If you are poor you get Medicaid. It's the middle class that gets shafted.

[dkf]

because you make enough money to pay your insurance premium if you can starve yourself and forego all but the most basic necessities. They expect you to sacrifice your house and your car so you can afford those ridiculous premiums which don't get you healthcare until you pony up copays and deductibles anyway.

Make no mistake republicans know the poor get benefits. They just expect you to live a minimalist life so you can pay your share of our bloated inefficient health costs.

[Maru Kitteh]

1. No. It doesn't matter how poor you are, you don't just "get" medicaid. That's a myth.

[sandnsea]

4. They will if this bill passed

Everybody up to 133% of poverty will "just get" Medicaid. Another reason to pass this bill.

[Oregone]

9. Perhaps they mean that Medicare must be paid back

Its not "free". But ill defer to the person you are replying to

[sandnsea]

Medicaid does not have to be paid back

Long term nursing home care does if the person has a home. Otherwise Medicaid is absolutely free. Guessing you intended to stick to Medicaid and not throw Medicare into the mix here.

[Oregone]

25. Whoops, I meant Medicaid

As far as I was aware, states must recover Medicaid expenses

[sandnsea]

28. Nope, never have

Only long term care nursing home expense. Which is another good thing in the bill, a long term care provision.

[Oregone]

30. Looking at it, here is what they must attempt to recover

States must pursue recovering costs for medical assistance consisting of:

Nursing home or other long-term institutional services;
Home- and community-based services;
Hospital and prescription drug services provided while the recipient was receiving nursing facility or home- and community-based services; and
At State option, any other items covered by the Medicaid State Plan.

At a minimum, states must recover from assets that pass through probate (which is governed by state law). At a maximum, states may recover any assets of the deceased recipient.

[sandnsea]

31. That's all long term care related n/t

[Oregone]

33. Every bit of it?

Like:

"At State option, any other items covered by the Medicaid State Plan."

Totally curious, as I don't know the ins and outs of Medicaid

[sandnsea]

36. Estate Recovery Mandate

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA ‘93).4 This legislation required states to recoup the costs of long-term care and related Medicaid services from the estates of certain deceased recipients (shown below).

http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/Reports/liens.htm

[Oregone]

37. Yep, thats the URL I was looking at that says:

"At State option, any other items covered by the Medicaid State Plan. "

[sandnsea]

38. Yes, related

"recoup the costs of long-term care and related Medicaid services"

This is legislation about recouping long term care payments. They don't recoup other Medicaid services unless there is some kind of fraud or misreporting of income.

[Bluerthanblue]

42. you're wrong on this Sandnsea-

my income easily qualifies me for Medicaid- but in order to receive it, I have to let the state put a lien on my interest in our home, which is the ONLY thing I can leave my kids - i'm a single mom- i'm all they've got. I'm not talking about dying in a nursing home, I'm talking dying at home- all monies paid out under Medicaid would be recovered by my 'assets'- which consists of our beat-up, run down, family farmhouse, and my 22yr old car with 302,00+ miles on it.

When times were better, our state rarely sought reimbursement for Medicaid services- they do now and have for the last several years. I could go to prison, get medical care, and my family wouldn't be liable- but I can't get Medicaid without the lien.

:shrug:

[sandnsea]

44. No, you're wrong

They don't take homes unless it's for long term care, which can include at home care, coverage.

[Bluerthanblue]

46. I wish I was, but I'm

living out the reality of this-

I was faced with the choice of signing a paper which would allow the state a lien, or no Medicaid. I talked to an attorney who advised me that they can indeed do this-.

I wish you were correct, and in some states I understand they do NOT come after a persons home- but they do here- And it's all I have- I'm not talking or 'nursing home' coverage, I'm under 55, - I'm talking meds, Dr's visits, and outpatient procedures- MRI, blood tests, etc.

[Political Heretic]

54. Yes, you ARE correct. (I'm a social worker, I know this) - it does vary from state to state

There are so many problems with medicaid.

Nothing makes me more angry than when upper middle class people who have no idea what they are talking about say stupid things like "the poor will be fine - they have medicaid!"

People need a very lengthy course of education on all the ways in which medicaid fails poor people.

[sandnsea]

62. I've been on Medicaid

I know how it works. Personally. You don't have to pay it back.

The Recovery Act is in reference to long term care. The disabled and those over 55 may have to sign a lien agreement. That is due to the fact that they are most likely to need long term care and that is what the bill, and the NH law, refers to.

I get so tired of people who are supposed to know what programs do who make shit up to try to pretend the programs aren't as helpful as they are. Of every kind of medical program I've been on, Medicaid is by far and away the absolute best. We should absolutely be saying "Medicaid for All" and quit letting the right use the program to scare people away from "socialized" health care.

[Political Heretic]

65. sandnsea, it varies from state to state. As far as Medicaid being the "absolute best"

it varies from state to state.

All you have to do is read the personal stories right on this thread of experiences with medicaid to buy a fucking clue that its a very problematic system.

By the way, I would have been on medicaid - except that even though I was unemployed and facing eviction and eating bottles of Bacos as dinner because I was so poor, in my state I still didn't qualifiy.

That's not a system that is "the absolute best." In fact, any system that varies that much from state to state is not an "absolute best."

People all through this thread have responded with personal stories of the of failings of medicaid, and you respond by sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la medicaid is best system ever la la la la"

:eyes:

sickening.

[bobbolink]

69. The "best" -- we are denied care we need because it would cost, so

we are left to suffer.

Some people here aren't willing to hear anything that contradicts their own prejudices.

Yet, they will complain about the same ignorace in the RW. :crazy:

[sandnsea]

73. Argh. And the new law would change that

I'M not sticking my fingers in my ears saying "la la la". The rest of you who want to leave people with NOTHING are the ones who are doing that.

The question was whether Medicaid has to be paid back. The answer is an emphatic NO. PERIOD.

The question was not about eligibility. It is currently difficult for adults, yes. I never said it wasn't.

I said. The New Law Would Change That. And it would add a long term care component which would make signing away assets a thing of the past.

But you know, sit in your damn shit pile and pout because that's such a great fucking solution.

[Gormy Cuss]

67. Asset tests have long been a qualifier for Medicaid eligibility.

I remember this because for a long time my family didn't qualify for Medicaid specifically because my mother owned our house. It wasn't until her minimum wage income disappeared and we went on AFDC that we were qualified for Medicaid. Having that coverage was better than not having it, even though we had little access to the medical community for non-emergency care except at the public health clinics. Most private practice physicians didn't accept Medicaid for payment.

But back to modern times and facts. From an HHS page on the topic:

Many groups of people are covered by Medicaid. Even within these groups, though,
certain requirements must be met. These may include your age, whether you are pregnant, disabled, blind, or aged; your income and resources (like bank accounts, real property, or other items that can be sold for cash); and whether you are a U.S. citizen or a lawfully admitted immigrant. The rules for counting your income and resources vary from state to state and from group to group. ...

In general, you should apply for Medicaid if your income is limited and you match one of the descriptions of the Eligibility Groups. (Even if you are not sure whether you qualify, if you or someone in your family needs health care, you should apply for Medicaid and have a qualified caseworker in your state evaluate your situation.)...


What is Not Covered

Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all people with limited incomes and resources. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services for everyone. You must qualify for Medicaid. Low-income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds. As noted earlier, categorically needy persons who are eligible for Medicaid may or may not also receive cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program or from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Medically needy persons who would be categorically eligible except for income or assets may become eligible for Medicaid solely because of excessive medical expenses....

Note how many times eligibility is qualified here by assets and state of residence.

[sandnsea]

72. Yes it is difficult to qualify

But once someone qualifies, they do not have to pay it back. Unless they are over 55 or disabled and that is primarily a result of the long term care recovery act.

Once health care reform passes, and Medicaid is increased to all adults up to 133% of poverty, then it won't be nearly as difficult to qualify. They will be changing the program.

[Gormy Cuss]

74. "Long term care" however isn't always so long term. Sometimes it's end-of- life care for only a few

weeks or months. Those costs are subject to recovery even if it's only for a few weeks. While people fear that the house will just be grabbed outright, that's not the case but the lien will allow the state to recover those costs as part of settling the estate. Frankly, since it's indigent care it should be subject to cost recovery when there is an estate.

The real problem is that so many people who could afford to pay for their own long term and end-of-life care use estate planners to shield the assets well ahead of time. It's often the people with more modest estates who end up having all of it used for their care and that's frustrating and unfair.

[sandnsea]

79. That is part of the long term care law

Yes. That's been discussed up above.

It's ironic to me that DUers think rich people should have their entire estate taken in taxes, but taking someone's house to pay for health care they actually received, that's a travesty. Plainly nobody wants the government to take their estate for any reason.

[madamesilverspurs]

78. The bit that befuddles me

is Medicaid QMB (Qualified Medical Beneficiary). It pays the medicare premium, but prevents having a med-sup policy. With just an overnight stay in the hospital the bills for the 20% not covered by Medicare can take quite some time to pay off when the only income is a small Social Security check. Hope that thing changes!

--

[KakistocracyHater]

64. in CA there is a "hardship waiver" that MUST be filed within 90 days

of the beneficiary. If you have a disabled child under the age of 21, or a disabled or blind child who survives the beneficiary, or a living spouse. This is only for California, the Estate Recovery program
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/Pages/ThirdPartyLiability.aspx

There may be a hardship waiver nationally, but I don't know the details.

[Political Heretic]

66. It varies from state to state.

One of the biggest problems with Medicaid.

[bobbolink]

68. I really appreciate your patience with explaining reality on this.

There is an amazing amount of ignorance.

I am sorry you are faced with this. :pals:

It really stinks.

[Bluerthanblue]

39. not true- in NH if you receive Medicaid the state will put a lien on

your home.

I know this from personal experience. It isn't simply about 'long term nursing care'- it's about any services paid out under Medicaid.
As a single mom with pre-existing health conditions, this reality is literally killing me.

[sandnsea]

45. Here's the info from NH

It really is about long term care.

http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/MEDASSISTELIG/FAQs/default.htm#6

[Bluerthanblue]

48. sounds good on the surface, but if you look

at the details, it's not so easy.

APTD- Medicaid eligibility requires a lien. They don't advertise it, but they enforce it.
I'm now PD.

[sandnsea]

49. Due to long term care

They figure once a person is disabled and on Medicaid, they will be there forever. They will need long term care or in-home care, and that's why the lien requirement is there. Long term care is expensive. With the new bill, long term care will be available separately, so there will be less lien issues. But the point remains the same. People do not have to pay back Medicaid unless their personal age or health puts them in a long term care situation.

http://www.hrsa.gov/reimbursement/states/New-Hampshire-Eligibility.htm

[Bluerthanblue]

50. I hope the new bill goes through.

I'm not interested in long term care- I'm not going to be around that long. It would be good to have the option for bare minimum care without any prolonged intensive long term coverage.

thanks for the explanation.

:hi:

[Oregone]

10. dupe

[dkf]

16. It is state by state. For my state these are the income qualifications.

This free health insurance is available for single adults with incomes of no more than $2,078 per month or $24,936 per year. For married adults, the family income limits are $2,794 per month or $33,528 per year.

http://www.med-quest.us/

[truedelphi]

21. People don't understand this aspect of life in the United Staes.

Having spent twenty some years of my life working for the elderly and the disabled, I saw first hand how hard it was to get a doctor for anyone who needed one and who had MediCare and/or MedicAid.

Doctors in the area where I worked were retiring on account of the high malpractice insurance rates and because they disliked the reimbursement schedules. Some doctors practiced part time, but many were not taking new patients.

[cornermouse]

34. That's true around here too.

[Merlot]

24. That's true.

[readmoreoften]

58. I'm poor. I don't get Medicaid.

[Ladyhawk]

71. True. It's caused me much heartache. nt

[sandnsea]

2. That's why they are creating subsidies

for families up to $88,000 income, or about 80% of the country.

I swear we could guarantee you a doctor on your doorstep and you'd find a way to reject it if it came from Obama.

[Maru Kitteh]

11. That would sure help us out! Yes it would :-)

[Oregone]

13. Subsidies? Are the amounts as eternally guaranteed like Pell grants amounts?

:sarcasm:

Or are they subject of political football of whatever power pulls the strings

[dkf]

20. Isn't everything subject to the capricious will of whoever is in power?

Relying on subsidies is dangerous. Better to have a system that contains costs like the public option

[sandnsea]

22. See post #19

That is exactly what would happen to everybody in the public option. They would squeeze that just like they do Medicare and Medicaid.

[Quantess]

3. And if you are completely destitute, you often qualify for steeply reduced hospital treatment,

arranged through the hospital's charity office.

But not the working poor. The working poor get no breaks.

[sandnsea]

7. They get the same thing the destitute get

If the hospital offers a program, they offer it to everybody. My hospital gives working people 100% free care with a sliding scale up to 50% off.

[Oregone]

14. Charity office? Are you joking? They write it off as a loss for tax breaks

It gives them an incentive to rack up charges against the uninsured, because they know they can't pay it.

[Quantess]

18. Well, THEY call it the charity office, anyway.

And yes, you're right. Which means that taxpayers and the insured already pay for other people's health care.

[Oregone]

32. Not exactly

"Which means that taxpayers and the insured already pay for other people's health care"

This doesn't happen in every instance. Its been overused to sell mandates IMO, and a recent study put the cost of the uninsured at only 8% of premiums BTW (which could be less of a cost than the effect of guaranteeing market demand to insurers). Thats less than the profit!

But let me explain. If the billing/rates are jacked up for the uninsured for the purpose of tax relief (since the poor can't pay these amounts), tax payers are covering more than the cost of the patient, but also some inflated magical cost the hospitals tack on (and this doesn't mean the poor get away completely free). Therefore, taxpayers really are paying for corporate profits and not necessarily care.

I learned about this system when my mother worked for a clinic in a low income area, where they practiced this activity constantly (so she informed me a bit about it, and how to basically avoid massive bills). So, when I was uninsured and ended up in the hospital, I made a good examination of my bill (I received 2 stitches for a severe finger laceration, with a $2000 dollar bill). There were plenty of double charges and fake fees, half of which were waived upon my inquiry. As for the rest of the bill, they made me fill out an unofficial form of my income (which I guarantee was not verified). They wrote off 60% of the remainder as loss and sent the rest straight to collections. So they wrote off a loss of around $600 bucks and I still had to pay $400 for 15 minutes of the nurse practitioners time. The hospital made off really well.

If you are uninsured and understand the game, you can avoid some fees. But whether you pay it all or not, the facilities can make out like bandits. By charging above those rates that insurance companies negotiate, they make sure that they at least get something they can write off as loss amongst the poor. But its an inflated number thats arbitrary. It doesn't magically cost the facility that much to perform the procedure on an uninsured person. But whether it be by collections, or covered by taxpayers (via breaks), theyll recover that fake expense. Unfortunately, fingers always point at the poor and uncovered, and rarely at these billing practices.

Its all a fuckn racket

[endless october]

5. medicare for all. nt

[gateley]

6. Not true -- Some people who really need Medicaid can't get it. Same with

food stamps -- they don't qualify because of one reason or another. So the poor don't ALL get the help they need -- far from it.

[Warpy]

8. Wrong. Medicaid was designed to help the working poor

but the fixed dollar amounts it was designed around have assured that none but the absolutely destitute who have lost everything they ever had can qualify for it now. The working poor make too much money, even though they can't afford safe housing or nutritious food, either.

This what 40 years of conservatism has done to us. No one who owns even a junker car has little enough to qualify for Medicaid. Most of the people who do qualify are teenagers on temporary assistance and elderly people in nursing homes who have nothing left.

There is no help out there if you have a job, own a car, have savings in the bank, or any other assets. You're on your own and they want you to crawl off and die rather than get any help.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. you are correct- and

as one who is in the crawling off process, I wish it weren't so.

But it is.

thanks for telling it the way it is.

[Political Heretic]

57. Yup. I was eating bottles of bacos for food and facing eviction and still ineligible for medicaid.

[leftstreet]

12. The Rich Get Richer and The Poor Get....subsidies n/t

[RainDog]

15. No, they've just lost more, sooner. that's why it's so scary. n/t

and why people are so angry because they know, in their hearts, how the poor suffer in this nation and no one wants to get to that point.

if you are middle class you have to use up all your money before you are lucky enough to be poor.

ahem.

[KingFlorez]

17. It would be more accurate to say that middle to lower income workers get shafted

They make too much for Medicaid and too little to buy insurance.

[Cleita]

19. The poor also get shafted. The Medicaid program is always being

squeezed and the fees are never high enough to keep caregivers happy, so most of the poor have to go to community health centers where there really are long waits and you never get to see the same doctor. They are so understaffed because their budgets are so low.

[Political Heretic]

56. Quality of care is third-rate under medicaid.

Its one of about a billion problems with medicaid. I get so angry with people who've never been poor in their lives go on and on about how "set" the poor are because they get medicaid.

[anonymous171]

23. Something about this just does not sit well with me.

I think it's your assumption that class is some kind of innate property (that middle class individuals all deserve to have cars by virtue of their being middle class, for example.)

[dkf]

35. Would it be better if I said poor people get Medicaid and it is the not quite so poor that get

Shafted? Same thing different terminology. Doesn't change the problem though.

[RainDog]

60. it's wrong b/c you assume poor people were always poor

and not part of the middle class before they had to use up all their assets in order to arrive at the point at which they are poor.

you assume you are always middle class and someone else is always poor.

this is a lie.

you will be poor, too, when you have to go bankrupt because of medical bills and then you "get" to have health care again.

your post is insulting and reflects a sense of entitlement and privilege that does not reflect the reality of life.

[EFerrari]

26. I'm not eligible for Medicaid in CA. Wasn't when I was out of work

and am not now working half time. I'm single (no minor kids), not a senior and not handicapped.

[DesertFlower]

27. here in arizona you have to make less

than $860 a month to qualify. our maximum unemployment amount is $240 a week. so even if you're unemployed you can't get it.

[Mimosa]

29. Our healthcare system is a bleeding shame

People should not have to be BROKEN DOWN TO POVERTY IN ORDER TO GET CARE!

[Faryn Balyncd]

40. The CBO says that the 43% without subsidies will be paying 16% MORE for insurance ON TOP OF INFLATIO

Our refusal to take on the primary problem OUT OF CONTROL COSTS, will result not only in mandating that the middle class buy the geometrically exploding inflated insurance rates they are now facing, but that their rates will be 16% higher than they would be without the bill.

This despite the fact that expanded coverage SHOULD RESULT IN LOWERED COSTS because of less uncompensated care.

The top 1% could care less, but the unsubsidized middle class will be DESTROYED.

And the industry insiders will make out like bandits.







K&R

[Faryn Balyncd]

41. (accidental dupe)

Our refusal to take on the primary problem OUT OF CONTROL COSTS, will result not only in mandating that the middle class buy the geometrically exploding inflated insurance rates they are now facing, but that their rates will be 16% higher than they would be without the bill.

This despite the fact that expanded coverage SHOULD RESULT IN LOWERED COSTS because of less uncompensated care.

The top 1% could care less, but the unsubsidized middle class will be DESTROYED.

And the industry insiders will make out like bandits.







K&R

[gleaner]

47. We both get shafted. Only the rich survive ...

I don't know what state you live in, but check out what people who are on medicaid actually get. You will find it is not much. In California we used to have a generous medical program. It would help with catastrophic medical bills if you were either poor or middle class. My cousin got it when his wife died of cancer and he was left with four little children. It paid her bills, in return for a lien on his house until he paid it back. But at least it was there. It was referred to as the "medically indigent" program. It's gone now.

Under Medical most doctors will not accept you if you try to come to them as a patient. They don't think they get enough to see those patients. Never mind that helping people is one ostensible reason for becoming a doctor. The main reason for becoming a doctor. There are only a few and they are the worst of the worst. With rare exceptions they accept Medical because they can't get patients any other way. The offices are shabby, run down and the equipment they use is less than state of the art. Patients are jammed in like sardines and often sit all day only to go home without being seen when the doctor has seen as many patients as he can.

Prescriptions from Medical are paid for by stickers which most pharmacies don't want to accept. The number of prescriptions you can buy is limited so you can't get too sick. Also, the program only approves "formulary" drugs. Those are drugs which are obsolete and not as effective as the newer drugs that most health insurance plans pay for. There have been more cuts lately too, to mental health benefits and some tests for physical illnesses. Hospitals don't want to accept it as payment either, so Medical patients go only to the worst hospitals. Do you see a pattern emerging here?

Don't confuse Medicaid with Medicare. Medicare is a good program, federally run. Medicaid is the state version which was originally designed to be a companion to Medicare or to substitute for it when people were not eligible for Medicare. Medicaid is based on "need" which means you can't get it unless you are one step from the streets anyway. It is nothing to envy. There must be another Republican meme going about Medicaid, trying to confuse it in people's minds with Medicare, because my brother called us with the same thoughts you had. My husband worked for thirty years for Social Security in the SSI program for aged, blind and disabled recipients so he knows the difference and was able to allay my brothers fears that someone is actually trying to help the poor. My, brother you see, is a Republican with a nice health care plan he retired with, and Medicare, and he is damned if he is going to see the poor receive any kind of care or relief under any circumstances. Typical conservative crap. Only thing is, things could change for him and there might be no safety nets whatsoever in any area, That is the way we are heading. Personally I don't begrudge people the help they need. We are a community on this earth and we need to take care of each other, not feed the greed of the rich who think God makes them piss perfume.

[slipslidingaway]

51. Exactly ...

"We both get shafted. Only the rich survive ..."

[gleaner]

53. Yup ..

It makes me think of something I read once. One of the few living things that could survive a nuclear attack is the common roach. I think I can add the rich to that too. They have a lot in common.

[slipslidingaway]

61. Yes...they will survive n/t

[readmoreoften]

59. +1

[varelse]

81. Wish I could recommend a reply (nt)

[bobbolink]

52. Try being poor. You may understand the actual reality a bit better.

[Political Heretic]

55. Medicaid is rife with problems for poor people. It's not some magic bullet.

Medicaid has so many problems for poor people, I don't even know where to begin at 2:41am. I get so sick of middle class folks unaquainted with any sort of true and sustained poverty saying "poor people are fine! They get medicaid!"

Quality of care under medicaid lags behind everything else. Coverage and criteria for eligibility vary from state to state. Number of accessible providers serving medicaid patients is limited, in some states severely so. Other forms of assistance can make you ineligible for medicaid, so that if you get one leg up from once source, you lose health insurance - its part of the vicious cycle of our "assistance" programs with eligibility requirements that end up keeping people trapped in a cycle of poverty.

About the time they start to rise above the hole, they are deemed to have "too much" for some program and lose benefits, putting them right back into poverty again.

This is not just abstract talk for me - I've lived through this myself AND watched it happen to my father.

[Cleita]

63. This is why other countries have realized that for a universal health

care system to work, everyone has to be in the same boat when it comes to basic health care, as a human right. After that the rich probably can afford better hospital rooms and frills, but not before everyone has the same access to needed health care and drugs. Otherwise means testing forces people to fall between the cracks and gets them inferior care because no one cares. I've been in that place too.

[Vinca]

70. In New Hampshire you have to make so little money that you would

have to be living in a box and eating at soup kitchens in order to qualify for Medicaid. I know a woman who is on disability for bipolar disorder and only has about $600 a month to live on and she gets great treatment through Medicaid. I, on the other hand, would have to use every cent of my income to pay insurance premiums and still wouldn't be able to see the doctor because of the deductibles. In fact, the last "affordable" quote we got from a state small business program had a premium higher than what our income is in the off season.

[dflprincess]

75. The income limits for Medicaid are a long way from middle class

and what kind of care they get with it varies from state to state.

The current Senate bill caps the income eligibility at 150% of the poverty level which is $16,245 for a single and $33,075 for a family of 4. Hardly middle class.

[lunatica]

76. Oh yeah, the poor have it so good

n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

77. Amazing number of people here missing the point of the OP.

Why do some progressives so eagerly embrace a race to the bottom? Will making the remaining middle class in the US poor help those who are already poor?

[asdjrocky]

80. Completely and totally false.

Do you just make this stuff up? If you are poor in Ca and you are not a single woman with one or more children, or man, you can get Medicaid in some cases. Not if you are a single male adult. If you are poor, and have no dependant children, you are flat out of luck.

It really pisses me off when the muddled class walks around acting like the poor get perks or something. There are plenty of poor, unemployed and employed that get NO health care, at least here in Ca.

I don't know where you get off just making stuff up.