Pretty simple concept to understand. The affordable care act is law correct? It has money set aside for medicaid expansion. Now its the states job to expand that.
"A term primarily used in the United States, mandatory spending is spending on certain programs that are required by existing law."
Mandatory spending - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mandatory Spending in 2013: An Infographic - CBO
So the GOP governors have the power to expand medicaid but they wont. Explain to me how that is the Democrats fault?
So the GOP governors have the power to expand medicaid but they wont. Explain to me how that is the Democrats fault?
they tried to make it manditory it was ruled unconstitutional.
So are you saying that if it isn't 100% paid for by the Federal Government that the state might have a legitimate objection?
Thus the reality of life, comes crashing swiftly down upon you.
It's not 100% paid for, in fact it's not 100% paid for at the doctors office... but that's aside the point. The medicare expansion has short term boosted federal payment followed by long term state financial burdens. I.E. short term political gain at the cost of long term economic health... yep, sounds like a progressive plan to me.
It isn't 100% fed paid for. that is why most states didn't take it. The feds only pay 100% for 3 years. it then starts to fall back on the states. at any time the feds can reduce this expense even further which puts more burden on the state tax payers.
the states that didn't expand while losing some money upfront will not have to deal with millions to billions of dollars in overrun costs in their medicaid programs when they have to start paying for it.
CBO Reduces Projections for States' Medicaid Expansion Costs - California Healthline
according to this it is going to cost CA 46b extra to expand medicaid. where is a state that is already broke and running red ink going to get an additional 46b dollars?
while in 2020 it goes to theh 90/10 there is nothing rewritten in the law that says the federal government can't put more expense on the state. they could make it 80/20 or even 70/30 or lower if they want.
also the 90/10 only covers people that signed up under the ACA they are still responsible for the full 20-30% coverage on those previously signed up.
so they are going to add millions to billions of dollars to an already stressed system.
i am glad that my state chose not to expand and put that burden of tax dollars on me. however i have a feeling that we are going to change governor's soon and he will push to expand medicaid. luckly the legislature will still oppose it.
the states that didn't expand medicaid understand whats coming in the future some time down the road. you are being duped if you think the federal government is going to keep paying 90% after the 1st three years. this was the bait to get states to expand medicaid.
see below.
---------------
Financing & Reimbursement
The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and states. The federal government pays states for a specified percentage of program expenditures, called the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP).
FMAP varies by state based on criteria such as per capita income. The regular average state FMAP is 57%, but ranges from 50% in wealthier states up to 75% in states with lower per capita incomes (the maximum regular FMAP is 82 %).
Financing & Reimbursement | Medicaid.gov
its 100% (3 years) and 90% covered. (forever)
States have no objection that is valid.
see my post.
if you like your plan, you can keep your plan"Yes it is. and 90% covered forever.
and the PAST coverage rates have nothing to do with the FUTURE ACA rates.
which are 100% and 90%.............
its 100% (3 years) and 90% covered. (forever)
States have no objection that is valid.
Yes it is. and 90% covered forever.
How is that Democrats fault? Didnt explain that.Not just the GOP governors but all governors and they also have the power not to expand medicaid. It is the choice of the states if they want to expand or not. Of course your against states rights.
Apparently you missed this rulingThey should have had a better bill than an unconstitutional one such as the ACA.
So they should of done an unconsitutional practice?You see the fed's thought that they could force states to expand medicaid. unfortuantly for them this is unconstutional. democrats should have written or put together a better bill than the ACA.
Well then rather than giving away tax brakes to multi-nationals, they should start taxing them for the HC that all their workers, with no company HC, need.
And taxing the rich to cover the 10% state portion.
And better yet, to lower costs, have UHC to replace the medicaid fraud of fee for service. I bet 25% of the Fed payments would cover all 'the salarys needed for
all the HC the people need. Then the rich and multi-nationals dont have to pay any extra taxes! (snicker)
Apparently you missed this ruling
So they should of done an unconsitutional practice?
I didn't miss anything. the SCOTUS ruled that the medicaid part of the bill was unconstitutional.
So how is this democrats fault? GOP states are refusing to expand it because they cannot be forced to.
democrats should have wrote a constitutional bill instead of an unconstitutional one. that is soley blamed on them.
they are the ones that set the subsidies for ACA plans and everything else.
They wrote the bill they get the blame for the outcome.
democrats should have wrote a constitutional bill instead of an unconstitutional one. that is soley blamed on them.
they are the ones that set the subsidies for ACA plans and everything else.
They wrote the bill they get the blame for the outcome.
they ruled that the medicaid provision was unconstitution do you not read.the supreme court ruled that the bill was constitutional.
:roll: So what way could they force to expand medicaid? What was the alternative? Medicaid for all?
not my problem they wrote an unconstitutional part to the bill nor is the govenors. they dont' want to settle their tax payers with millions to billions of dollars that they might
not be able to pay for later.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?