• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I Thought Obamacare Was Suppose To Help Poor People? What Happen?

ChezC3

Relentless Thinking Fury
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
12,228
Reaction score
4,458
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.

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?;)
 
you didn't think the blame was gonna fall on Obama, from the NEW YORK TIMES?!?!? did ya?;)

I dont expect anything with the name New York attached to it to do other than what they did, but this is so blatant (they are usually subtler) that a six year old can see it.

Feeding fuel to the fire of the devide.... its going to be a rough road for this country for a long time no matter the outcome.
 
You mean poor people don't have the means to pay a significant monthly payment that they didn't have before??? I'm shocked!

Obamacare is hands down the worst thought out piece of legislation ever enacted. There's not even a close second.
 
Absolutely. It seems that every time the government gets involved in trying to help us, all they seem to do is hurt us. I'm with people like Jefferson when he admitted less government is better for the economy and the people.
 
I'm in agreement with what you seem to be saying. What has a state controlled largely by Republican's have to do with it? Why not just come out and ask us to vote Democratic? Why does it always have to be a power play or pitting one side against the other. Why can't we all just work together for a better America? I guess there's no profit in that.
 
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:
Yes, it sure does suck when the facts get in the way of a narrative, doesn't it?

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...r-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=3&

What has a state controlled largely by Republican's have to do with it?
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.
 
There were some like "Oftencold" who tried to explain to Obamacare advocates that it wasn't going to be the absolutely free medical care program they thought it was going to be and they were going to regret not investigating more before voting. Now begins the weeping and wailing. I'm really sorry about that, but I'm also sorry that many of us that didn't vote that way, have to be punished
 
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...

Well
But the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health care law last year, while upholding it, allowed states to choose whether to expand Medicaid.

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!

Of course, Arkansas does not function, financially, in the same way that most other southern states do, so we're on top of things. Other states, though, it would cost them more money than they know how to stir up.

Some other states which didn't opt out - they're going to suffer for it, it's going to cost them more than they realize.

Now, here cites another issue:
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.

As for this, I am unsure. Who set forward the standard that you have to have DEPENDENT CHILDREN to qualify for Medicaid? That actually makes no sense seeing as how most are senior citizens.

Medicaid is governed by both fed and state - so I don't know which way that goes and who calls that shot, or if expanding Medicaid would have fixed it to begin with.
 
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.
 
Enlightening. However as I understood it, the states that wished to decline Obamacare were unsuccessful in their efforts, and now it's a federal mandate.
 
That may be, but they would not be required to cover the costs of the expansion, the federal government would pick up the tab.

No - it's never been a 100% / 0% thing.
 
That may be, but they would not be required to cover the costs of the expansion, the federal government would pick up the tab.

Two points:

Yes, it sure does suck when the facts get in the way of a narrative, doesn't it?

and:

Even 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)...
http://www.cbpp.org/files/status-of-the-ACA-medicaid-expansion-after-supreme-court-ruling.pdf

facts indeed...
 
No - it's never been a 100% / 0% thing.
As I quoted earlier:

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...r-are-left-uncovered-by-health-law.html?_r=3&

It is a 100% thing for the first two years. By 2020, the state will only have to pay for 10% of the expansion.

It's not that these states cannot afford it, it's that they don't want to, because it was passed by the opposite political party.
Exactly my point, just as I've said twice in this thread now.
 
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.

It is a little more complicated than you imply.

And 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.
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.

Further, just because folks have Medicaid does not necessarily mean they will get MEDICAL care as MANY doctors are not seeing those with Medicaid and of those who do many are not taking new patients.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

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. The previous link provided indicated that the states who ARE participating in the expansion have a much higher Medicaid participation rate (for whatever reason) this the expansion will not effect their budget much.

Should these non-participating states engage in an enrollment push thereby increasing their Medicaid liability AND federal assistance in such? Possibly but they currently aren't for what ever reason. Is that immoral/unethical/(?)? Depends on your personal opinion. 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.
 
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.
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?

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.
For the same reason they may not if Medicaid is expanded?

I'm sorry, we're just not going to agree on this. The idea states should not expand their Medicaid coverage (and not saying you've even taken a position on it, speaking in general), an expansion covered all and then almost all by the federal government, because those who are currently eligible may not have signed up makes little sense to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom