond that, leave it to the States to do or not do whatever they want. (They won't and didn't object whenever gov't took actions to benefit only business interests.)
The result is an "every man-for-himself society" where the strong are allowed to prey on the weak; otherwise known as Social Darwinism. So long as the Constitution promises to "secure the Blessing of Liberty" (the rest of the Preamble is not relevant in a conservative society) then the government has no need to ensure that all citizens can equally partake in such Liberty in the pursuit of Happiness, Tranquility, and Justice while gov't provides for the common defense and general Welfare (not public dole).
Active-state liberals, on the other hand (like Adam Smith, John Locke, Abe Lincoln, etc) strongly believed the central gov't has a strong role to play in ensuring each citizens has an equal opportunity to apply their own talents and determination to the existing environment in order to improve oneself.
Progressives are active-state liberals.
Liberals, poor whites, and other poor people of colors is not causing the fall of America. The Conservative's marriage to super rich Capitalists and their affair with Corporate Persons controls and seek to spend all federal spending. Greed and Selfishness Will cause the fall of America, not liberalism. To be liberal is to be unselfish. Capitalism is about self.
And that is a truly bogus argument since there was no cost for the first 2 or 3 years and no more than 10% after that, if memory serves. Now, I understand it isn't in the Conservatives DNA to help those that are down, only those that are up, but certainly they could find a few shekels for the sick; guess not.
Right. There is no cost to picking up medical care for thousands of people. Got it.
I have this neat bridge for sale...
I think there are several good reasons for states to not expand medicaid as dictated by the Obamacare changes. A big part of those reasons may be ideology - but does that mean they is wrong?
The ideology of not giving more state control and autonomy to the Fed - the Fed does not pass out money without strings attached.
Or the ideology of not increasing state taxes to cover budget shortfalls caused by the expanded Medicaid. Wait! I know the forecasts only predict a 1% - 3% increased costs, but if Medicaid expenses are already busting state budgets, where will that measly 1%-3% come from if not new taxes?
Or the ideology that it is just another step along the nanny state/government dependance road? For instance; Why is 138% of poverty line income the new threshold?
I don't think this is a topic that can be decided on strictly dollars and cents.
Here are a couple good links to see how it is being spun...
This one is obviously against expansion - but does that mean its reasoning is wrong?
Why States Should Not Expand Medicaid
And this one is pro-expansion - and I think it is really really wrong. It mainly talks about all the Fed money that will be coming to states that expand. Really? We will take more money from all citizens to give states that expand more money as bribes to expand? Of course you may see it differently.
How States Stand to Gain or Lose Federal Funds by Opting In or Out of the Medicaid Expansion
My opinions are more inline with the first linked article.
"We will take more money from all citizens to give states that expand more money as bribes to expand?"
Of course we will - one of the biggest things a politician can offer their constituents is more federal money from the wallets of people in other states. This is just more of the same, coupled as you say with more federal control.
The cash cow for American Capitalist has Always been The Federal Government. Corporate and Business Entitlements and welfare cost the Federal Government much much more than The ACA. If tax evasion wasn't the Capitalist goal since the Boston Tea Party healthcare for every American would be , no problem. The American people nor Business can survive without Big Brother"s (Federal Goverment) Tax Colections. The Question is who will be served by the Government, people or corporations?
I read the hyperlinked article it was excellent in taking a difficult subject and explaining it in such a way that a layman can become informed. I should know better, I have seen much of what was in the article unfold on the Big Island of Hawaii. It has been always difficult to impossible for those that exist on Medicaid to obtain a primary physician. Now, I know why, paperwork and inadequate reimbursement of expenses. I read an article that was in favor of Medicaid expansion to evaluate their arguments.
The fear of many of the resisting Governors was the reasonable possibility that in later years this program would amount to an unfunded mandate from Washington on to their taxpayers. But, it was also said that the Governors were fearful that those that had been eligible under Medicaid who have not applied will under the impetus of the new program step up and claim their benefits. That is unreasonable and is an excuse as the State needs to prepare for all those that were always eligible.
The article made a good point, which I corroborated with what is going on in Hawaii. That this program, by not adequately compensating care providers, has everybody operating in the red and that cannot be sustained indefinitely. The argument from the pro side saying that jobs would be created and the problems associated with having the underinsured or those with no insurance no longer overwhelming our physicians and facilities was not a solid as I would have hoped.
So, I think that rather then threatening Obama with the dismantling of ACA, both parties work together to mend it and not end it. The ideas of subsidies provided to care providers, requiring those above the current Medicaid threshold to contribute to the costs of their care, seems reasonable to me. Some way of bringing in the private sector and addressing the reality of what this all will cost is necessary.
The concept of ACA is sound but the devil is in the details . Moving forward and correcting as we go is better than the status quo ante.
This is the most sensible answer I've read so far. My husband and I voted for the ACA knowing it was flawed and saying that it was a step in the right direction. We believed that further details would be worked out after its passage and that it would become a structurally sound program. We also had a selfish motive -- our son was classified as uninsurable because of diabetes and a rare autoimmune disease which will eventually destroy his kidneys. It appears that we were wrong on all counts. Our state's governor made sure that the program worked in our state, a good thing, but he is term-limited out and his replacement was elected on an anti-Obamacare platform. The premiums are so high that our son can't afford them even with assistance, and he is still on medicaid. So we are wondering if we made a mistake in voting in what should be a good program because of the fallibility of the President who hasn't been able to get it fixed, AND the American people who, instead of demanding that it be fixed, are demanding its repeal..
Tell me, what is your opinion of what responsibility the State (not feds) has to its citizens?
Nope, your not going to tell me, or nope, a State has no responsibilities toward its citizens?
Nope as in I am not going to hijack this thread with the long response that would be needed to answer your question.
A simple answer, such as, I think a state's responsibilities mirror those of the Federal government - in essence, would be too ambiguous and general to start the journey your question prompts.
But I would be glad to participate in such a thread if you wanted to start one.
That would be an interesting thread as many of the listed federal duties are denied the state. A military, for instance, or protecting our borders. A medium of exchange. Others commonly thought of as the states (education, maybe) are effectively denied via economic manipulation by the federal. So whats left?
OK, done. "What Responsibilities do States (not the Fed) have toward its citizens?"
Governors of the States are not in favor of expanding Medicaid because the Federal and States cannot handle more spending of a program that needs revision, not adding more fuel to the fire.
I am confused about the ideology expressed publicly politically speaking concerning Obamacare. Two of the Reddist of red states in the south and their governors have excepted and promoted Obamacare under other names. West Virginia and Kentucky, states with above average uninsured medicaid will also go back to claims that must be paid by tax payers. There are a lot of Clyde Bundy types that might not want to loose their right to be healthy and return to the good old days before Obamacare. If the ACA is good enough for Kentucky and West Virginia why not the poor of Wisconsin and Mississippi?
Junko, you left out Arkansas. Our governor fought hard to have a good workable program in our state. Unfortunately, as I wrote to Credence, he is term-limited out and his replacement was elected on an anti-Obamacare platform. Some of the poorest people in our state are "redders" as you are calling them, and don't want to be helped. They want those of us who are working to pay their share in the emergency rooms. They go mouthin' around through their decayed teeth against Obamacare. I've also heard that some of the people who were against it are now supporting it because they now are enjoying its benefits. I wonder if they can convince their peers that it wasn't a good thing to lose it.
I have trying to figure out for the longest time why people allow their hatred of anything Obama to take precedence over considering programs that could benefit them.
"They go mouthin' around through their decayed teeth against Obamacare."
Now that's funny!
Probably because Obama doesn't care what the long term economic results are to the country. Just how many votes he can buy for his party, and how many people he can lock into dependency.
If that is true than he is no different from his predecessors, Bush II, Reagan? You have always said that they all are about the same regardless of party.......
Personally I would say the GOP has the future of the country closer to their heart than the Dems, but not by much. They do NOT, however, have as much consideration for social freedom as the Dems do.
Personally, I believe the opposite. But what the heck, this is America and we all have a right to our opinions.
I agree. And we could probably work together.
Unfortunately I do ask a little more than an opinion from my representative - I expect some pretty exhaustive research and a conclusion that is not based primarily on how much good it will that politician. And I don't get it.
I concur, whatever the issue, compromise is more important to survival and the proper conduct of the people's business by our elective representatives.
People blame big government, I blame the money changers that buy influence divert attention away from constituents and toward the special interests. The sense of public service is meant to be altruistic, but not anymore. Such makes the case for term limits, that the states should adopt to control the building of empires by so many their entrenched legislators. I have heard that the experience in congress by the old hands are valuable, but the danger of the entrenched seem to supersede this.
What has PBO done or said specifically, that convinces you he doesn't care about the long-term economic results are? The fact that Ds believe in one kind of economic theory and Rs believe in a different one doesn't, ipso facto, mean he doesn't care; so it must be something else.
Nope, it's not funny at all. It's so damn condescending that it speaks volumes about the author's human perception. It is also just as damning an example of the type of stereotyping that completely destroys the credibility of anything that preceded it.
Would the opposite be taken to infer an "unspoken truth" if it spoke of that Gruber fellow mouthing his denigration of American voters through his multi-thousands of dollars worth of perfectly aligned pearly white orthodontics work?
Sorry for the Lil Abner, Dogpatch reference. No more disturbing than the reference to people in the voter Id issue being less than honest about getting an ID because they need an ID to get liquor, buy cigarettes and food stamps. It is easy to get caught up in coded language.
MizBejabbers, I left out Louisiana also and its my home state. I considered mentioning Arkansas but the knowledge of your love for the south and my desire to not mention your home state either. I am hopeful that your son will somehow continue to get the financial aid needed to live a comfortable life and you and your husband will not have to revisit the stress of possible bankruptcy for healthcare. You should that what you are experiencing is being experienced by tens of millions of Americans nationwide. Millions have heard about how stressless people in states that have The ACA. The toothless poor are usually uneducated and know that all they have of value is their votes which Capitalists can control making them feel included in the haves not the have not's. There are millions of them and millions knowing the truth. The Republicans know that they can't repeal the good in the ACA but, they can replaced and reallow medicare advantage. The silent majority will speak up and out if insurance companies are given the right to be wrong again. The Conservatives want to control and rename Obamacare not destroy it, its too late for that move. Arkansas will have an Affordable Care Act by another name, don't worry be happy.
Glad you mentioned Louisiana.I was born & raised there.Gov Jindal has his eye on the White House more than his heart in Louisiana.Did you see him on Meet The Press? It boggles my mind to hear him try to explain why he is against expanding Medicaid. The bottom line is he's against it because Obama/ Democrats initiated it. If a Republican sent this through it would be a different story. Maybe everyone needing expanded coverage should show up at the Governor's mansion with their suitcases & move in with him. You know he has good coverage.
Governor Jindal has said a lot of things that don't make sense in his attempt to Further his political career on a Federal level because he failed to do anything to help poor Republicans or Democrats in the state of Louisiana as Governor. If Cassidy wins the last senate seat after those that hate Obama and Obamacare vote him in and Mary out, he will keep the seat warm for Jindal. Jindal has gone all in and all out to be become a part of the Federal Government( Big Brother) the now Republican foe. It is a real possibility Cassidy may win in Louisiana but Jindal's political gig is up in La. It would serve him right if the National GOP is just using him. Sen.David Vitter wants the Governor's seat when he term limit out and will accept Obamacare under another name after two more years of deaths due to lack of healthcare.
It is an odd situation. Most people like 95% of the individual pieces of ACA, but they don't like the package. They want to keep the "can't be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions part" but don't want it paid for with requiring skaflaws to buy insurance to lower premiums. They want to keep the "no lifetime max" benefit, but don't want to pay for it with the medical device tax. The list goes on and on. What it sounds like is those who want the parts of ACA but not Obamacare, want welfare for themselves.
Thanks My Esoteric, You do know(this) your forum is in the process of being hi-jacked by you being invited to leave or start elsewhere.
Our governor opted out, because of a money issue. Medicaid expansion has allowed some people in the middle class to be eligible for Medicaid. People above the poverty level are now eligible. Even though the federal government is helping to foot the bill, the governor does not believe that this will continue. I read an article that Medicaid will expand so much that a huge percentage of our country will be on Medicaid. Neither the federal government nor the states can afford to fund such a huge program, especially if those on Medicaid get a cash grant. I am not sure if a cash grant is now part of the program, as it is for single parents with children and little income. I will check that out, because I do not believe the expansion includes a cash grant without meeting other eligibility requirements.
I agree with you.
Our state has a great governor who made sure that this was funded. Anyone not participating is not doing it out of ignorance. Unfortunately he is term-limited out, and our governor-elect promises to work to do away with Obamacare at as many levels as he can. That means we will go back to paying for those who can't or don't want to pay because we just elected a legislature who will back him.
Where did he get the money? From the wallets of taxpayers?
And if you mean paying for health care for those that can't or don't want to pay themselves, what do you think medicaid does?
You are leaving out the fact that many of the people who use emergency rooms are people who had rather buy new cars or drugs than pay for health insurance (that may be how some of them afford the pearly white crowns). You are also leaving out the fact that the money to pay their bills does not all come out of taxpayers' pockets. Those of us who pay for insurance pay higher insurance rates because the hospitals raise their rates to make up for charity cases. Society, whether we like it or not, has always paid for those who don't pay.
I'd have to say that those having their rates raised are the ones paying taxes, too. Which means that they are the ones paying, whether through taxes or higher rates.
The point was supposed to be that someone besides one on medicaid foots the bill, whether through increased taxes or increased rates. Medicaid is not free, anymore than food stamps or any other forced charity is.
I agree with your points, Wilderness, except that technically "taxes" are defined legally as money that goes to the government (and medicaid is paid for by tax money). "Raised rates" are money that goes to the business to cover expenses. We need to distinguish between "medicaid" patients who are financed by government taxes and the people who are not on medicaid and go to emergency rooms without insurance. Their expenses are not necessarily reimbursed by the government, although the government requires for-profit hospitals to take in a certain percentage of charity patients and absorb the expenses. If we pay the higher rates to the insurance company because the hospital is charging paying patients more to cover uninsured, non-medicaid patients, that is a cost of doing business, so technically not a tax because the raise in rates is non-mandatory. It's just a technicality, but I get your point and don't disagree because either way, it is money out of our pockets. (I'm a legal editor of state law books, so this is where I'm coming from. And dang, I love to argue fine points! Have a great day, friend.)
If a state already has financial issues, this plays a big part in a decision about Medicaid expansion. I worked with the Medicaid program, and cannot even imagine what it would be like with thousands more on the roles. A shortage of primary care physicians has already caused their turning away potential patients. By raising the income limit for Medicaid in an expansion of the program, too many people become eligible, and it will become unmanageable in a few years. The Supreme Court made it optional for a reason.
Not in Utah where Governor Herbert is trying to negotiate with the federals to fashion a version of ACA that meets the needs of Utahns rather than the "one size fits all" that was passed as "not a tax" but "is a tax."
by My Esoteric 2 years ago
In reading Federalist Paper # 36 on Taxation, I found the jewel that speaks to one of the main differences between today's Republicans and Democrats"...; and must naturally tend to make it a fixed point of policy in the national administration to go as far as may be practicable in making the...
by My Esoteric 4 years ago
When the Robert's Court, while upholding the most important part of Obamacare, struck down the the penalty to any State not buying into the expanded Medicaid program, they condemned millions of somewhat poor Americans to no chance at healthcare at all unless they move. That is because States...
by TheSituation 8 years ago
What do you all think about this one? Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.
by Ralph Deeds 7 years ago
Tea Party Montana Style--Nullification, Secession, and a Pistol in Every Pocket"With each new bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future."Their state would be a place where officials can ignore US laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK...
by dutchman1951 8 years ago
Should the Courts allow this? Why would a Foreign government be allowed to sue any US State? Have we already lost State rights? What the H... are we doing, even entertaining a idea like this for?
by screaming 6 years ago
What is your opinion of these governors? Even the one in my state, Georgia, has refused? I've never in all my life seen such disrespect for the Office of the Presidency and blatant disregard to laws passed!
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|