Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Medicaid Cuts

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/24/science/medicaid-cutbacks-elderly-nursing-homes.html

 

Medicaid Cuts May Force Retirees Out of Nursing Homes

 

ORANGE, Va. — Alice Jacobs, 90, once owned a factory and horses. She has raised four children and buried two husbands.

 

But years in an assisted living center drained her savings, and now she relies on Medicaid to pay for her care at Dogwood Village, a nonprofit, county-owned nursing home here.

 

“You think you’ve got enough money to last all your life, and here I am,” Ms. Jacobs said.

Medicaid pays for most of the 1.4 million people in nursing homes, like Ms. Jacobs. It covers 20 percent of all Americans and 40 percent of poor adults.

 

On Thursday, Senate Republicans joined their House colleagues in proposing steep cuts to Medicaid, part of the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Conservatives hope to roll back what they see as an expanding and costly entitlement. But little has been said about what would happen to older Americans in nursing homes if the cuts took effect.

 

I guess all those people to old or sick to work will have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and go get jobs, or go live under bridges, or something.

 

Don't call it genocide though, it's just nature taking it's course.

Honored Social Butterfly

Just to be clear, cuts to Medicaid or the ACA is simply cost shifting to hospitals who will have to provide services free and then attempt to increase the bills of "paying" patients to make up for it. If they cannot pass those costs on as overhead such as in poor neighborhoods or small communities, they will go under. 

 

Not a good plan. 

Honored Social Butterfly

Rich-You are correct, and like I've tried countless times to explain to the righties,  they will be paying much more in the long run if people lose ACA coverage, Medicaid, or Medicare. They just don't seem to get it.

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

Just to be clear, cuts to Medicaid or the ACA is simply cost shifting to hospitals who will have to provide services free and then attempt to increase the bills of "paying" patients to make up for it. If they cannot pass those costs on as overhead such as in poor neighborhoods or small communities, they will go under. 

 

Not a good plan. 


I am glad to see that more people think like me and see how bad is any plan that allows any of this to happen.   

no name
0 Kudos
763 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

   Distractions aside (for a moment).   The BCRA as reported earlier remains DOA.   That was after the spectacular failure of the GOP to manage their own bill.    

    McConnell and a few other men huddled together to cobble legislation together.    

    Not even members of their own party could see. the legislation.    and the rumble continued.

 

     The CBO ( which was gerrymandered by the GOP in 2014) did their job and reported that 22 M people would lose healthcare insurance.   Those most disparaged,  children / women / people over 50.      

      GOP management attempted to downplay this with a bunch of lies and those too were called out .   https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/28/15890750/trump-medicaid-chart-fix

 

      Now, the CBO information has once again made the news as the expenditure numbers for Medicaid spending is making headlines that show how the GOP management in DC are abject liars:   

GOP health-care bill would reduce Medicaid spending by 35% in 2036 relative to Obamacare

 

     That is a death sentence to many US Citizens.    Like I have said - that is genocide

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
0 Kudos
359 Views
9
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

A question to anybody -

If we are encouraging people to have health care insurance which covers the essential health benefits as legislated by the ACA, and subsiding premiums for those with incomes less than 400% of the FPL, and giving cost sharing subsidies to those who buy a silver plan with incomes less than 250% of the FPL -

 

Then WHY does MEDICAID in most states cover pregnant women up to 200% (or more) of the FPL - wouldn't their insurance take care of the pregnancy coverage?

 

Same thing with children - MEDICAID and / or CHIP also covers them up 200% (or more) of the FPL - in fact some states cover them up to 300% of the FPL.

 

I guess I am having a hard time determining why MEDICAID covers these populations up to that limit when the ACA has a plan for them too with subsidies?

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

A question to anybody -

If we are encouraging people to have health care insurance which covers the essential health benefits as legislated by the ACA, and subsiding premiums for those with incomes less than 400% of the FPL, and giving cost sharing subsidies to those who buy a silver plan with incomes less than 250% of the FPL -

 

Then WHY does MEDICAID in most states cover pregnant women up to 200% (or more) of the FPL - wouldn't their insurance take care of the pregnancy coverage?

 

Same thing with children - MEDICAID and / or CHIP also covers them up 200% (or more) of the FPL - in fact some states cover them up to 300% of the FPL.

 

I guess I am having a hard time determining why MEDICAID covers these populations up to that limit when the ACA has a plan for them too with subsidies?

 

 


It's my understanding that it was always assumed Medicaid-eligible people would enroll in Medicaid, and those who made a little too much would enroll in the individual marketplace and get subsidies.  

 

Pregnant women and children are covered under SCHIP.  States don't "have" to run SCHIP programs, so it will be interesting to see if any states cut them due to Obamacare coverage.  (Nobody will do anything now because the future of Obamacare is so up in the air).   

 

And I don't think most states will want to ditch their SCHIP programs.  From a state governance perspective, it's better to make health care as accessible as possible.    Particularly for lower income people.   Particularly for pregnant women and children.  If we can get better prenatal and postnatal health care, we have a better shot at better health outcomes.  And that helps set up babies to be healthier in general.   If things like folic acid supplementation, vaccines, etc., can be addressed in a timely manner, we have less risk of serious, lifelong disabilities that could potentially cost the state much more in health care.  

 

There are also the impacts that very common childhood health issues can have on a child's ability to learn, from repeated, untreated ear infections to things like undiagnosed ADHD.  And those types of things set up yet another generation of very low-income earners.   

0 Kudos
715 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

A question to anybody -

If we are encouraging people to have health care insurance which covers the essential health benefits as legislated by the ACA, and subsiding premiums for those with incomes less than 400% of the FPL, and giving cost sharing subsidies to those who buy a silver plan with incomes less than 250% of the FPL -

 

Then WHY does MEDICAID in most states cover pregnant women up to 200% (or more) of the FPL - wouldn't their insurance take care of the pregnancy coverage?

 

Same thing with children - MEDICAID and / or CHIP also covers them up 200% (or more) of the FPL - in fact some states cover them up to 300% of the FPL.

 

I guess I am having a hard time determining why MEDICAID covers these populations up to that limit when the ACA has a plan for them too with subsidies?

 

 


I wish I could answer your questions, but I am not kowledable about the ACA but do know the Medicaid/Medical  income eligibility levels. 
If those people cannot apply for Medicaid because of their own income levels, then I guess that they should be covered by a health insurance plan. and not Medicaid, it seems to me like a duplication of insurances.
Now perhpas you can tell us as to why a person that because of their income do not qualifies for Medicaid and yet they have Medicaid.
Perhaps, that is where the problem lies,?  I don't know. That is why I was so adamant that my daughter would not be on Medicaid. 
So, why are they on Medicaid?

no name
0 Kudos
361 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

rker321

You have lost me in your post - I do not understand it.  Sorry, you will have to try again for me to get your point.

0 Kudos
784 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Sorry, I will try to explain myself better.

I know the income eligibility for Medicaid/Medical. there is a maximum income to qualify. Why so many that they wouldn't qualify due to income are tied into Medicaid? that is what I understand by your posts.
I am ignorant as to what the ACA does and  if the people go to the exchanges and buy insurance with or without subsidies, that has nothing to to with Medicaid correct?

So why so many qualify for Medicaid now I imagine that it has to do with the Medicaid expansion. Doesn't that hurt the Medicaid program? So why would a woman wants to be covered by her pregnancy on Medicaid if she already has insurance?  or children covered by those programs that you mention? why then cover them also on Medicaid?

no name
0 Kudos
776 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Roxanna35 wrote:

 

I know the income eligibility for Medicaid/Medical. there is a maximum income to qualify. Why so many that they wouldn't qualify due to income are tied into Medicaid? that is what I understand by your posts.
I am ignorant as to what the ACA does and  if the people go to the exchanges and buy insurance with or without subsidies, that has nothing to to with Medicaid correct?

So why so many qualify for Medicaid now I imagine that it has to do with the Medicaid expansion. Doesn't that hurt the Medicaid program? So why would a woman wants to be covered by her pregnancy on Medicaid if she already has insurance?  or children covered by those programs that you mention? why then cover them also on Medicaid?


Has NOTHING to do with the Medicaid expansion under the ACA -

From Medicaid.gov.

States can apply to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for waivers to provide Medicaid to populations beyond what traditionally can be covered under the state plan. Some states have additional state only programs to provide medical assistance for certain low-income people who do not qualify for Medicaid. No federal funds are provided for state only programs.

(my comment:  that would be like California covering illegal immigrant children)

 

Also certain Medicaid eligibility groups do not require a determination of income by the Medicaid agency. This coverage may be based on enrollment in another program, such as SSI or the breast and cervical cancer treatment and prevention program. Children for whom an adoption assistance agreement is in effect under title IV-E of the Social Security Act are automatically eligible. Young adults, who meet the requirements for eligibility as a former foster care recipient, are also eligible at any income level..

 

This is from:  National Womens Law Center 05/2015 - Medicaid Coverage for Pregnant Women

States must cover pregnant women with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL),  and may choose to use higher eligibility thresholds.  Many states have gone beyond this threshold, with 29 states, including the District of Columbia, raising income eligibility to 200 FPL or higher.  Women who have health insurance may also rely on Medicaid for pregnancy-related coverage.  Women with coverage through an employer may face high out-of-pocket costs for maternity services, particularly through annual deductibles or inpatient co-insurance.

 

Women who meet (the states higher) income-eligibility standards may still enroll in Medicaid for pregnancy-related coverage, and Medicaid can then supplement their employer coverage to provide needed cost-sharing protections as well as improved benefits.
 
Women with coverage through the health insurance Marketplaces may also be eligible for pregnancy-related  Medicaid coverage. 
Some pregnant women in Marketplace plans may find it advantageous to switch to Medicaid coverage during their pregnancy. Medicaid has no cost-sharing for pregnancy-related services, so women do not have to worry about co-payments for prenatal services or high deductibles for a hospital stay. Many states also cover additional services that private insurers do not typically offer, such as nutrition classes, childbirth education, infant care education, genetic counseling, pre- and postnatal home visits, non-emergency transportation, and tobacco cessation.
 
Well - no wonder half of the births in the US are paid for by Medicaid. 
 
Take a look at the District of Columbus, Iowa, New Mexico, Minnesota -
 
The same thing holds true for Children - shown on same chart.
 
So under the ACA, we are giving a tax credit subsidy for folks with income levels up to 400% of the FPL.
If they have an income of less than 250% of the FPL and buy a silver plan in the marketplace, we further supplement them by picking up some of their cost sharing (co-pays, deductibles).
They have maternity coverage on their ACA plan but if they want it for FREE, they can enroll in Medicaid, with most likely full Medicaid benefits, not just maternity coverage.
 
I did not know this, did you? 
 
Cradle to Grave - seems we are already on our way.
Maybe it would be simplier to just go to "MEDICAID FOR ALL"
 
So when all of you are wringing your hands about some poor senior that might not get their nursing home bed under Medicaid - be thankful that that woman making 250%, 278%, 300%, 319% of the FPL is giving birth for free just because she might not have the money to pay her copays.   Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
748 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Gail..  we all seem to have lots of solutions. but which one is yours, what do you think would work well for all Americans?

do you have any ideas.?  a single payer systerm or National Health Care, just insurance agencies providing insurances. 
what is the solution? what are your ideas.?

no name
0 Kudos
699 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

 
So when all of you are wringing your hands about some poor senior that might not get their nursing home bed under Medicaid - be thankful that that woman making 250%, 278%, 300%, 319% of the FPL is giving birth for free just because she might not have the money to pay her copays.   Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


Then you should support Medicare for all Gail, it would eliminate both of these and much more. People need to stop using their ability to afford very good health care as a symbol of being somehow better than others who cannot.  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

If we truly want to "Make America Great" we would start by providing health care for all Americans and try to lead the world in health care statistics.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
0 Kudos
720 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Maybe it would be simplier to just go to "MEDICAID FOR ALL"

 

No .......... in 1945 Truman proposed national health insurance for all, it didn't pass, it was attacked as socialized medicine. In 1964 Congress with Johnson as President managed to pass a work around through Congress, Medicare and Medicaid.

 

Granted it's not national health insurance, it's a work around but it does work for those people who can actually qualify for it, and it did accomplish the goals it was intended to address, reducing poverty and providing health care for the elderly and the poor.

 

Now Republicans want to roll that back, starting with Medicaid, but they won't stop there, Medicare and Social Security are targets as well.

 

We should have national health insurance, the best way to describe that  so people can understand what  it is and how it works is Medicare for all.

 

How do we pay for it ? ...... With money

 

How do we raise the money ?  I suggest a broad basket of taxes designed is such a way they're hard or impossible to avoid.

 

How will it work ?  ........ Like Medicare 

 

What will it cover ? .......... Whatever we decide it should.

 

Will there be out of network issues ?  No there will not be, like Medicare it's a national plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honored Social Butterfly

   And then you have people like some guy here who says that he doesn't need no healthcare insurance because he has tests results for him and his misses that they are disease free and has markers to prove it.   sigh.

 

 

A Katy, Texas, mom whose family is facing millions of dollars in uncovered medical bills to care for their 6-year-old son's incurable genetic disease under Republicans’ plan to replace Obamacare, used an open letter on her blog to eviscerate Vice President Mike Pence over a tweet touting the GOP plan as a “system based on personal responsibility.”

 

“Personal responsibility, Mr. Pence?” Elizabeth Baker wrote in an epic tell-off that wields Pence’s word choice as a weapon at every turn. “What exactly are you referring to here?

“Because I really don't know how my six year old, who is non-verbal, non-ambulatory, exclusively tube fed, vision impaired and medically fragile, who relies on me and a handful of other caregivers for literally everything, is supposed to take personal responsibility for his own health.”

 

Grayson was born with Leigh’s disease, a form of Mitochondrial disease. Perhaps he wouldn’t have been if he hadn’t “slacked off in the the personal responsibility game,”

 

In it, Baker amplifies the fears of families across America who are balancing catastrophic medical care coverage on the three-legged stool of a health-care system that stops insurers from price gouging for pre-existing conditions and imposing lifetime caps on coverage, and steps in with Medicaid waivers that pick up the costs insurers don’t.

The Republican health-care proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act strips away most of that — and the Baker family’s means to care for their son. The Senate version of the Obamacare replacement would etain coverage for pre-existing conditions without premium hikes, but eliminates the essential benefits requirement insurers could use as a back door to avoid covering expensive drugs or place caps on drug costs per patient.

 

   If lifetime caps on insurance are allowed to be re-instated, and Medicaid is gutted, how is Grayson supposed to get the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of dollars (and honestly, it's likely millions) worth of healthcare products and services he needs to LIVE? Without access to the health care our private insurance and Medicaid provides, he will die. If I sound a little shrill and dramatic, it's because I am. Put yourself in my shoes, and the shoes of my friends with medically fragile kids.” 

 

https://patch.com/florida/lakeland/s/g5x4d/grayson-6-will-die-without-obamacare-yet-pence-tweets-per...

 

      So much for the whiners that somehow believe that they have the authority to claim moral supremacy.   

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
0 Kudos
388 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

      It was interesting to read how a supposed  "explainer" was looking for a way to distract from the issue, by not discussing what was the Republican Trumpcare  is seeking to destroy, which is Medicaid, but I believe that is only their first act.    

      Interestingly, what some people don't want to talk about is how these GOP non-healthcare plans will affect Seniors and those people who could also be told eff-you if the businesses / corporations with more than 50 employees decide to stop funding healthcare insurance as a non-taxable benefit and just dump all those millions into the open market where cost for comparable care will be unaffordable.

      Distractors who normally come here to complain via their KHN 'information' has decided to modifiy and only talk about ACA and not the GOP plans. 

 

      So here is what is being discussed - just not here:  Medicaid pays for about two-thirds of the 1.4 million elderly people in nursing homes, like Jacobs. It covers 20 percent of all Americans, and 40 percent of poor adults.   

       

Senate Republicans joined their House colleagues in proposing steep cuts to Medicaid, part of the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Conservatives hope to roll back what they see as an expanding and costly health care entitlement. But little has been said about what would happen to older Americans in nursing homes if these cuts took effect.

 

Under federal law, state Medicaid programs are required to cover nursing home care. But state officials decide how much to pay facilities, and states under budgetary pressure could decrease the amount they are willing to pay or restrict eligibility for coverage.

 

“The states are going to make it harder to qualify medically for needing nursing home care,” predicted Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “They’d have to be more disabled before they qualify for Medicaid assistance.”

States might allow nursing homes to require residents’ families to pay for a portion of their care, she added. Officials could also limit the types of services and days of nursing home care they pay for, as Medicare already does.

 

     Another piece of information :  The Senate Healthcare Plan has a statement that says that if the State decides on a "block grant" instead of a calculated cap based on Fed calculation, that those funds do not necessarily have to be spent on actual healthcare.    Nope, that  Block Grant money could be diverted to build roads.   

 

      Language tucked deep in the Medicaid provisions of the Senate GOP Obamacare repeal legislation appears to allow states to funnel leftover Medicaid money for use on roads, bridges, stadiums and other projects not directly related to Medicaid’s traditional definition.     A Senator aide said.   OOPSIE.   

 

     

The language appears on pages 93-95 of the Better Care Reconciliation Act, in a section giving states the option to take their Medicaid funding in what is known as a “block grant.” States also can choose a so-called “per capita cap” system, in which the feds set a limit on their Medicaid contribution on a per enrollee basis.

 

The block grant provision in the Senate bill says that as long as a state “satisfies the State maintenance” on its Medicaid program, it can use any leftover money from the block grants on “other State health programs (as defined or approved by the Secretary) or for any other purpose which is consistent with the quality standards established by the Secretary,” referring to the Health and Human Services secretary.

 

      Why the distraction when what people need to know and discuss is what the States will be doing to Medicaid as it affects Seniors:     Please stop lying about the nonsense that Trumpcare won't hurt Seniors..      http://khn.org/news/in-the-end-even-the-middle-class-would-feel-gop-cuts-to-nursing-home-care/

 

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
0 Kudos
376 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

People don't listen until what you have said happens to them. that is wny I encourage to call legislators so that they can sign that bill and really do what you know is going to do for all of those people.
Until then, they will think Trump is the solution to their problems.

no name
0 Kudos
373 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Seems from the post there are differing views on what Medicaid does and how it work.

Medicaid is a public insurance program that provides health coverage to low-income families and individuals, including children, parents, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities; it is funded jointly by the federal government and the states; based on differing ratios depending upon the wealth of the state's citizens. 

 

Each state operates its own Medicaid program within federal guidelines. Because the federal guidelines are broad, states have a great deal of flexibility in designing and administering their programs. As a result, Medicaid eligibility and benefits can and often do vary widely from state to state.

 

Part of this $ 800 billion reduction in forecasted budget increases has to do with the reduction in covering those on the "ACA Expanded program" ; people dropping out of the program due to churning and in a reduction of the percentage the feds will give to the states that expanded their program thru the (whatever) date specified in the legislation.

 

States already manage their regular programs and set the eligibility standards if higher than the federal regulation.  States cover these stated populations - children, disabled, pregnant women and seniors -  at different levels over the FPL of income eligibility.

 

As an example:

CHILDREN

As of January 2017, 49 states cover children with incomes up to at least 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) through Medicaid and CHIP.   This count includes 19 states that cover children with incomes at or above 300% FPL. Only two states (ID and ND) limit children’s eligibility to below 200% FPL. CHIP plays a key role complementing Medicaid to cover children across states. As of January 2017, 36 states have separate CHIP programs, and CHIP funds coverage for some children in Medicaid in 49 states.

 

PREGNANT WOMEN

Most states extend coverage to pregnant women beyond the federal minimum of 138% FPL through Medicaid and CHIP. As of January 2017, 34 states cover pregnant women with incomes at or above 200% FPL, including 12 states that cover pregnant women with family incomes above 250% FPL. CHIP also complements Medicaid to cover pregnant women. Five states extend coverage for pregnant women through CHIP and 16 states use CHIP funding to provide coverage through the unborn child option, under which states cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of immigration status .

 

ADULTS - EXPANDED PROGRAM

Reflecting adoption of the ACA Medicaid expansion, 32 states cover parents and other adults with incomes up to 138% FPL in Medicaid.   In addition, three states (AK, DC, and CT) extend eligibility for parents and/or other adults to levels higher than 138% FPL.

 

In the 19 states that have not expanded Medicaid, the median eligibility limit for parents is 44% FPL and other adults remain ineligible, except in Wisconsin (Figure 5). In 12 of these states, parent eligibility is at less than half of the poverty level, and only three of these states (ME, TN, and WI) cover parents at or above poverty. Wisconsin is the only non-expansion state that provides full Medicaid coverage to other adults, although eligibility at 100% FPL remains below the expansion level and the state does not receive the enhanced match available for expansion adults for this coverage.2 In the non-expansion states, 2.6 million adults with incomes above the Medicaid eligibility limit but below poverty fall into a coverage gap; they are ineligible for Medicaid and do not qualify for subsidies for Marketplace coverage, which are only available to those with incomes at or above 100% FPL.

 

This link will also show you this information in graph and table format by state -

KFF updated March 15, 2017 - Where Are States Today? Medicaid and CHIP Eligibility Levels for Childr...

 

This link did not cover seniors and the disabled but states do have differing criteria for eligibility in their Long Term Support and Services - nursing home custodial care, Home and Community based services and other Medicaid waiver programs in addition to helping some (income eligible) seniors cover part of their Medicare cost - Part B premiums, Part D premiums, medication subsidy, etc.

 

As I have said in other post - many other countries which have universal care use global budgets to keep their health care cost under control.  Many of these same countries, use an area definition to (micro-) manage their health care programs - so in this instance, states will be charged to manage their programs just like they do now, but with a budget to work within -

 

This management does not have to necessarily have to reduce services - they can cut cost by other means just like they do now - they would also be able to raise revenues just like they do now - I believe California just raised their tobacco tax to use for their health care needs.  I believe that California also passed a tax on hospitals that will also be used for their health care needs.

 

We need to all support the initiative to keep those seniors and disabled who can be in community based care - it is cheaper and they are happier - AARP supports this initiative and measures it periodically along with other organizations:

KHN 06/14/2017 - AARP: States Lag In Keeping Medicaid Enrollees Out Of Nursing Homes

 

States can do this but some of them need a swift nudge - I believe that letting them control all of their Medicaid funds will force them to become very creative and efficient in using these funds for their own population that needs these services, of which could also be redefined.

Honored Social Butterfly

The national estimate, 70-75 million people are on Medicaid. That means 1 out of every 5 Americans are on Medicaid.

 

Nationally, betwen 40%-50% of all babies born are on Medicaid.

Honored Social Butterfly

CT Posted..

The national estimate, 70-75 million people are on Medicaid. That means 1 out of every 5 Americans are on Medicaid.

Nationally, betwen 40%-50% of all babies born are on Medicaid.

===============================================

That is very disturbing.
0 Kudos
548 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Hey CT--CNN just had an estimate that one in four Americans are on Medicaid. With regard to babies, I guess the roghties' thoughts on that would be--well they should've saved in utero, knowing that there would be medical problems in the future. Shaking my head at the shortsightedness of those on the right. 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Honored Social Butterfly


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

The GOP bills represent "the largest single reduction in a social insurance program in our nation's history," according to three experts writing in to the New York Times.

 

Goodbye, Medicaid.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/medicaid-health-care.html?_r=0

Honored Social Butterfly


@cat2015 wrote:

The GOP bills represent "the largest single reduction in a social insurance program in our nation's history," according to three experts writing in to the New York Times.

 

Goodbye, Medicaid.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/opinion/medicaid-health-care.html?_r=0


Seems nobody noticed the Republican scheme does NOTHING to fix Medicare either, so in 2028, benefits go down 40% automatically, and Goodby Medicare.

Honored Social Butterfly

The Republicans in Washington are trying to take our country backwards. We need to move forward to a national health care plan.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

Oh, this is why we need single payer health care.   Quit basing health decisions on profit motive. 

Honored Social Butterfly

Just read a distorted view of Obamacare which also had a point of view that people have to earn the right to have decent healthcare. I completely disagree, all Americans should be entitled to proper medical care.

 

Obamacare was a good program with several serious flaws. It would be much easier to fix the flaws in Obamacare as opposed to creating a brand new plan.

 

As for the government mandate, I'm LOL. Everybody's already in the medical system. If someone without health insurance has an emergency, the taxpayers wind up paying for a very expensive emergency room visit and/or hospital stay. Per Obamacare, if you can afford health insurance, you must be responsible/accountable and purchase it. That is the right policy.

 

Obamacare did away with pre-existing conditions and it placed a premium on FREE PREVENTIVE CARE for the patient. I could go on but that's enough for now.

Honored Social Butterfly

There are approximately 75 million Americans on Medicaid. I don't think analyzing why they're on Medicaid, as many Republicans do, is the right point of view. I believe we should declare that all Americans are entitled to decent health insurance as their birth right.

Periodic Contributor

I agree that as a birth right they should have the opportunity to take care of themselves as best they can. Those accountability should be on them, not the government. We have an insurance industry that creates a market ( supply and demand) for insurance. Unfortunately, Obamacare curruptrd that marketplace by requiring everyone to buy insurance for services that they will not need ( like me and my wife, in our sixties, having to buy expensive materanity coverage). Additionally, to raise even more revenue, they taxed things ( like artificial hips etc) which further raised prices. This resulted in premium and deductable so high, many people were unable to afford the insurance and thus unable to care for themselves. We need to strip these plans and let everyone buy the services they want and need and making the marketplace more realistic to the demands of the market. Those with pre-existing severe conditions should be placed in a high risk group and their premiums should be no more than 20% higher than the normal cost of the associated plan.The high risk group should be split up evenally ( based on the number of total policies written ) among all insurance companies ( makes the assumption you can buy insurance from any company in the US to make the supply side of insurance larger and then hopefully bring down prices). The insurance companies risk for all policy should be capped at 1 million dollars ( subject to yearly inflation adjustments and by lowering risk will allow them to keep prices down) per individual. Insurance companies should be required to buy "re-insurance" for some of the risk up to 1.5 million and then the government should cover anything else ( split between state and federal). Government is not in the business of dealing with the individual insurance lives of citizens. We need to take accountability for our lives and if we don't, we need to take some type of penalty, and not have the citizens subsidize your bad habits.

0 Kudos
474 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

So the Republicans are ok with letting those who didn't save enough , to just die in the **bleep** streets !!!

 

Oh the Humanity !!!

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png