Reply With Quote
not expanding Medicaid may have cost Texas a lot of money. check at the link under "Economic Effects"
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-b...ew-march-2018/
LOL Medicaid. Hardly any doctors see medicaid patients because it doesn't reimburse anything. It serves a purpose, but its a pain in the ass as well.
not expanding Medicaid may have cost Texas a lot of money. check at the link under "Economic Effects"
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-b...ew-march-2018/
17 red/slave non-Medicaid-expansion states leaves 2M uninsured, 500K in TX
while the sadistic racist Repugs target blacks and browns to deny them health care, the majority of the no-Medicaid Repug victims are white, just like the majority Americans covered by the Repug-targeted safety net are white.
A 2016 study found that growth in state Medicaid spending in expansion states has been lower relative to non-expansion states, but an uptick was predicted for state fiscal year (SFY) 2017, primarily due to the phase-down in the federal share for the expansion population from 100% to 95% in 2017.
The states have had a free ride up through the end of 2016. Now comes the part where they chip in up to 10% by 2020 (and they are going to struggle to find that 10% from state budgets which mostly must be balanced - not like the Feds who can run up debt).
One analysis found that in 2014, among those states reporting both spending and enrollment data, spending per enrollee for the new adult group was much lower than spending per enrollee for traditional Medicaid enrollees.320
A June 2017 study showed that per enrollee Medicaid spending declined in expansion states (-5.1%) but increased in non-expansion states (5.1%) between 2013 and 2014. Researchers attributed these trends to the ACA Medicaid expansion, which increased the share of relatively less expensive enrollees in the Medicaid beneficiary population mix in expansion states.321
Duh - if you are comparing states wtih TRUE (traditional) Medicaid enrollees (elderly or disabled) to expansion states who have basically added millions of low-income people (who are not old or disabled), of course spending PER ENROLLEE in those expansion states is going to be lower. The cost in those expansion states will be seen as the years go by and the states eventually have to fund their 10% portion - that money must come from somewhere (other pieces of the state spending pie).
Marketplace effects - so if you remove a big swatch of people who are low-income and probably less healthy from the marketplace, don't you expect the remaining higher-income/probably higher educated and probably healthier population to get lower premiums. The result is that the Feds and states end up with the entire bill of covering all these low-income people - which those higher-income/higher educated/healthier people are on the hook for.
"who are not old or disabled"
medicaid expansion is for people in poverty who can't AFFORD health insurance or medical bills.
And lot of these are "working poor", not Welfare Queens in Cadillacs.
Cost per expansion enrollee [fed match 100% (2016) to 90%(2020)] is gonna be less than old people in nursing homes or disabled/blind, etc. (fed traditional match 50-73%) - it's obvious that medicaid expansion is gonna bring down PER ENROLLEE cost and (in the beginning) "advantage" (or at least not negatively affect) state coffers."who are not old or disabled"
medicaid expansion is for people in poverty who can't AFFORD health insurance or medical bills.
And lot of these are "working poor", not Welfare Queens in Cadillacs.
Very true.The states have had a free ride up through the end of 2016. Now comes the part where they chip in up to 10% by 2020 (and they are going to struggle to find that 10% from state budgets which mostly must be balanced - not like the Feds who can run up debt).
Mightn't states tax their citizens to cover the investment in their health?
you act like having to pay for government services is some insuperable hurdle. it isn't.
you also act like states having to chip in 10% is a ripoff.
it isn't.
I don't mind paying for children, old people in nursing homes and disabled/blind (traditional Medicaid) but I don't want to pay for health insurance for the whatever % above poverty line that ACA Medicaid expansion covers. These are for the most part, able-bodied, probably healthy people. The former category is limited and can't fend for themselves. The latter are able-bodied and in the same situation that I was when I was young and starting. There is no limit to this latter category as more and more low-skilled people move into our country/state.
10% is a GREAT deal (much better than the 50% that the states chip in for the TRULY needy) and the remaining 90% is paid for by ALL taxpayers (not just from expansion state tax). FREE for how ever many years before 2017 (since 2014?) was the HOOK Obamacare used to reel in the states to expand Medicaid - but the piper eventually has to be paid. CA will be crying when they have to pay that 10% for so many and other states will be slapping on work requirements to reduce their expansion numbers and scrambling to see where (education/transportation/pension[I guess not]) to cut from to pay for the expansion.
"These are for the most part, able-bodied, probably healthy people. "
typical Bible humping conservative ING IMMUNE TO FACTS
most of the people on Medicaid ARE working, goddammit, as studies have shown when countering the REPUG lie that safety people MUST work or lose benefits
and I bet the same is true for the poor people in red/slave states who were screwed out of Medicaid expansion by the Repugs. Esp in rural areas, there ain't no ing jobs available
this is out of date, but any new jobs since then have been filled
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-employment-and-unemployment/
Dallas Morning News invesitgated Medicaid providers for two years. Providers skimped on care, endangering patients. State officials were aware of the problem, but covered it up.
.
It's a rip off (90%) at the federal level that we have to pay or keep printing. The 10% is the states' enticement to expand Medicaid via ACA (poverty level calculation) - instead of the 50?% for "true, original" medicaid - disabled, old, children.
How about when the able-bodied are busting their asses at low-paying jobs that don't provide healthcare? Illegal immigration is at a comparative low compared to the 90's,
Disagree.
Medicaid is the most efficient healthcare delivery system there is in the US (just compare administrative cost with private healthcare) and a prudent investment in our most vulnerable citizens.
Not expanding Medicaid may have cost Texas lives as well.
NBER found deaths were significantly reduced in states that expanded Medicaid in the four years studied:
http://papers.nber.org/tmp/87670-w26081.pdf
That's a shame. Keeping the moochers alive only makes it more expensive for rmt...
rmt doesn't care about human lives, only about her precious money "taken" by the govt.
rmt doesn't whine and about $750B wasted by the military, with NO accountability, no traceability, every ing year.
of course she would
Trump's Medicare Chief:
'I View a Public Option and Medicare for All as Equally Dangerous'
Verma's remarks calling for an expansion of the current for-profit healthcare system
given her record of seeking to strip away healthcare "protections and provisions for vulnerable people," and,
more recently, calling a single-payer plan like Medicare for All "bad" and "scary."
"we need government to be more hands-off."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ally-dangerous
iow, like a perfect oligarchy kakistocrat (auditioning for a $1M/year job after she leaves the govt),
SV wants for-profit profit-care to expanded for extracting even more $100Bs from Americans.
this lady to
Poor rmt feel bad for that jamaican black trumper ladyThat's a shame. Keeping the moochers alive only makes it more expensive for rmt...
Looks like Kansas will be DUMBERER
Kansas looks to become next red state to expand Medicaid
extend health coverage to some 150,000 low-income Kansans.
a low-key slam on the Trump administration and other red states' work requirements.
"includes a robust work referral program that promotes self-reliance for non-working Medicaid beneficiaries,"
"while limiting costly administrative red tape that drives up overall costs to taxpayers."
a reference to the ridiculous amounts of money states are spending to set up the tracking systems they're creating to punish poor people.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1910473
So it looks like ACA is a huge success that Repugs are committed to destroying, to spite Pres Knitter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
