Michigan To Poors: Get Jobs Or Lose Medicaid (Unless You Are White)

[RandomGuy]

In a nuts :
Conservatives want work requirements. But the Republicans in Michigan carefully carved out exemptions for their white, rural districts.


Nathan This was exactly what the article in the Atlantic was talking about when it as pointing out the selective outrage and double standards that conservatives seem to have.





Medicaid, a program created to provide healthcare to the poor and disabled among us, has long been a lifeline for communities in need. And since it helps people in need, you know, “the takers,” Republicans have been desperate to find ways to END THAT EN LEMENT RIGHT NOW!!! And on that note, the CMS (Centers For Medicare And Medicaid Services) sent out a letter back in January that we discussed here, about their grand plan to allow states to add a work requirement to Medicaid. What a relief! Everyone who was worried that poor people might be using all that delicious healthcare that they can’t pay for can relax! We will make them work until dead for you.

Michigan, how you doing? Senate Bill 897, which recently passed the state Senate in Lansing, imposes a work requirement of 30 hours per week, to be reported every 30 days, or POOR PEOPLE LOSE THEIR HEALTH COVERAGE AND MAYBE DIE. But not only is the bill cruel and horribly unkind to Michiganders, as we would expect, it is also very much racist (okay, as we would also expect).

Because although HB 897 threatens to end Medicaid benefits for hundreds of thousands living elsewhere in the state, it includes exemptions for people who live in counties with an unemployment rate of more than 8.5%, like the ones [state Senator Wayne] Schmidt represents.

Live in Detroit? You’re out of luck.

The city’s unemployment rate is higher than 8.5%, but the unemployment rate in surrounding Wayne County is just 5.5% — meaning Detroiters living in poverty, with a dysfunctional transit system that makes it harder to reach good-paying jobs, won’t qualify for that exemption. The same is true in Flint and the state’s other struggling cities.

One of the bill’s sponsors, Michigan state Senator Wayne Schmidt, represents Cheboygan and Chippewa counties, places with high unemployment, made very very sure his white rural cons uents would get the social safety net they’re en led to. While other areas in his state might feel the pain from this bill, his residents are safe. And very white. They are safe because he made sure to give exemptions to his poors in the Senate bill, while completely ignoring the hardships of the poors in areas like Flint and Detroit. THIS IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG. Schmidt and his fellow Republicans crafted their bill as carefully as Texas gerrymanders. We wish we could count on our state governments not to go full Jim Crow every chance they get, but in the age of Trump, we doubt our wishes will be fulfilled any time soon. We fully expect more states to follow in the footsteps of Michigan and Alabama, and we also fully expect people to die because of it.

Just not white people, because white people need a hand UP, not a hand OUT, right?

---------------------------------------------------

https://wonkette.com/633452/michigan...-you-are-white

[Winehole23]

Arkansas just added a work-requirement:

“Starting Tuesday, Arkansans on Medicaid have to prove that they’ve worked 80 hours over the previous month or that they qualify for an exemption. If they fail to do so, they’ll be booted from the rolls after three months. … everyone enrolled in Medicaid has to do ent their work hours through an online portal created by the state — with no option to submit information in person, over the by phone, or by mail. According to the Census Bureau, Arkansas has the second-lowest rate of home internet access in the nation, only slightly above Mississippi.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ark...rk-requirement

[rmt]

Arkansas just added a work-requirement:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ark...rk-requirement

So a Democrat governor brings Medicaid Expansion and after the carrot stick is slowly being pulled away (states have to start paying an increasing portion beginning last year), some states now find it unaffordable - cry me a river - the most insidious part of Obamacare - hook them with the Feds paying 100% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and then comes the states' 5% increasing to 10% by 2020.

[Winehole23]

damn Dems ruin everything

[boutons_deux]

So a Democrat governor brings Medicaid Expansion and after the carrot stick is slowly being pulled away (states have to start paying an increasing portion beginning last year), some states now find it unaffordable - cry me a river - the most insidious part of Obamacare - hook them with the Feds paying 100% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and then comes the states' 5% increasing to 10% by 2020.

and your solution to providing health care for the poor?

I'm sure it's deeply heartfelt humanitarian, and not dominated strictly by $$$.

btw, your cherished Repugs, Christ-like every one of them, have been throwing Ms of people off ACA, and will continue to do so as Repugs intend to screw 10Ms of poor people to pay for the oligarchy's scam tax cut.

[rmt]

and your solution to providing health care for the poor?

I'm sure it's deeply heartfelt humanitarian, and not dominated strictly by $$$.

btw, your cherished Repugs, Christ-like every one of them, have been throwing Ms of people off ACA, and will continue to do so as Repugs intend to screw 10Ms of poor people to pay for the oligarchy's scam tax cut.

I have said plenty on this board regarding health care and specifically Obamacare - you've heard it all before. Don't blame the Republicans for this abomination called ACA - affordable, my foot. I've never seen a more convoluted, STUPID set of rules guaranteed to raise the cost of health insurance for the middle class.

[boutons_deux]

I have said plenty on this board regarding health care and specifically Obamacare - you've heard it all before. Don't blame the Republicans for this abomination called ACA - affordable, my foot. I've never seen a more convoluted, STUPID set of rules guaranteed to raise the cost of health insurance for the middle class.

ACA was debated for over 1 year, 100+ amendments by Repugs, BigPharma, etc, then not one Repug voted for it.

Of course such a complex program overlaid on the hyper-complex US health scam / wealth transfer system would need lots of fixes, tuning.

But the Repugs have blocked any and all improvements to ACA, while sabotaging ACA, with help from SCOTUS, non-stop at every opportunity, which is a sabotage in progress.

The citizens who are against ACA are not the ones benefiting from ACA. The people who benefit from ACA support it.

As always, racism has always been, is fundamental to America. The white people not on ACA are dead set against ACA for blacks, browns.

Again, what is your solution to provide health care to people who can't afford it?

[ElNono]

So a Democrat governor brings Medicaid Expansion and after the carrot stick is slowly being pulled away (states have to start paying an increasing portion beginning last year), some states now find it unaffordable - cry me a river - the most insidious part of Obamacare - hook them with the Feds paying 100% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and then comes the states' 5% increasing to 10% by 2020.

damn Dems ruin everything

Southern success story

Under former, Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, Arkansas was one of very few states in the South to embrace Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, extending subsidized coverage to 280,000 additional people beginning in 2013.
Since then, the state’s uninsured rate has been cut in half. Emergency room visits decreased by more than 35 percent, and the number of uninsured people admitted to hospitals dropped by more than 45 percent, saving hospitals in the state more than $69.2 million.
“Medicaid expansion in Arkansas has been an unqualified success,” Leding said. “Look at how many people were able to gain access to health care. Look at how we’ve drastically reduce our uninsured rate.”

[ElNono]

At some point removing more people off Medicaid doesn't save you any money, you'll eventually get them back in emergency rooms, probably at a more expensive rate.

[spurraider21]

At some point removing more people off Medicaid doesn't save you any money, you'll eventually get them back in emergency rooms, probably at a more expensive rate.

hospitals and ER's shouldn't admit people unless they pay up front. problem solved

[ElNono]

hospitals and ER's shouldn't admit people unless they pay up front. problem solved

god bless Saint Ronnie

[boutons_deux]

At some point removing more people off Medicaid doesn't save you any money, you'll eventually get them back in emergency rooms, probably at a more expensive rate.

... which applies to all red/slave states that haven't expanded Medicaid.

Providers that don't get re-imbursed totally for uninsured care, so they jack up prices for insured care, which causes insurers to jack up their prices.

[rmt]

Emergency room visits hit all-time high during ACA implementation
By Maria Castellucci | September 13, 2017
Patient emergency room visits rose to a record high of 141.4 million in 2014, the same year the Affordable Care Act's insurance expansion went into effect, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The results contradict policy experts' assertions that unnecessary ER use would decline as more people gained access to health insurance under the ACA. The hope was that newly insured individuals would rely less on the ER because they could seek out preventive services and primary care, but the CDC data suggests that hadn't occurred yet in 2014.

For the first time, Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries accounted for the bulk of ER visits at 34.9%. This aligns with the Medicaid coverage gains that began in 2014 and insured about 14.5 million people.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/170919951


More evidence expanding Medicaid increases emergency room visits

When a provocative study showed that expanding Medicaid increased trips to the emergency room two years ago, some supporters of health reform were disappointed and hoped that it would prove to be only a temporary e.

After all, the findings -- based on Oregon's expansion of Medicaid in 2008 -- challenged the key assumption that low-income people who gained insurance coverage would go to primary care doctors instead of relying on emergency rooms. Critics of the law pointed to the study as evidence that the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act were making a mistake.

The surge in emergency room visits wasn't temporary, at two years and counting, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine, led by researchers at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology.

"I think it's yet another example of why economists -- we’re called the dismal science for a reason. There’s no free lunch," said Amy Finkelstein, a professor of economics at MIT. "We see the increase of utilization doesn't show any time pattern. It just seems to persist over the two years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.767ed3e975f1

[rmt]

ACA was debated for over 1 year, 100+ amendments by Repugs, BigPharma, etc, then not one Repug voted for it.

Of course such a complex program overlaid on the hyper-complex US health scam / wealth transfer system would need lots of fixes, tuning.

But the Repugs have blocked any and all improvements to ACA, while sabotaging ACA, with help from SCOTUS, non-stop at every opportunity, which is a sabotage in progress.

The citizens who are against ACA are not the ones benefiting from ACA. The people who benefit from ACA support it.

As always, racism has always been, is fundamental to America. The white people not on ACA are dead set against ACA for blacks, browns.

Again, what is your solution to provide health care to people who can't afford it?

The ones who are against ACA are the ones paying outrageous premiums and not reaping much benefit from it. The ones who support it are the ones being subsidized or getting it free (Medicaid expansion or the liberals who love the idea).

You are welcome to go read my many, many posts and suggestions. You are the one who is stuck on ACA (why - because it's referred to as OBAMACARE?) Why try to fix it? You admit it's impossibly complex - it's ridiculous for everybody to pay for coverage that one doesn't need (you know, like men having maternity coverage!!!)

[SnakeBoy]

damn Dems ruin everything

Well just the cities they run according to the article.

[boutons_deux]

"The ones who are against ACA are the ones paying outrageous premiums"

nope, the vast majority who polled against ACA are not using ACA AT ALL

ACA is impossibly complex because sits on top of an impossibly effective scam: for-profit health, with 1000s of parasites sucking on the $3T scam, including some here on ST.

[ElNono]

Emergency room visits hit all-time high during ACA implementation
By Maria Castellucci | September 13, 2017
Patient emergency room visits rose to a record high of 141.4 million in 2014, the same year the Affordable Care Act's insurance expansion went into effect, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The results contradict policy experts' assertions that unnecessary ER use would decline as more people gained access to health insurance under the ACA. The hope was that newly insured individuals would rely less on the ER because they could seek out preventive services and primary care, but the CDC data suggests that hadn't occurred yet in 2014.

For the first time, Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries accounted for the bulk of ER visits at 34.9%. This aligns with the Medicaid coverage gains that began in 2014 and insured about 14.5 million people.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/170919951


More evidence expanding Medicaid increases emergency room visits

When a provocative study showed that expanding Medicaid increased trips to the emergency room two years ago, some supporters of health reform were disappointed and hoped that it would prove to be only a temporary e.

After all, the findings -- based on Oregon's expansion of Medicaid in 2008 -- challenged the key assumption that low-income people who gained insurance coverage would go to primary care doctors instead of relying on emergency rooms. Critics of the law pointed to the study as evidence that the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act were making a mistake.

The surge in emergency room visits wasn't temporary, at two years and counting, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine, led by researchers at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology.

"I think it's yet another example of why economists -- we’re called the dismal science for a reason. There’s no free lunch," said Amy Finkelstein, a professor of economics at MIT. "We see the increase of utilization doesn't show any time pattern. It just seems to persist over the two years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.767ed3e975f1

Why would anybody write an article in 2017 talking about ER visits increasing in 2014, when the data for 2015 is readily available and shows an actual decrease year to year of 5 million visits?

Sourced 2014 table:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs...web_tables.pdf

2015 table:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhamcs...web_tables.pdf


At any rate, every state is different and obviously, it wouldn't be surprising some did better than others.

[ElNono]

I'm not even a fan of Barrycare, tbh. If anything, the Medicaid expansion program is the result of Barrycare not tackling artificially rising costs that the States can no longer afford, since they don't control the money supply.

Hopefully we don't have to go back to the pre-EMTALA days.

[AaronY]

Emergency room visits hit all-time high during ACA implementation
By Maria Castellucci | September 13, 2017
Patient emergency room visits rose to a record high of 141.4 million in 2014, the same year the Affordable Care Act's insurance expansion went into effect, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The results contradict policy experts' assertions that unnecessary ER use would decline as more people gained access to health insurance under the ACA. The hope was that newly insured individuals would rely less on the ER because they could seek out preventive services and primary care, but the CDC data suggests that hadn't occurred yet in 2014.

For the first time, Medicaid and CHIP beneficiaries accounted for the bulk of ER visits at 34.9%. This aligns with the Medicaid coverage gains that began in 2014 and insured about 14.5 million people.

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/170919951


More evidence expanding Medicaid increases emergency room visits

When a provocative study showed that expanding Medicaid increased trips to the emergency room two years ago, some supporters of health reform were disappointed and hoped that it would prove to be only a temporary e.

After all, the findings -- based on Oregon's expansion of Medicaid in 2008 -- challenged the key assumption that low-income people who gained insurance coverage would go to primary care doctors instead of relying on emergency rooms. Critics of the law pointed to the study as evidence that the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act were making a mistake.

The surge in emergency room visits wasn't temporary, at two years and counting, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine, led by researchers at the Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology.

"I think it's yet another example of why economists -- we’re called the dismal science for a reason. There’s no free lunch," said Amy Finkelstein, a professor of economics at MIT. "We see the increase of utilization doesn't show any time pattern. It just seems to persist over the two years."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.767ed3e975f1

Wow, unhealthy are more likely to get treatment when they have insurance. true if huge

[boutons_deux]

"Barrycare not tackling artificially rising costs"

If ACA had really reduced on those "costs" (aka BigHealthcare's investors' profits),

BigHealthCare would have blocked ACA,

like it Harry-and-Louise'd Hillary's plan 25 years ago.

The oligarchy owns America and nobody can successfully challenge its grip.

The situation is as simple and ruthless as it is hopeless.

[RandomGuy]

So a Democrat governor brings Medicaid Expansion and after the carrot stick is slowly being pulled away (states have to start paying an increasing portion beginning last year), some states now find it unaffordable - cry me a river - the most insidious part of Obamacare - hook them with the Feds paying 100% in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and then comes the states' 5% increasing to 10% by 2020.

Good. Raise taxes to pay for it.

What's the problem?

[RandomGuy]

Well just the cities they run according to the article.

Tell me how well Kansas and Oklahoma are doing again.

[tlongII]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick.../#661158cd1389

Forget Kansas - North Carolina Is The National Model For Conservative Tax Reform

By overriding a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature enacted a new budget today that cuts the state’s personal and corporate income tax rates. Under this new budget, the state’s flat personal income tax rate will drop from 5.499 to 5.25% in January of 2019, and the corporate tax rate will fall from 3% to 2.5%, which represents a 16% reduction in one of the most harmful forms of taxation. The newly-enacted budget also cuts the franchise tax rate for S-Corporations.

This new budget, which received bipartisan support from a three-fifths super-majority of state lawmakers, builds upon the Tar Heel State’s impressive record of pro-growth, rate-reducing tax reform. Unfortunately, this latest round of tax relief in North Carolina will garner far less media coverage than the tax changes implemented in Kansas five years ago, even though North Carolina’s population and economy are both more than three times the size of Kansas's.

It's remarkable how much progress North Carolina has made in improving its business tax climate in recent years, going from having one of the worst businesses tax climates in the country (ranked 44th), to one of the best today (now 11th best according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation). When Republicans took total control of the North Carolina government in 2010, the state had the highest personal and corporate income tax rates in the region, at 7.75% and 6.9%, respectively. Thanks to enactment of multiple rounds of tax relief, beginning with the landmark 2013 tax reform act, North Carolina will soon have a personal income tax rate that is 30% lower than what the top rate was only four years ago. The corporate rate, having been reduced by more than 63% since 2013, is now the lowest corporate income tax rate among states that impose such a tax.



North Carolina, more than any other state in recent years, has provided a model for what pro-growth tax reform and conservative fiscal policy looks like, and it deserves more attention from the national media than it receives. Democrat opposition to rate-reducing tax reform proposals in state capitals and at the federal level, such as Speaker Ryan’s House Blueprint or the Trump administration’s tax reform proposal, almost always involves a reference or allusion to Kansas these days. Opponents of tax relief proclaim that what has happened in that one small state since it cut taxes five years ago, and made mistakes in the process, somehow proves that passing any form of tax relief, at any time, at any level of government is a bad idea.

However, the Left’s obsession with Kansas actually demonstrates what a weak hand Democrats have to play in opposing federal tax reform, or rate-reducing tax relief in the states. Because a more representative sample involving aggregate data looking at all 50 states debunks the liberal assertion that high levels of taxation and spending do no economic harm, they have resorted to cherry-picking one state, Kansas, and alleging that one case study to have determined that any sort of rate-reducing tax reform is inadvisable. It’s an absurd premise, but it’s all they’ve got.

By overriding a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature enacted a new budget today that cuts the state’s personal and corporate income tax rates. Under this new budget, the state’s flat personal income tax rate will drop from 5.499 to 5.25% in January of 2019, and the corporate tax rate will fall from 3% to 2.5%, which represents a 16% reduction in one of the most harmful forms of taxation. The newly-enacted budget also cuts the franchise tax rate for S-Corporations.

This new budget, which received bipartisan support from a three-fifths super-majority of state lawmakers, builds upon the Tar Heel State’s impressive record of pro-growth, rate-reducing tax reform. Unfortunately, this latest round of tax relief in North Carolina will garner far less media coverage than the tax changes implemented in Kansas five years ago, even though North Carolina’s population and economy are both more than three times the size of Kansas's.

It's remarkable how much progress North Carolina has made in improving its business tax climate in recent years, going from having one of the worst businesses tax climates in the country (ranked 44th), to one of the best today (now 11th best according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation). When Republicans took total control of the North Carolina government in 2010, the state had the highest personal and corporate income tax rates in the region, at 7.75% and 6.9%, respectively. Thanks to enactment of multiple rounds of tax relief, beginning with the landmark 2013 tax reform act, North Carolina will soon have a personal income tax rate that is 30% lower than what the top rate was only four years ago. The corporate rate, having been reduced by more than 63% since 2013, is now the lowest corporate income tax rate among states that impose such a tax.



North Carolina, more than any other state in recent years, has provided a model for what pro-growth tax reform and conservative fiscal policy looks like, and it deserves more attention from the national media than it receives. Democrat opposition to rate-reducing tax reform proposals in state capitals and at the federal level, such as Speaker Ryan’s House Blueprint or the Trump administration’s tax reform proposal, almost always involves a reference or allusion to Kansas these days. Opponents of tax relief proclaim that what has happened in that one small state since it cut taxes five years ago, and made mistakes in the process, somehow proves that passing any form of tax relief, at any time, at any level of government is a bad idea.

However, the Left’s obsession with Kansas actually demonstrates what a weak hand Democrats have to play in opposing federal tax reform, or rate-reducing tax relief in the states. Because a more representative sample involving aggregate data looking at all 50 states debunks the liberal assertion that high levels of taxation and spending do no economic harm, they have resorted to cherry-picking one state, Kansas, and alleging that one case study to have determined that any sort of rate-reducing tax reform is inadvisable. It’s an absurd premise, but it’s all they’ve got.


In the decade from 2005-2015, the nine states with zero income tax saw population increase by an average of 12.9%, while population in all 50 states rose by 8.8%. During that same period, the nine states with the highest income tax rates saw population grow by only 6.6%. The nine states with zero income tax also had economic, personal income, and payroll growth that outpaced all states on average, and outperformed the high income tax states to an even greater extent.

It’s not just North Carolina and other states' experience that debunks the bogus claim that Kansas proves that all tax relief is to be avoided, but also a great deal of social science. John Hood, chairman of the John Locke Foundation, has taken the time to survey over 680 peer-reviewed academic journal articles on fiscal policy published over the past quarter century. According to Hood, “the preponderance of peer-reviewed research finds a negative relationship between state taxes and measures such as job creation and income growth.”

In announcing his opposition to the new budget, Gov. Cooper portrayed the income tax cuts as a giveaway to the rich. Cooper's claim is flat out false. In fact, despite what the first term Democratic governor has misled the public to believe, this new budget will actually shift the income tax burden from the middle class to to higher income households. When the income tax cuts takes effect in 2019, households with annual income below $100,000 will contribute a lower percentage of total income tax collections than they presently do. Meanwhile, this budget will have households with income greater than $100,000 paying greater share of total income tax collections than under current law.

With this latest round of personal and corporate income tax relief, Senate President Phil Berger, Speaker Tim Moore, and their colleagues in the General Assembly are strengthening North Carolina’s impressive record of pro-growth tax reform. While this latest round of tax relief will benefit individuals, families, and employers across the North Carolina who will get to keep more of their hard-earned income, it will also help lawmakers in other states and in Congress by demonstrating the positive results that come from passing rate-reducing tax reform, coupled with spending restraint.

[Pavlov]

lol tlong wants to forget Kansas now.

[RandomGuy]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick.../#661158cd1389

Forget Kansas - North Carolina Is The National Model For Conservative Tax Reform

By overriding a veto from Gov. Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature enacted a new budget today that cuts the state’s personal and corporate income tax rates. Under this new budget, the state’s flat personal income tax rate will drop from 5.499 to 5.25% in January of 2019, and the corporate tax rate will fall from 3% to 2.5%, which represents a 16% reduction in one of the most harmful forms of taxation. The newly-enacted budget also cuts the franchise tax rate for S-Corporations.

Didn't work in Kansas, didn't work in Oklahoma...



"let's keep trying this failed policy"

By all means, keep discrediting your ideas. It saddens me that people have to pay the cost of your failures though.