A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.
love the statement in the article: because they live in a state largely controlled by republicans...http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=2&
Seems to me this is only helping the middle class become poor and the insurance companies become all the more wealthy...
love the statement in the article: because they live in a state largely controlled by republicans...
Its not that the original plan screws the pooch, its because what political lean the state is.
Um, okay. :roll:
you didn't think the blame was gonna fall on Obama, from the NEW YORK TIMES?!?!? did ya?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=2&
Seems to me this is only helping the middle class become poor and the insurance companies become all the more wealthy...
Yes, it sure does suck when the facts get in the way of a narrative, doesn't it?love the statement in the article: because they live in a state largely controlled by republicans...
Its not that the original plan screws the pooch, its because what political lean the state is.
Um, okay. :roll:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...r-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=3&Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.
Because Republicans have been fighting Obamacare, have denounced it and, in these states, declined to accept the money which would allow the state to cover those who are uninsured. Obamacare and the federal government are not to blame for the states declining to accept the money which would allow those people to receive coverage.What has a state controlled largely by Republican's have to do with it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=2&
Seems to me this is only helping the middle class become poor and the insurance companies become all the more wealthy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/health/millions-of-poor-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=2&
Seems to me this is only helping the middle class become poor and the insurance companies become all the more wealthy...
But the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health care law last year, while upholding it, allowed states to choose whether to expand Medicaid.
Willie Charles Carter, an unemployed 53-year-old whose most recent job was as a maintenance worker at a public school, has had problems with his leg since surgery last year.
His income is below Mississippi’s ceiling for Medicaid — which is about $3,000 a year — but he has no dependent children, so he does not qualify.
That may be, but they would not be required to cover the costs of the expansion, the federal government would pick up the tab.Look - what happened is that certain states were faced with this and realized that to enact said programs the funding for it would cost the states A LOT. Money - yes - tons and tons of it, money that most southern states don't have to begin with. They're southern - hello!
That may be, but they would not be required to cover the costs of the expansion, the federal government would pick up the tab.
That may be, but they would not be required to cover the costs of the expansion, the federal government would pick up the tab.
Yes, it sure does suck when the facts get in the way of a narrative, doesn't it?
http://www.cbpp.org/files/status-of-the-ACA-medicaid-expansion-after-supreme-court-ruling.pdfEven though the federal government will pick up nearly all of the costs of the expansion (100 percent for the first three years, phasing down to 90 percent in 2020 and all subsequent years)...
As I quoted earlier:No - it's never been a 100% / 0% thing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...r-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=3&Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.
Exactly my point, just as I've said twice in this thread now.Two points:
and:
http://www.cbpp.org/files/status-of-the-ACA-medicaid-expansion-after-supreme-court-ruling.pdf
facts indeed...
Because Republicans have been fighting Obamacare, have denounced it and, in these states, declined to accept the money which would allow the state to cover those who are uninsured. Obamacare and the federal government are not to blame for the states declining to accept the money which would allow those people to receive coverage.
That's what it has to do with it.
The Reasons States Are Rejecting Obama’s Medicaid ExpansionAnd this is a key problem for the states. While the federal money is indeed generous for the newly eligible population, it is less so for the rest. For your currently eligible population, you only have the regular Medicaid matching rate, which ranges from 50 to 76 percent. For Texas, it’s around 60 percent. Kaiser calculates that over the first five years of the program, 95.7 percent of the funding will come from the federal government, and not the state. But the state doesn’t agree – they understand that one of every four Texans currently eligible for the program isn’t signed up, and that for this population, they’ll only have a match of around 60 percent...
In sum: the Medicaid expansion is far less attractive to those states with minimal programs, where already eligible people will likely come out of the woodwork to sign on to the system, driving up the costs for the state itself.
That doesn't make sense to me. If the people are eligible NOW, then Texas would still be responsible for those people and the costs from them. I don't see why that would change at all with expanding Medicaid to cover more people.It is a little more complicated than you imply.
The Reasons States Are Rejecting Obama’s Medicaid Expansion
Because several of the states not expanding only provide minimal Medicaid coverage NOW (agree or not) going forward their base expense will increase significantly which will not be covered by the federal expansion money.
That doesn't make sense to me. If the people are eligible NOW, then Texas would still be responsible for those people and the costs from them. I don't see why that would change at all with expanding Medicaid to cover more people.
Maybe there's something I'm not understanding.
What does the expansion have to do with those who are already eligible to be covered? If I were eligible now, then why does it matter what the expansion does? If I'm eligible now, then Texas has to pay for me should I decide I want it, regardless of whether or not expansion happens, isn't that correct?That's just it. When the ACA was initially discussed there was an estimate ~11m folks who were classified as 'uninsured' but were eligible for existing coverage at the time. Then as now same is same and the states budgets were/are based on this. Who knows why they were not engaged in coverage but the expansion WOULD capture these folks who once engaged would qualify for the existing pre-ACA coverage and not the new expansion money this costing the states more with reimbursement at a much lower %age.
What does the expansion have to do with those who are already eligible to be covered? If I were eligible now, then why does it matter what the expansion does? If I'm eligible now, then Texas has to pay for me should I decide I want it, regardless of whether or not expansion happens, isn't that correct?
EXACTLY...see the futility of the expansion?
No, because the expansion would expand the people who would be covered under Medicare. If I'm eligible for Medicaid right now, then the state of Texas would already be responsible for my costs if I signed up. Expanding Medicaid to also allow my buddy Frank to become eligible for Medicaid, which the federal government will completely and then later mostly pay for has nothing to do with the responsibility of Texas to me right now.
Right now your argument seems to be Medicaid shouldn't be expanded because people who are already eligible for coverage are not signing up and by expanding Medicaid, the state would be required to cover the people they are already required to cover.
Essentially, you are not making sense to me.
So your are saying they are not expanding Medicaid with federal dollars because people who are eligible for it currently might sign up for it, just as they might anyways?No, you are saying exactly what I am saying. The current COSTS to states is known and budgeted for. The influx of NEW previously eligible Medicaid would/will cause a budget imbalance hence the states hesitancy in participating. Essentially they are for the 'status quo', for the good or bad. We do not know WHY these folks haven't previously engaged in Medicaid thus we can only speculate as to what effect this expanded coverage would do to participation but we DO know what the medical providers are doing/saying regarding those covered by Medicaid.
For the same reason they may not if Medicaid is expanded?Should those who ARE eligible now go out and get signed up? If they want to it is available but one has to wonder why the haven't so far.
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?