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

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,664
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 11 of 19 (309 Views)

What is easier to do at the State level is practice discrimination against groups you dislike, and that's the ONLY reason anyone has ever supported "State's Rights" ahead of the National Interest.

 

Name something States are doing better since 1981 when Reagan killed Revenue Sharing than they were before that event. Then provide a short sentence explaining why it's better now.

Trusted Social Butterfly
Posts: 7,098
Registered: ‎02-14-2008

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 12 of 19 (307 Views)

I'm with Gail. I'm a large supporter of states rights, and their responsibility to handle these programs.

 

"...and because my State doesn;t have the ability to look broadly across the Country to find out what is working and what isn;t - where when why and how the Major Inefficiencies arise and what has been successful in remediation....".

 

   Why not? Of course your state has the ability to look at other programs. There is absolutely no reason states can't talk to one another and discuss programs that do, or don't work, for them.

 

".....Again, most reasonable people look at this Healthcare Issue and conclude - The USA has the beginnings of a National Healthcare Insurance Program just like every other Civilized -Industrialized Nation on the Planet.....".

 

    No other country on earth is like the U.S. We have one of the largest land masses. We have one of the larger and diverse populations. A great many countries don't have near the population that any  one of our smaller states do. The entire UK has only a fifth of the US population. You can take 8 of the western European countries (minus UK) and only have a third of our population. And those countries are very disparate. We have a constitution that was written with states rights in mind.

   The feds can't solve this for 50, disparate states.


Just think. The world was built by the lowest bidder.
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 6,986
Registered: ‎09-08-2009

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

[ Edited ]
Message 13 of 19 (306 Views)

GailL1 wrote:

Wow and look here, mickstuder -

In New Hampshire, as well as other states, we have the HIPP Medicaid program.

The HIPP Medicaid program pays the health insurance premium for EMPLOYER plans.

NH.gov - Health Insurance Premium Payments (HIPP)

 

"The Health Insurance Premium Payment (HIPP) Program is a program developed to help individuals and families afford their employer insurance when at least one person in the family is enrolled in Medicaid. New Hampshire Medicaid members who are employed or have a family member who is employed may be eligible for health insurance premium assistance through the Medicaid program."


WOW - Look here - the State I live in NH - is one of only one States out of all 50 States that is going to give the Trump Make ALL Voter Registration National and put it in a Database Even More Comprehensive Even More Public & Even More Easily Available by a Click of a Mouse so all my personal information is available to everyone especially the Russians who now don;t have to bother hacking our Voter Registration Data Bases Themselves - Trump and the Newly Elected....................................Republican Governor Sununu & the Conservative Chicken Herders in the NH Legislation want all my private personal information available for free to anyone - anytime - it's a Nazi Gesapo Tactic - Either Play the Game our way or we have the damaging info & it will be made public

 

WOW - LOOKEY HERE - You can buy a Gun in NH more easily then a teenager can buy a Pack of Cigarettes

 

WOW LOOKEY HERE - In NH even though the Federal Minimum Age to Buy a Gun is 21 - NH has no Minimum Age for Gun Ownership - So any 21 year old can buy a Gun and Give it to a 12 year Old Legally

 

Thanks for helping me make my Point - if the Federal Government is No Longer a Arbiter in National Healthcare Policy and States like My State which frequently ends up with Red Neck - Good Ole Boy Governors & Legislations like we have now...........................we will be in trouble with Healthcare just like we are with everything else - NH has one Major Industry - Tourism - thats it - One Bad Ski Season or One Horrible Summer Season of Bad Weather and we pay for the next decade....................without a Federal Partner to smooth out the bumps we would be bankrupt just like many other states are on the verge of...................that's one of the Reasons it's called the United States of America & it's worked better than any other Democracy in History at least up till now....................

 

The other point that also needs to be addressed is this other idea that gets thrown around by some folks in this forum -

 

"I just beleive things are Done Better When Done At The Local Level - that's a Crock"

 

You like things done at the Local Level unless the Majority of Local Citizens and Voters at the Local Level are Majority Progressive and then things like Law Enforcement with regard to Opiod Treatment & Prevention - All Drug Treat & Prevention - Sanctuary Cities/Immigration & Marjuana Laws & Planned Parenthood Etc - are more appropriately Enforced by the Federal Government............................................

 

I shouldn;t have to worry if I Live in NH and want to take a Trip to Hawai on Vacation - that my NH ONLY - Healthcare Plan may or my not be accepted at the Local Hawian Hospital.....................this State by State Isolationism on things like Healthcare on the most Mobile Citizenry in the World - is absurd

 

 

 

Next you Folks will Want NH to take over my Social Security Payments and my Medicare Expense and if they the Rural State of NH can't come up with the money - well too bad - stop spending so much educating your kids or something...............................................

 

 

( " Eat Tic Tacs - Grope Woman - Become President " ) " - Anonymous

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,777
Registered: ‎08-18-2008

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 14 of 19 (336 Views)

Wow and look here, mickstuder -

In New Hampshire, as well as other states, we have the HIPP Medicaid program.

The HIPP Medicaid program pays the health insurance premium for EMPLOYER plans.

NH.gov - Health Insurance Premium Payments (HIPP)

 

"The Health Insurance Premium Payment (HIPP) Program is a program developed to help individuals and families afford their employer insurance when at least one person in the family is enrolled in Medicaid. New Hampshire Medicaid members who are employed or have a family member who is employed may be eligible for health insurance premium assistance through the Medicaid program."

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,777
Registered: ‎08-18-2008

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 15 of 19 (341 Views)

To answer both mickstuder and john258

 

Medicaid is already supposedly ran by each state.  Each state can submit a program waiver to modify their specific Medicaid programs to the way they want it to work.  

 

The DOJ just arrested 412 people for Medicaid fraud last week - $1.3 BILLION in fraud.  Take your pick of the source you want to read.

KHN 07/14/2017 - 412 Charged in DOJ's LARGEST EVER Health Care Fraud Takedown

 

IMO, since the state's programs are ran by them, they need to do a better job of policing it and if it was just their money, block grant from Feds, they would do a much better job of watching and taking action.

 

They would also watch their programs waivers to see if they are the best place to utilize their funds.

 

The GAO, the auditing arm of our government, recently released their 2017 report on Medicaid and they have labeled it as "High Risk".

 

GAO - High Risk - Medicaid 2017 Report

 

I would imagine that if more state funds have to be used for a state's Medicaid programs, states would focus more on the historical populations to be covered and at the coverage mandated by federal law rather than trying to do more.

 

 States have several ways they can assure their programs are working for the folks they cover.  They are in the position to make sure their waiver programs are working, make sure that they have enough providers and use creative ways to contain cost for this ever increasing entitlement.

 

USNews - New Mexico Considering Changes to Medicaid Program

 

Positive ways to save and still cover the population which they want to cover in the programs of Medicaid can be shared with other states.

 

I'm just a believer in getting programs like this, closer to the people at the state level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 6,986
Registered: ‎09-08-2009

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 16 of 19 (341 Views)

GailL1 wrote:

afisher wrote:

   Will or Do Republicans care about their own Rural Constituents and Seniors?     She addressed those questions on ABC talk show today (Sunday).

 

   

Republican Sen. Susan Collins Maine says the Senate health care bill would "jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes."

 

Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday that the Republican health care legislation would “jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes” because of its extensive cuts to Medicaid.

“This bill would make sweeping and deep cuts to the Medicaid program, which has been a safety net program on the books for more than 50 years, ensuring that some of our most vulnerable citizens or disabled children or low-income seniors receive the health care that they need,” Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday. Those Medicaid cuts could threaten the rural hospitals and nursing homes, she said.

 

 


Yes, Medicaid has been around for a good long time - but it has also changed during that time.

 

For an open-ended program that once was set up for LOW income seniors, disabled, pregnant women.  We added LOW income children - which was great IMO.

Then states started to increase that LOW income eligibility figure especially when the federal government gives bonus payments for doing this (CHIP).

 

We now have that income figure being extended in many states to 200%, 250% even 300% OR MORE of the Federal Poverty Level for specific populations.

 

With the advent of the ACA, people who are at these higher income levels (over 138% of the FPL) can buy government subsidized health insurance so why should they be covered by the Medicaid program?

 

Did you know that some states who have part time or lower income people working for the government - that as a bonus to these folks, they allow their children into the CHIP program?

 

KFF - Where Are States Today? Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels for Children, Pregnant Women, and...

 

Then with the ACA, we offered to states the ability to extend coverage to abled bodied, childless folks who earn below 138% of the FPL and the Federal government is paying for these folks at a rate of 90% - 100% depending upon how long the state has been in the program - currently specifying in the law, the rate will not go down below 90%.

 

Medicaid should be for those who really need it - the LOW income seniors, disabled, pregnant women and children. 

 

In 1988, we passed the Medicaid Spousal Protection Act, which increased the amount of assets which are protected when the other spouse goes into a nursing home or, now in many states, is care for in the home setting.  Under federal law, the spouse of the disabled person is allowed to keep $120,900 in assets and a higher income rather than just the $3,000 Medicaid would otherwise allow a couple to keep.  Yet some states have not follow through with this for home care (California is one) - which is far cheaper than nursing home care for those who can be cared for in this manner.

 

 

 

You would probably find the rest of the figures and charts at this link (above) interesting -

 

 

 

 


So the way to Fix the problems in Medicaid is to - gut - the Federal program and tell the States - you're just going to have to figure it out on your own....................and give the Federal Savings to the Top 10% - The Same Individuals who are already the Richest Individuals in the USA?

 

There is a popular Misconception thats thrown around quite a bit on these Forums - that everytime you reduce Federal Spending - Americans no longer have to pay anything in Taxes - it's as if these people who come up with this stuff - think - that American Citizens - Just Pay Federal Taxes - So eliminating All Federal Taxes will be good for everyone....................................

 

In my world the Federal Government gets it's money from me - and if the Federal Government stops taking my money and Stops paying the State I live in to run programs with my Money.................

 

My State is just going to take more of my money to make up the difference................................and because my State doesn;t have the ability to look broadly across the Country to find out what is working and what isn;t - where when why and how the Major Inefficiencies arise and what has been successful in remediation - it cost twice as much...................

 

Again, most reasonable people look at this Healthcare Issue and conclude - The USA has the beginnings of a National Healthcare Insurance Program just like every other Civilized -Industrialized Nation on the Planet - it has some Problems - it's Name is not one of them - Fix the Problems a few at time - allow the Plan to work the way it should have been designed to work......................

 

Gutting the entire thing makes no sense and going back to the HORROR that existed before - Economically - Politically - Socially - Culturally is not Humanely..........................

 

 

( " Eat Tic Tacs - Grope Woman - Become President " ) " - Anonymous

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 5,675
Registered: ‎07-20-2010

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 17 of 19 (346 Views)

GailL1 wrote:

afisher wrote:

   Will or Do Republicans care about their own Rural Constituents and Seniors?     She addressed those questions on ABC talk show today (Sunday).

 

   

Republican Sen. Susan Collins Maine says the Senate health care bill would "jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes."

 

Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday that the Republican health care legislation would “jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes” because of its extensive cuts to Medicaid.

“This bill would make sweeping and deep cuts to the Medicaid program, which has been a safety net program on the books for more than 50 years, ensuring that some of our most vulnerable citizens or disabled children or low-income seniors receive the health care that they need,” Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday. Those Medicaid cuts could threaten the rural hospitals and nursing homes, she said.

 

 


Yes, Medicaid has been around for a good long time - but it has also changed during that time.

 

For an open-ended program that once was set up for LOW income seniors, disabled, pregnant women.  We added LOW income children - which was great IMO.

Then states started to increase that LOW income eligibility figure especially when the federal government gives bonus payments for doing this (CHIP).

 

We now have that income figure being extended in many states to 200%, 250% even 300% OR MORE of the Federal Poverty Level for specific populations.

 

With the advent of the ACA, people who are at these higher income levels (over 138% of the FPL) can buy government subsidized health insurance so why should they be covered by the Medicaid program?

 

Did you know that some states who have part time or lower income people working for the government - that as a bonus to these folks, they allow their children into the CHIP program?

 

KFF - Where Are States Today? Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels for Children, Pregnant Women, and...

 

Then with the ACA, we offered to states the ability to extend coverage to abled bodied, childless folks who earn below 138% of the FPL and the Federal government is paying for these folks at a rate of 90% - 100% depending upon how long the state has been in the program - currently specifying in the law, the rate will not go down below 90%.

 

Medicaid should be for those who really need it - the LOW income seniors, disabled, pregnant women and children. 

 

In 1988, we passed the Medicaid Spousal Protection Act, which increased the amount of assets which are protected when the other spouse goes into a nursing home or, now in many states, is care for in the home setting.  Under federal law, the spouse of the disabled person is allowed to keep $120,900 in assets and a higher income rather than just the $3,000 Medicaid would otherwise allow a couple to keep.  Yet some states have not follow through with this for home care (California is one) - which is far cheaper than nursing home care for those who can be cared for in this manner.

 

 

 

You would probably find the rest of the figures and charts at this link (above) interesting -

 

 

 

 


Here is a suggestion for you. Go to a rural area in a state that has expanded Medicaid then write your answer. I live in such a sate. The medical area is now the largest employer in our area, and has grown from nothing when I moved here to a well functioning provider. It has lead to colleges offering courses in jobs that are needed, expanded medical practices of all types even dental. The hospital has expanded to southern CO, and small towns near us with practices that feed it. Medicaid is the largest insurer in most places now, and lead to people being able to pay for services under the ACA. The  CHIP program here has always been large as every child in the state under a certain age has health care. We have less the 5% uninsured by latest chart. Under the Reb. plan that number goes to over 25%, and the fastest growing business area is ruined. Medicaid is not only for low income people. You will find that a lot of Seniors living in assisted living are on it. In fact most are on it, and that makes up a great part of who is on it. Just go to an assisted living home. You spout the far right Reb. line with what you say, not what is happening in the real world.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 8,777
Registered: ‎08-18-2008

Re: Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 18 of 19 (374 Views)

afisher wrote:

   Will or Do Republicans care about their own Rural Constituents and Seniors?     She addressed those questions on ABC talk show today (Sunday).

 

   

Republican Sen. Susan Collins Maine says the Senate health care bill would "jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes."

 

Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday that the Republican health care legislation would “jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes” because of its extensive cuts to Medicaid.

“This bill would make sweeping and deep cuts to the Medicaid program, which has been a safety net program on the books for more than 50 years, ensuring that some of our most vulnerable citizens or disabled children or low-income seniors receive the health care that they need,” Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday. Those Medicaid cuts could threaten the rural hospitals and nursing homes, she said.

 

 


Yes, Medicaid has been around for a good long time - but it has also changed during that time.

 

For an open-ended program that once was set up for LOW income seniors, disabled, pregnant women.  We added LOW income children - which was great IMO.

Then states started to increase that LOW income eligibility figure especially when the federal government gives bonus payments for doing this (CHIP).

 

We now have that income figure being extended in many states to 200%, 250% even 300% OR MORE of the Federal Poverty Level for specific populations.

 

With the advent of the ACA, people who are at these higher income levels (over 138% of the FPL) can buy government subsidized health insurance so why should they be covered by the Medicaid program?

 

Did you know that some states who have part time or lower income people working for the government - that as a bonus to these folks, they allow their children into the CHIP program?

 

KFF - Where Are States Today? Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels for Children, Pregnant Women, and...

 

Then with the ACA, we offered to states the ability to extend coverage to abled bodied, childless folks who earn below 138% of the FPL and the Federal government is paying for these folks at a rate of 90% - 100% depending upon how long the state has been in the program - currently specifying in the law, the rate will not go down below 90%.

 

Medicaid should be for those who really need it - the LOW income seniors, disabled, pregnant women and children. 

 

In 1988, we passed the Medicaid Spousal Protection Act, which increased the amount of assets which are protected when the other spouse goes into a nursing home or, now in many states, is care for in the home setting.  Under federal law, the spouse of the disabled person is allowed to keep $120,900 in assets and a higher income rather than just the $3,000 Medicaid would otherwise allow a couple to keep.  Yet some states have not follow through with this for home care (California is one) - which is far cheaper than nursing home care for those who can be cared for in this manner.

 

 

 

You would probably find the rest of the figures and charts at this link (above) interesting -

 

 

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 14,172
Registered: ‎03-20-2009

Susan Collins (R-Maine) on BRCA

Message 19 of 19 (418 Views)

   Will or Do Republicans care about their own Rural Constituents and Seniors?     She addressed those questions on ABC talk show today (Sunday).

 

   

Republican Sen. Susan Collins Maine says the Senate health care bill would "jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes."

 

Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday that the Republican health care legislation would “jeopardize the very existence of our rural hospitals and our nursing homes” because of its extensive cuts to Medicaid.

“This bill would make sweeping and deep cuts to the Medicaid program, which has been a safety net program on the books for more than 50 years, ensuring that some of our most vulnerable citizens or disabled children or low-income seniors receive the health care that they need,” Collins, R-Maine, told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl on “This Week” Sunday. Those Medicaid cuts could threaten the rural hospitals and nursing homes, she said.

 

     And that, IMO,  would be genocide by the GOP.