The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 132
Registered: ‎09-16-2017

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 1 of 21 (13 Views)

john258 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66

 

You are WAY off topic - 

Medicaid is coverage of the MOST affordable type.  If eligible for Medicaid all they have to do is sign up for it and in a few states pay a very low co-pay for some services - 

 

Is it not important to them?

Do they think they might need to be covered?

Do they think they might be forced to buy, even greatly subsidized coverage?

What is their problem?

 

Why should we pay retroactively for their health cost when they haven't even bothered to sign up when they were eligible for Medicaid all along.

 

Please try to stay on topic -


We are already paying for their health care costs. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There is the ER care for all. Just go to the ER and you will be treated at no cost. Now there are Reb. like your old governor who would let them die in the Streets if he could, but he can not. Lets have medicare for all approach and the cost of total health care will go down as the ER care area will be reduced. You need to stop looking for articles that do not cover the entire system and placing them in here as fact. They are not. I see there are Hospitals (non profit) expanding using Sate an local funds. Who provides that money. State and local taxes. Our local hospital just went to solar power farm using local bond funds. Who bears the cost of bonds. Local taxes, and yes the locals approved that when they set up the bond fund. Learn the full system and be a real expert.


The fact is that insurance is based on pools. Or groups. Pools of people with various health conditions, in thise case.  

It is just how insurance works. 

 

Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 132
Registered: ‎09-16-2017

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 2 of 21 (15 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

patriciah559514 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

I will re-read your post because I need to - to be sure I understand.

But I'd gently suggest using a different word than 'furnaces' just for our mutual sanity. 

I am not saying you had any intention to use a loaded concept/word.

Thank you!


Point taken patriciah.  I did not use the word to inflame.  I used the word to convey the idea that not extending adequate health care....that really is readily available... to those who need it, but cannot pay does much the same as those furnaces once did. 

 

I saw no need to 'candy-coat' reality in order to be genteel. 

 

Have you seen the apple commercial on CNN?  the one about the apple being an apple no matter who calls it something else....or what political persuasion does it?  It's a good one.


I get it. Even though my parents named me Patricia, I am really not one to lean on gentility. My point [& I meant it in the most gentle-strong-request-suggestion is based more on that this has not been an easy year for people who are ...well, you know the drill; and my second more sensitive point is my Daddy was born in Germany. With all this Bannonite crap, I like to be very careful. It feels so important to speak carefully as there are a lot of buzz words hidden in our conversation today.  I hope you understand. 

But, WOW, you are 100% correct!  

That is exactly what is being done. Elderly, handicapped, ...omg. EXACTLY the same thing They've just not gotten to the way they will sort the Jews/Gypsies for expedited processing.  

Remember - who was it? Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Huckabee Sanders - one of them said when the payments are cut off [to fund the top 1% tax cuts] Medicaid patients can get jobs?

You reminded me of the words on the sign on the front gate of Auschwitz:   "Arbeit Macht Frei".

They are freaking NAZI's.  

Okay, leave it furnace.  We need our minds grabbed. 

Sincere apologies and kudos to you!  Well done, you!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,645
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 3 of 21 (38 Views)

patriciah559514 wrote:

umbarch64 wrote:

I will re-read your post because I need to - to be sure I understand.

But I'd gently suggest using a different word than 'furnaces' just for our mutual sanity. 

I am not saying you had any intention to use a loaded concept/word.

Thank you!


Point taken patriciah.  I did not use the word to inflame.  I used the word to convey the idea that not extending adequate health care....that really is readily available... to those who need it, but cannot pay does much the same as those furnaces once did. 

 

I saw no need to 'candy-coat' reality in order to be genteel. 

 

Have you seen the apple commercial on CNN?  the one about the apple being an apple no matter who calls it something else....or what political persuasion does it?  It's a good one.

Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 132
Registered: ‎09-16-2017

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 4 of 21 (49 Views)

umbarch64 wrote:

Neither Gail's nor byrondennis' response dealt candidly with the 'concept' I proposed.  A true single payer system nullifies the necessity for any and all non-rational complexity in the health care system. You simply will not need it.  Wrap your brain around the concept to start with and you may 'begin' to understand the ramifications.

 

Accept the concept as a goal and you will be able to devise the best possible system to accomplish that goal. The most important thing then is the extent of 'basic' health care and the most efficient way possible to provide it. Don't and you can't. It's that simple.

 

Unless and until you are willing to consign those who 'can't pay the freight' to the furnaces, someone will pay for ALL that, no matter what system is devised, single payer or not. That someone being the tax-payer. You can take advantage of a 'public insurance company', a co-op of sorts to spread the cost over the entire population or you can argue about who gets the shaft this time.  It ALL has to be paid for.  I singled out the 'for profit health care system' as a culprit driving up the cost, because that's exactly what it does.  

 

Don't accept that concept and you will forever mire yourself in pointless discussions about meaningless things that serve something other than the public interest.  Keep in mind that the immediate costs for failure of the health care system will not be fully known until generations from now.  Of course, that could be the very reason to indulge in this futile exercise.   

 

As has been said, IF no guaranteed health care system now exists,the social system picks up the tab for those who cannot pay....somehow.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the tax-payer that funds that whole shebang and all it implies. That being the case, again correct me if I'm wrong, the cost for all the consequences that happen when that  system fails to function at utmost efficiency ends up on the tax-payers' tab too.

 

Complexity is the refuge of the disingenous demagogue spinning tales from behind a curtain of smoke.  Concept is everthing you need to know.  Agree on that, accept it and the rest can be accomplished....cooperation toward that end being the main requisite, you see.  Not money.


I will re-read your post because I need to - to be sure I understand.

But I'd gently suggest using a different word than 'furnaces' just for our mutual sanity. 

I am not saying you had any intention to use a loaded concept/word.

Thank you!

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 1,645
Registered: ‎02-12-2011

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 5 of 21 (59 Views)

Neither Gail's nor byrondennis' response dealt candidly with the 'concept' I proposed.  A true single payer system nullifies the necessity for any and all non-rational complexity in the health care system. You simply will not need it.  Wrap your brain around the concept to start with and you may 'begin' to understand the ramifications.

 

Accept the concept as a goal and you will be able to devise the best possible system to accomplish that goal. The most important thing then is the extent of 'basic' health care and the most efficient way possible to provide it. Don't and you can't. It's that simple.

 

Unless and until you are willing to consign those who 'can't pay the freight' to the furnaces, someone will pay for ALL that, no matter what system is devised, single payer or not. That someone being the tax-payer. You can take advantage of a 'public insurance company', a co-op of sorts to spread the cost over the entire population or you can argue about who gets the shaft this time.  It ALL has to be paid for.  I singled out the 'for profit health care system' as a culprit driving up the cost, because that's exactly what it does.  

 

Don't accept that concept and you will forever mire yourself in pointless discussions about meaningless things that serve something other than the public interest.  Keep in mind that the immediate costs for failure of the health care system will not be fully known until generations from now.  Of course, that could be the very reason to indulge in this futile exercise.   

 

As has been said, IF no guaranteed health care system now exists,the social system picks up the tab for those who cannot pay....somehow.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the tax-payer that funds that whole shebang and all it implies. That being the case, again correct me if I'm wrong, the cost for all the consequences that happen when that  system fails to function at utmost efficiency ends up on the tax-payers' tab too.

 

Complexity is the refuge of the disingenous demagogue spinning tales from behind a curtain of smoke.  Concept is everthing you need to know.  Agree on that, accept it and the rest can be accomplished....cooperation toward that end being the main requisite, you see.  Not money.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,645
Registered: ‎11-07-2009

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 6 of 21 (89 Views)

GailL1 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

 

 

What is so hard about asking people to sign up for whatever coverage they are eligible?  Including the poor.

 


What was so hard about asking all states to expand Medicaid and to set up a health care insurance exchange as per the ACA to make it easier for people to get that insurance and/or Medicaid?


Every state does have an exchange - state only, federally facilitated or one that is a shared responsibility.

 

People who go to their exchange who have income limits within the various states income eligibility are directed to their state's Medicaid enrollment.

 

The states that are changing this retroactive coverage are ALL expansion states - Iowa, Indiana, New Hampshire, Arkansas 

 


The point (that you miss) is that if all states had expanded Medicaid and all states had started a state exchange, the ACA would have been much more successful, even more would have gotten insured. That's exactly why so many RED states refused to open state exchanges and expand Medicaid, they wanted the ACA (Obamacare) to fail.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 132
Registered: ‎09-16-2017

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 7 of 21 (93 Views)

john258 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66

 

You are WAY off topic - 

Medicaid is coverage of the MOST affordable type.  If eligible for Medicaid all they have to do is sign up for it and in a few states pay a very low co-pay for some services - 

 

Is it not important to them?

Do they think they might need to be covered?

Do they think they might be forced to buy, even greatly subsidized coverage?

What is their problem?

 

Why should we pay retroactively for their health cost when they haven't even bothered to sign up when they were eligible for Medicaid all along.

 

Please try to stay on topic -


We are already paying for their health care costs. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There is the ER care for all. Just go to the ER and you will be treated at no cost. Now there are Reb. like your old governor who would let them die in the Streets if he could, but he can not. Lets have medicare for all approach and the cost of total health care will go down as the ER care area will be reduced. You need to stop looking for articles that do not cover the entire system and placing them in here as fact. They are not. I see there are Hospitals (non profit) expanding using Sate an local funds. Who provides that money. State and local taxes. Our local hospital just went to solar power farm using local bond funds. Who bears the cost of bonds. Local taxes, and yes the locals approved that when they set up the bond fund. Learn the full system and be a real expert.


What you said about the health care costs is a valid point. ER room is medical care route for many without health care. Then, the costs fall back to the local government to pick up. With ACA, many are covered who previously went the ER route, or no medical care route.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,664
Registered: ‎07-20-2010

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 8 of 21 (97 Views)

GailL1 wrote:

@Olderscout66

 

You are WAY off topic - 

Medicaid is coverage of the MOST affordable type.  If eligible for Medicaid all they have to do is sign up for it and in a few states pay a very low co-pay for some services - 

 

Is it not important to them?

Do they think they might need to be covered?

Do they think they might be forced to buy, even greatly subsidized coverage?

What is their problem?

 

Why should we pay retroactively for their health cost when they haven't even bothered to sign up when they were eligible for Medicaid all along.

 

Please try to stay on topic -


We are already paying for their health care costs. Why is that so hard for you to understand? There is the ER care for all. Just go to the ER and you will be treated at no cost. Now there are Reb. like your old governor who would let them die in the Streets if he could, but he can not. Lets have medicare for all approach and the cost of total health care will go down as the ER care area will be reduced. You need to stop looking for articles that do not cover the entire system and placing them in here as fact. They are not. I see there are Hospitals (non profit) expanding using Sate an local funds. Who provides that money. State and local taxes. Our local hospital just went to solar power farm using local bond funds. Who bears the cost of bonds. Local taxes, and yes the locals approved that when they set up the bond fund. Learn the full system and be a real expert.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,773
Registered: ‎08-18-2008

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

Message 9 of 21 (116 Views)

@Olderscout66

 

You are WAY off topic - 

Medicaid is coverage of the MOST affordable type.  If eligible for Medicaid all they have to do is sign up for it and in a few states pay a very low co-pay for some services - 

 

Is it not important to them?

Do they think they might need to be covered?

Do they think they might be forced to buy, even greatly subsidized coverage?

What is their problem?

 

Why should we pay retroactively for their health cost when they haven't even bothered to sign up when they were eligible for Medicaid all along.

 

Please try to stay on topic -

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,773
Registered: ‎08-18-2008

Re: Medicaid Retroaction being rolled back in some states

[ Edited ]
Message 10 of 21 (119 Views)

afisher wrote:

1.   Republicans want to assure that many don't have affordable health insurance, PERIOD.    That elimanates the idea and all it's associated false starts  that some are attempting to sell.

2.    In one State that really hates people having affordable HealthCare, they also hate people having access to healthcare via Medicaid...so they demand that people continually QUALIFY for Medicaid- because the family may make a dime too much in a month, which would disqualify them from being elgible.  (that is Texas).   


What coverage would be as affordable as Medicaid, even with some states having some very low copays for services.

 

Medicaid is 1st and foremost qualified coverage by income and that income can change from year to year or even during a year.

 

Anybody who is getting an ACA exchange plan that gets a tax credit from the government is suppose to report a change in income so that the amount of the tax credit subsidy can be adjusted accordingly.

 

Any change in income in an upwards direction is suppose to be also reported by those within the Medicaid program - well, unless you win the lottery and that is just counted for one month as income.  Congress is trying to change that condition.

 

We go by MAGI for coverage eligibility in the ACA and Medicaid - in all areas, that dollar over the eligibility limit affects the benefit - ACA tax credit subsidy or Medicaid eligibility.

 

People who have a rise in their income - may or may not have to pay back their ACA tax credit subsidy depending upon their increased income.  I know a guy right now who is gonna have to pay back a pretty big amount of tax credit subsidies.  Since we are at the end of the year, he is frantically trying to sell some investments to create a loss big enough to cover this pay back.

 

Be thankful that we don't make Medicaid beneficiaries pay something back if they get higher income.  All we ask is that they report it and then evaluate it periodically.  Remember in the expansion program we aren't talking about anybody that has a disability or is elderly - we are talking about abled-bodied individuals that can have little income one day and hit the jackpot the next day.

College students, perhaps older than 26, would be a good example of this.

 

We seem to be getting way off topic - why should we have to pay for someone's previous medical bills if they don't bother to sign up?  We certainly don't do this for individuals outside of Medicaid coverage.

 

They should sign up BEFORE they need medical help as should everybody.