Reply With Quote
Cutting reimbursment to providers? This will icrease the overall price, decrease doctors who participate on medicaid.
I had a dentist who wouldn't take me because if Tri-care doing the same thing.
Expanding Medicaid Means Reducing Education
Posted November 6th, 2009 at 9.19am in Health Care.
In his September address to the joint session of Congress, President Obama stated he would be the last President to take on health care. Perhaps, but that may be at the cost of everything else, including education.
By expanding Medicaid in the health care bill, Congress will set off political tornadoes across the country that will leave governors and state legislators to clean up afterward. The math is simple. State revenues are still in a slump and will continue for a least a few more years. The two largest state and local expenditures are education and Medicaid. If you have a balance a budget, which nearly every state does, and you cannot touch the en lement to Medicaid, where will you turn to fill the budget gap? There will be little choice than to go after education.
According to The Fiscal Survey of States, published by the National Association of State Budget Officers, 31 states cut higher education and 26 states cut K-12 education in 2009. Even with additional federal funding for Medicaid, 25 states still made reductions in Medicaid by cutting reimbursement to providers. Next year will be more of the same. Some states are already reporting higher Medicaid costs due not only to increased enrollment because of higher unemployment but also because of packed emergency rooms due to the swine flu. Governors of both parties are wondering whether Washington really knows what is going on around the country.
There are more former governors serving in the U.S. Senate than in the U.S. House of Representatives which means the Senate should be more aware of the Medicaid vs Education cage match. When legislation gets to the Senate floor, it will be interesting to watch whether the “former governor caucus” will work together across party lines to protect all states or only their own.
Congress and the President have incorporated all sorts of budget gimmicks to protect the federal budget. But they will be wrecking havoc on state budgets.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/06/...ing-education/
For more on Medicaid and Obamacare see:
Federalization of Medicaid: Health Reform Bill Would Reduce State Authority
Why Congress Wants to Force More Americans into Medicaid
The Baucus Medicaid Provisions: The Senate’s Massive Welfare Expansion
Cutting reimbursment to providers? This will icrease the overall price, decrease doctors who participate on medicaid.
I had a dentist who wouldn't take me because if Tri-care doing the same thing.
Where does the privatized Prison Industrial Complex fit into state budgets?
The big states spend more per prisoner than they do per student.
California's education budget is surpassed by its prison budget.
in Texas in it will mean sending billions to other states to expand their Medicare system, while forgoing billions in Federal matching funds that would pay for indigent hospital stays and mental health for inmates, costs that fall hardest on cities and counties.
http://www.wacotrib.com/news/189491721.html
The elephant in the room is the for-profit, greedy, fraudulent helath care system.
You pay our insane prices, or you get no care.
The solution that must be tried is non-profit public insurance option, with non-profit health care with salaried (not profit-center-ed) docs, is the answer, as we see in countries not being raped by their health care system.
heritage of course is always pimping for the corps and 1%.
RickyBobby and his posse of Repug/"Chritian" nutcase sociopath extremists will really up TX, esp the public school system and the poor, many of whom are takers, but WORKING POOR. RickyBobby "tax-expenditures" $19B/year to corporations.
And since when do Repugs and "Christians" GAF about education?
They only care about FOR-PROFIT scam education and the govt-guaranteed sub-prime financing of education, and "Christian" supremacy indoctrination with Biblical fairy-tales-as-science.
Christians aren't a monolith: 20% of evangelicals voted for Obama.
http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and...-Analysis.aspx
so 80% of evanglicals voted against him, aka, a landslide
And it's not Presidential voting that counts here, it's the gerrymandered Repug red-states that are obstructing progress at national and state levels.
lol simpleton.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6263637
lol coward
the total for all Christians was much narrower.so 80% of evanglicals voted against him, aka, a landslide
lol equating the success of Democratic Party policies with "progress."
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-05-2013 at 12:18 PM.
it's not much, but it's way head of the retrograde Repugs.
how so?
Barry's EPA is putting pressure on polluters, while the Repugs and libertarians was to kill EPA, OSHA, etc.
ACA was ed up by the health care system, but it's a big step in the right direction, and can be fixed (but probably won't be du to Repug obstuctionism, their voting to repeal mutiple times, their intention to gut/defund it )
Dems intend to protect Medicare and SS, while Repugs want kill both by privatization.
Dems want to fix immigration, Repugs will block all reform.
etc, etc.
There is HUGE difference between the two parties. Dems aren't great, but Repugs, and their voters, are so much worse.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-05-2013 at 02:36 PM.
that's ridiculously oversimplified, but is at least a slight deviation from the Parmenidean monism you usually espouse.
...
you retort is ridiculously absent.
lol.
Delicious sauce is delicious.
Medicare and Medicaid are not the same program...
Emphasis yours.
Not at all true in Texas.
quite true WC, but this is topically relevant
OK, but in post #4, you confused the programs.
you're right, I misfiled the update.
thanks for the correction: everyone can keep up now.
coverage gap. single child parents in Texas earning over $4000 a year are too rich to qualify for Medicaid and too poor to qualify for premium subsidies for Obamacare:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...caid-in-texas/There's a big divide between the states that participated in Obamacare's Medicaid expansion and those that didn't. States that signed up extended Medicaid eligibility to all adults earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $16,105 for an individual.
But if you live in one of the 23 states that didn't expand coverage, the limits can be really strict, according to a new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation. The result is that a lot of people end up being caught in a gap where they make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but too little to get assistance through the new Obamacare health insurance exchanges.
As the Kaiser foundation reports, 14 states currently set Medicaid eligibility for parents at below half of the federal poverty level. One of the most stringent requirements is found in Texas, the largest state sitting out the Medicaid expansion. Medicaid coverage in Texas is cut off for parents earning above 19 percent of the federal poverty level — or $3,760 for a family of three. The eligibility cutoff for parents of a dependent child, according to the Kaiser foundation report, is only lower in Alabama ($3,562), and it isn't much higher in Missouri ($4,551) or Louisiana ($4,479). The income thresholds do increase with more dependent children.
How Republicans are making Medicaid less efficient and more expensive
Medicaid is a lean, efficient, program and is in fact far less expensive than the rest of our healthcare system. It's also very popular with its customers, more so than private insurance is with people who have it.
So clearly the job for Republicans is to all that up, and they're doing it by adding layers of complexity and cost under Obamacare's Medicaid expansion program.
Take, for example, Arkansas—the state that got the ball rolling for red states seeking GOP twists on Medicaid expansion with its privatized version known as the "private option."Last month the state got approval for a byzantine new program, called Health Independence Accounts, that imposes co-pays on some beneficiaries unless they pay a small monthly fee. Those who have paid their fees are eligible, under certain conditions, for up to $200 to pay for the costs of private health insurance if their income goes up and they transition off of Medicaid.
To run the program, the state will pay a third-party administrator about $15 million annually (covered by the feds as part of the cost of expansion).
Meanwhile, Iowa is now imposing low premiums, tied to a wellness program, on some beneficiaries. "The administrative complexity of the system the state is contemplating is somewhat mind-boggling," Joan Alker of the Georgetown University Health Policy Ins ute commented when Iowa's waiver was approved, adding that "[t]he wellness program is of questionable policy value."
Indiana's proposal includes small premiums and savings accounts tied to different benefits packages, leaving advocates for beneficiaries worried that low-income adults "face categorization into a bewildering array of benefit plans and options." […]
"All of those ideas, leaving aside their policy merits, they all presuppose a pretty intensive level of government involvement in people's lives,"
Alker points out that the original proposal by Pennsylvania suggested that the state would eventually be tracking everything from cholesterol level to work history to legal record. (In the end, the feds accepted just four of Pennsylvania’s initial 24 waiver requests.)
The implicit bargain has been to offer a social safety net for the poor, but only via an intrusive REPUG nanny state.
Wait, isn't that what Republicans are always complaining about? Excessive and expensive bureaucracy and government intrusion into people's lives?
There are a couple of possible motivations here, which aren't mutually exclusive.
One is to make getting assistance as miserable and difficult as possible for poor people because that's what they deserve.
Another is to wreck what is essentially a very good federal/state program that helps a lot of people, because the first step to destroying government is to make it not function.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...nbsp-expensive
Repugs only about nanny state/regulations affecting the 1% and BigCorp.
As with law enforcement, the Repugs are super aggressive in ing around in poor peoples' lives, and especially in their vaginas.
"the first step to destroying government is to make it not function."
... which is actually the VRWC/Repug long-term strategy is, and is why the Repugs don't GAF about obstructing Congress down to a 10% approval rating, because people disaffected, alienated from politics are people who don't vote.
VRWC/Repugs say govt is useless, evil, counter-productive and they work very hard, spent $Bs to self-fulfill that prophecy.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-26-2015 at 10:43 AM.
Cut funds for education? a fundamental VRWC goal is busting public education and teachers unions.
Heritage GAF about education?
What All Americans Need to Know About How Poverty Impacts Education
"For the first time in at least 50 years, a majority of U.S. public school students come from low-income families, according to a new analysis of 2013 federal data, a statistic that has profound implications for the nation."
In 40 of the 50 states, low income students comprised no less than 40 percent of all public schoolchildren. In 21 states, children eligible for free or reduced-price lunches were a majority of the students in 2013.
Most of the states with a majority of low income students are found in the South and the West. Thirteen of the 21 states with a majority of low income students in 2013 were located in the South, and six of the other 21 states were in the West.
Mississippi led the nation with the highest rate: *71 percent, almost three out of every four public school children in Mississippi, were low-income. The nation’s second highest rate was found in New Mexico, where 68 percent of all public school students were low income in 2013.
recent international comparisons to underscore the point:
Finland, the highest scoring nation in recent years, has less than 4% of its children in poverty.
Even using somewhat out of date statistics from OECD, which sponsors the PISA tests used to bash US schools in comparison with international compe ors,
US schools with less than 25% of their children in poverty perform as well as any nation, and
those with 10% or less of their children in poverty outperform Finland.
http://www.alternet.org/education/wh...acts-education
Get back to us when Heritage VRWC STINK TANK gives a tiny little about reducing poverty.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
