Senate bill significantly expands and funds Medicaid

[ProSense]

Kerry says health bill would help Mass.

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor

Senator John F. Kerry returned in between votes to Massachusetts today to declare that the bill the Senate is about to pass would reward, rather than penalize, the state for leading by passing its own health reform in 2006.

"We are on the verge of passing health insurance reform legislation that will put patients ahead of profits and will protect rather than penalize Massachusetts for already having led the nation in reform. The Majority Leader has agreed to include a provision that will provide Massachusetts with additional federal funds for Medicaid for the next three calendar years -- roughly $500 million -- that's half a billion dollars more than we otherwise would have had. And our congressional delegation has worked closely with Senator Reid to make sure Massachusetts' reforms are not only protected, but are enhanced," Kerry said during a visit to Children's Hospital Boston.

Since Massachusetts passed its bill in 2006, requiring individuals to get health insurance, more than 400,000 residents have been added to the insured rolls, giving the state the lowest rate of uninsured at 2.7 percent. Several elements of the Massachusetts law have been incorporated into the bills working their way through Congress.

Kerry's full prepared remarks are below:

more

The expansion wasn't limited to Nebraska.

[Cha]

1. Thank you and Rec'd!

[NYC_SKP]

2. ProSense:

I'm reading Sanders' press releases, got there from a DKos diary.

Just wondering if you've seen it and have an opinion.

Diary:

45,000,000 get single-payer care =vs.= 3,000,000 P.O. tickets ??? -- Cummon folks.

THIS IS IMPORTANT.

Ted Kennedy's existing CHC program expands along lines developed by Bernie Sanders and Ben Cardin.

The single best thing to happen for America's working poor since food stamps:

-- 14,000 nationwide Community Health Clinics

-- Expand CHC capabilities to match VHA technology

-- 45,000,000 people served

-- $$$$$ to attract 20,000 primary care physicians, nurses, etc.

-- Drugs at VHA prices

-- Dental care

-- Patient billing scaled to income

-- No profit motive. 1/5th the cost of Emergency Room treatment.

Alan Frumin, the Senate Parliamentarian, showed last April that non-budgetary insurance sections would not qualify for reconciliation. Filibusters would doom any Senate P.O.

Care is separated completely from any billing.

Harry Reid concealed Sanders-Cardin till the last hour, then popped it into the Senate HCR Bill.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/22/818060/-This-HCR-Bill:-45,000,000-Get-Single-Payer-Vermont-Health-Care

Sanders: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=2F6CC5A1-C9D2-46CA-902E-E3D0EFD94232
and
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=30b2a415-4ade-4367-af7d-4c3306e31b58

:patriot:

[ProSense]

3. Great stuff. Obama provided ARRA funding for community health centers.

Obama says $155m in health funding means jobs, too

President Obama Announces Recovery Act Awards to Build, Renovate Community Health Centers in More Than 30 States

The Sanders amendment delivers another $10 billion.

Great stuff.

[eridani]

4. It is a bunch of BULLSHIT that you need ANY legislation to expand Medicaid

It is existing law that can be modified at any time, and there is no necessity to tie it to being FORCED to buy garbage.

[ProSense]

5. "It is existing law that can be modified at any time" What? n/t

[eridani]

14. You don't have to start new legislation to modify existing legislation

That's what people who want us to pass this piece of shit say--just fix it later, right?

[ProSense]

15. You don't know what you are talking about. n/t

[stevietheman]

47. It might be helpful to learn how Congress works. n/t

n/t

[phleshdef]

45. LOL, that has to be one of the poorest attempts to concoct a "point of criticism" I've seen so far.

[mzmolly]

6. Actually current legislation covers up to a certain income level.

The new legislation GREATLY raises the income requirements so that more will be covered by the public option that already exists.

[ipaint]

9. They need it. 21% of People in MA Still Forgo Necessary Medical Care

21% of People in MA Still Forgo Necessary Medical Care

According to a March 2009 Urban Institute report, health reform has improved access to health care services for newly insured and previously insured adults. Over ninety percent of adults in Massachusetts have a usual source of care and most reported seeing a doctor in the previous year. However, the affordability of health care remains a barrier to receiving care for some residents. Of the total population, 21 percent went without needed care in the previous year because of cost. People with disabilities and those in fair and poor health experienced the greatest barriers to accessing care.

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7777-02.pdf

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/12/17/21-of-people-in-ma-still-forgo-necessary-medical-care/

Any links to anything that would require doctors to accept medicaid. That's going to be a huge problem with 15-20 million new medicaid recipients. It's a bad problem today without the added people.
Also any links to info on the increased funding to handle the huge increase in recipients?

[mzmolly]

11. Here is a related post on how we might address that issue?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/22/818060/-This-HCR-Bill:-45,000,000-Get-Single-Payer-Vermont-Health-Care

Also, medicaid reimbursements have been increased in rural areas in the new legislation.

:)

[ipaint]

34. Urban areas, there's poor people there too who can't find doctors who accept medicaid. n/t

[ProSense]

12. "Any links to anything that would require doctors to accept medicaid."

The funding has been the problem. The Nelson amendment achieved full funding for Nebraska.

[eridani]

17. And fuck all the other states. Wonderful n/t

[ProSense]

19. You need to read and understand before responding. n/t

[Hekate]

28. Where does it say that? nt

[Hekate]

32. You do know that Kerry is talking to the home folks about how he's helping THEM, seeing as how...

... THEY sent him to the Senate and WE didn't. That doesn't mean the rest of us got nothing.

Over the next week or two, pay attention to what your own Senators and Representatives have to say. They will also begin to boast about what they got for the folks back home, even if they opposed the bill. It's what they do.

Hekate

[ipaint]

33. One more time.

Will doctors be required to accept medicaid.

[eridani]

16. So what? You don't need new legislation to do that n/t

[mzmolly]

23. Ah,

yeah you do.

[eridani]

29. You do not need a whole bunch of added crap in order to revisit past legislation n/t

[mzmolly]

43. You need legislation to raise the

income limits involved in this scenario.

[mzmolly]

7. K and R.

:toast:

[medeak]

8. my idiot guv says he's opting out

is there still an opt out option?

[Armstead]

10. The system should not be based on the need for charity

It is good that Medicaid will cover more people.

But that is not the basic problem (IMO of course).

Rather than set in stone a system that is unaffordable, and relies on charity to fill the gaps, it would seem to make more sense to make the system itself more accessible and affordable.

There will always be a need for safety nets like Medicaid.

However, rather than increasing the need by increasing the role of overpriced private insurance, why not orient reform to making the system itself better able to meet the needs of all people, rather than encouraging a permanent system of haves and have-nots?

[ProSense]

13. "It is good that Medicaid will cover more people...But " Now Medicaid is charity?

WTF?

[Armstead]

18. Medicaid is government (taxpayer) charity

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. We need a solid safety net.

However, my point is that Medicaid expansion should not be touted as a replacement to justify the lack of meaningful reforms that would actually bring insurance to more people through social insurance -- shared responsibility based on ability to pay to create a coverage pool to benefit everyone.

The more we need medicare, community clinics, etc. the more it is an indication that the system is broken and needs actual reform.

[ProSense]

20. Social Security, Medicare = Charity?

You're confusing tax-payer funded programs with charities.

[Armstead]

21. No and that is not what I said.

Those are social insurance, and is basically what I believe we should be moving towards in overall healthcare, rather than private insurance. Those are collective programs that spread the responsibility and benefits around.

Medicaid is different. That is a "safety net" program for people who can't otherwise afford care.

My belief is that we should be placing more emphasis on true social insurance, more affordable coverage for almost everyone, which would also reduce the number of people in need of safety nets.

The more need for Medicaid there is, the more it is a sign that the system is failing.

[ProSense]

22. It is not different. It's a federally funded social program

It is not a charity. People on Medicaid also pay taxes.

[Armstead]

24. Aiyeeeeee -- Let me try this again

If you cannot afford any other care you go onto Medicaid. Maybe you are poor but pay taxes, maybe you don't make enough to pay taxes. Doesn't matter.

It is where you go when you can't afford any other source of coverage for care.

It is paid for by taxes. If you are hung up on the word charity, then call it a safety net. I don't care.

Medicare and Social Security are programs you pay into, and in return receive coverage (or retirement or disability income with SS).

There is a difference. An increased need for medicaid is a signal that the rest of the healthcare system is failing to meet the needs of people.

[KrR]

26. Your use of the word 'charity' is very telling....

[Armstead]

30. No it is not telling

I supoport charity and I support government safety nets like medicaid.

Please see my post below in answer to your other post for the rest of my response.

[KrR]

25. WTF you are for a PO but against Medicaid???

DU has gone completely nuts.

[Armstead]

27. I am NOT AGAINST Medicaid.

I am opposed to the need that the current system creates for more Medicaid.

There will always be a need for medicaid as a safety net for people who would not otherwise receive care. But the more we need it, the more it is a symptom of how badly screwed up the basic healthcare system is.

I am also critical that saying that expanding Medicaid in the current bill -- rather than actual reforms that would increase access to care by actually improving the system and allocating our payments on a more equitable and efficient way == is screwed up.

[KrR]

36. So you are not for single payer then? n/t

[Armstead]

42. NO I am FOR single payer, which would reduce the need for Medicaid

[phleshdef]

46. A single payer system would just absorb Medicaid, but the underlying "charity" would still be there.

I think you should just back away from your statement.

[ipaint]

35. You are absolutely correct.

And if everybody got medicaid, including the pampered millionaires who claim to represent us, you bet it would be a good coverage.

Throwing the poor into a substandard system just to be able to say "look what we do for the poor folks" is horseshit. If the care is good enough for a homeless person it's good enough for Kerry.

[Hekate]

31. KnR.

[LooseWilly]

37. Excellent... as more and more people are gravitating toward the poverty line, this is very timely.

A fine detail of the "reform" which I suspect will be of great use to more and more people as time passes.

:+

[Jamastiene]

38. Plus, the federal government is only funding it for a few years,

then the cost gets shifted to the states.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/expanding-medicaid-may-leave-some-democrats-feeling-conflicted/

Plus, there is no word yet on whether the federal government is going to make it so the eligibility requirements are going to be set at the state level or at the federal level to make states offer more help to people. Medicaid is extremely hard to get in at least 27 states. In my state, alone, I do not even qualify for it, even though I am well below the poverty line, whereas, in other states, I would already have it.

Unless they make it so everyone below the poverty line has access to it and actually fund it longer than just a couple of years, it is not going to help those of us who live below the poverty level in states that do not offer Medicaid just based on low income.

[LooseWilly]

40. Well the Feds can't just make money out of ... paper...

You can't expect them to fund the ... few good parts of... the bill... for very long. Soon the *States (*excepting Nebraska) will need to step up and take responsibility, just like the poor, err... less poor what don't qualify according to local definitions for medicaid... will have to step up and pay for their own health insurance... with subsidies, because the federal government would never let its citizens suffer due to ... poverty... but those who can't afford insurance, who rather think that they can't afford insurance, will learn that they can afford insurance, when they start paying <or else>... which will be useful to keep the costs of corporate provided health care from spiraling out of control, potentially causing corporations to pass along costs to employees other than union employees who already have many of those costs passed along to them...

Fear not... the benevolence of the Democratic Party is not reserved for Coporations Alone (unlike a party that starts with R). No, the Democratic Party is willing to do some stuff for people who aren't "corporation worthy" too, when it's not too inconvenient.

Just hold your breath, and smile. Someone will be with you shortly. :)

[ipaint]

39. Could you please link to anything that says this is a national policy.

It talks just about Massachusetts in the article.

[SpartanDem]

41. K&R

[ShortnFiery]

44. While it continues to *GUT* the Middle Class who will have to "declare bankruptcy" in order

to receive FULL TREATMENT for a serious illness.

A democracy or even a "democratic republic" can NOT survive without a vibrant Middle Class.

HRC will GUT the middle class ... sending more and more of our tax dollars UP to the 1%. :grr: