Why don't they just fund the medicaid mandate?

[levander]

4 states have already gotten back-room deals where the government is going to kick in major dollars to pay for Medicaid in their state. Why not just pay for the medicaid expansion for the rest of the states?

I can find very vague numbers. I saw where Tennessee said it was going to cost them an extra $750 million for 2014-2019. That would be the 1st decade for this health care reform bill. So, the 2nd decade would be about $1.5 billion. Quick check, Tennessee is the 17th most populous state. So, say $1.5 billion is average for a decade for a US state (and only half that for the 1st decade of this bill). 50 x 1.5 billion = 75 billion. Based on the tricks they've already got running, (what are the numbers again?) they're saying something like they're saving $130 billion in the 1st decade (as quasi as that decade may be) and that they're saving like a trillion on the deficit in the 2nd decade. So, what's the big deal from dragging those massive savings they're claiming we're getting (which we're not really) down by $75 billion a decade?

Why don't they just pay for their Medicaid expansion? The states obviously can't afford it. And, it's a fraction of the other giant numbers being thrown around about this bill.

[Cleita]

1. Funding is really big in this bill but it isn't about Medicaid.

It's about welfare for the insurance companies. They and the oil companies and so many other Wall Street jerks do own our government. It used to be that they would throw a few bones to us proles to keep us quiet and keep them rich, but they have figured out that they don't even have to do that anymore. We could stop this country at one time by refusing to work. But now they have found other work places like in China. The only way we can stop them is by refusing to buy.

[juajen]

2. Well, if we're not working, how in hell can we buy? It's a catch 22. NT

[Jamastiene]

3. The Medicaid expansion could be a good thing, except

for the cost at the state level, like you mentioned, and the fact that each state has a different criteria for who qualifies for Medicaid. In some states, it's practically impossible if you have no children. Doctors sure got my entire savings account. If I had lived in another state, I'd still have savings. That burned me up when I saw that.

So, the "expansion" will do no good (for those who do not already qualify for Medicaid) unless they enforce the new eligibility requirements all across the country.

I know NC won't follow those new requirements unless the state is forced and it's not the only state that will have to be forced to do so. My jaw dropped when I saw the disparity of Medicaid availability from state to state.

Alabama's criteria are staggeringly low income. A family with children cannot make more than around $2400 a YEAR to qualify. If they make more than that, they do not qualify. My jaw hit the floor when I saw that. How cold hearted does somebody have to be to tell them no?

If they do enforce the eligibility requirements nationwide in the expansion, though, it could be a really good thing, imho. Actually, if they'd just come on out and say yay or nay on that, as I have asked all of my congress critters to do, it could change my support to being in favor of this bill. Equal/same eligibility requirements nationwide COULD help a lot more people than it currently stands now if that. Plus, I think they should use the House version to raise the poverty percentage to 150% instead of the Senate's 133%.

As it stands right now, nada. I haven't heard back from my congress people. I still have horrible feelings about the anti-choice amendments and the mandates and the corporate welfare. Congress is still acting defensive as hell and refusing the mandate we sent them to govern to the left. :nopity:

[uponit7771]

4. Some folk can be heartless