Medicaid and the ACA

There is one thing I never understood. Talk about the affordable care act with any conservative, and you'll likely here.... "It eats into medicaid spending", "less people are on medicaid", or "We don't need the ACA as we already have medicaid". I have never understood this. As the fiscally responsible citizens the conservatives are, wouldn't you want people to pay for affordable healthcare rather than receive it for free? I'm just wondering, because the constant medicaid arguments keep being made.

A lot of politicians do this as well. They continue the rhetoric of telling us we can't let medicaid die do to the ACA. As far as I'm concerned, people can still get medicaid. It's just that a rightful majority of people are now back and contributing to the system. What is wrong with that? The ACA doesn't cost money, there are no taxes (for the payers), and the CBO says it will stimulate billions and lower spending deficits.

I think this is the more fiscally responsible social health program. Hell, this was the argument Bush and Mccain made in the 90's. If anyone can explain why I keep hearing this, or if there is any actual reasoning behind the medicaid argument, then please tell me. I might be missing out on some detail.

 

Medicaid in most states I am familiar with "was" a program for pregnant women and children. While most southern states decided against expanding Medicaid, the state I live in Arkansas did expand it. My wife signed us up for because I refused to do so. Took about 2 months before we could talk without fighting about it. I refuse to use the POS she tried and took a 3 months to get a appointment. She went waited over four hours and they asked for a drug screen. They require that for all patients at the only doctor that accepts it within a 75 mile radius of where we live. She took the UA and ended up just leaving without seeing the doctor due to another obligation.

In Arkansas we also have the "private option" which my son received(he is 19) Yet me, my wife, and daughter were placed on Medicaid. While my wife's experince angered me and made me want to go just to tell the doctor what I thought about the (*)(*)(*)(*) test BS. I would not waste my time or other peoples money to prove a point. If they made me pee in a cup a loose lid and "accidental" trip might have made my point for me. The ACA is a authoritarian forced capitalism POS that I hate beyond words I am able to say on the forum. Medicaid should be for children and pregnant women the system was already overburdened, millions of more patients will only make it worse.

I will only use it if I wake up in the emergency room and I will "doctor" the books to insure I will never pay a dollar for something I do not want. As long as I keep my recordable income below $31,000 it will cost me nothing. Get rid of the individual mandate it is wrong and the worst intrusion of my freedom yet in the US. I will never pay for it and screw anyone that attempts to make me.

 

Alright, but I have no idea what this has to do with the OP. Federal mandated healthcare is bad IMO, which is why I promote simply lowering premiums (ACA) rather than trying to fund things ourselves, but I don't get why people favor medicaid and medicare over the Affordable Care Act. The Act lowers premiums instead of handing out healthcare, so it is undoubtedly better IMO, and more fiscally responsible.

 

Also, there are several things I think you misunderstand about medicaid. Actually, you don't understand it at all. It is free health insurance for those 133% below the tax threshold. The complications you suffered had nothing to do with the federal government, but the hospital you were at. None of that story correlates with the USFG's actions, besides giving your wife free health insurance. How is that intruding on your freedom? You signed up for it for pete's sake.

BTW, freedom can't be taken away, if you know the correct terminology.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me, income threshold

 

One last thing....

1. The ACA doesn't cost money.

2. The ACA doesn't come with new taxes (only for the hospitals)

 

The problem is quite simple:

A: Most people are already insured
B: The ones who did need insurance were poor/sick
C: Resulting in higher premiums/co-pays, etc.
D: And to put the cherry ontop, unlike what Dreamy Democrats believed, Crap Care didn't lower medical visits. Because we all know more is less!

Never trust a Democrat with economic reform. It's the Anti-Business Party.

 

Forgive my rant but the ACA is a sore spot for me. It does not lower premiums just pass the bill along to someone else.

 

That has nothing to do with the OP. It is more fiscally responsible than medicaid, and you're actually wrong. Millions could now afford healthcare.

Ok, well now they have it. And people in the future will be able to afford it as well.

90% of the people with health insurance had their premiums lower. The people who had theirs raise could already afford it.

Was it supposed to. It was a reform that was specifically designed to LOWER premiums. All it did is set a cap for what people can be charged. Hence, why there are millions of people paying into the health system now, and the medical field has experienced a profit boom.

Good thing George Bush was the one to first propose it.

 

Who is the bill going to? Have you read the ACA? It doesn't cost money. It just makes insurance companies sell premiums relative to income. Before, the average premium was over 200$. Now there is a cap for each income bracket, meaning you are only forced to pay what your income allows.

 

My wife signed me up and we will likely have another fight over it tonight when she gets home. I forcing me to take something by threat of a fine does not cost me freedom I do not know what does. I will not use so taxpayers are paying for something I do not want and will not use if I am conscious. If I wanted insurance I would buy it. I pay for life insurance to help my family if I die. Forcing me to take a handout will only make me angry I don't need or want it.

 

You need to re-read it if you make within 400% of the poverty level the govt pays some for you. That money comes from other taxpayers I do not want them to suffer for my benefit. I won't use it any so they are just wasting other peoples money. I can not stop that but they will not get mee to spend mine if I can help it.

 

I still don't think you're understanding what the ACA does. Freedom, for the record, is the ability to act on unconstrained will. Meaning you are free to do anything you want. You must learn to use that term correctly. On to the point. The ACA, adjusts what insurance companies can charge you, meaning people who do need it and want it, which was polled as almost everyone in the US, can now afford it. There is no bill for the ACA. Here are a couple things the CBO says the ACA will do.

1. It will lower spending deficits for Medicare and Medicaid, saving the US billions of dollars (Those are actual handouts)
2. Adjust rates for premiums so everyone over 25 can pay (And if you still are 133% below the threshold, medicaid is still an option)
3. Produce another couple billion dollars in healthcare profits.

There is only one legitimate argument against the ACA, and you haven't brought it up.

- - - Updated - - -

Please try to understand what I'm telling you. The ACA costs no taxpayer money. It lowers premiums that healthcare providers service. Your argument is actually against medicaid, which is free insurance payed for by the tax payers. This was my point. The ACA is more fiscally responsible than Medicaid.

- - - Updated - - -

No, this fact is wrong. Once again, you're confusing medicaid with the ACA. It is 133% below the income threshold. Which means people who make -3000$ in income, get free insurance.

 

I'm fighting for Medicaid in Florida and SSI and ere you must be a pregnant woman, child, on SSI, a low income senior citizen (joint program with
Medicare) or my case disabled and either State determined eligible or on SSI plus low income. I'm not lying those are the rules without the ACA Medicaid Expansion if your not in those groups ,regardless of poverty, you won't get it here. And I'm fighting to get it with several documented medical issues and vocational evaluations saying I cannot be employed or earn a meaningful income under Federal guidelines [$1070 a month this year].

If they expanded it I would easily be qualified just on income.

 

This is the statement from the official medicaid office.
"government insurance program for persons of all ages whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for health care."


It is not for certain groups. I think you're thinking of medicare. Now you have actually brought something related to the OP. Yes, medicaid expansion was lessened, which has some how seen a complete shift in the conservative parties stance. They used to be dead against medicaid before the ACA. The new idea, was instead of giving people health insurance for free, was to give them health credits, pending they still couldn't pay the lowered premiums (Which for the last time, is all the ACA does). Therefore, the US is saving billions in health expenditure by making its citizens responcible for paying their own healthcare.

I wish I could nail that into peoples brains. The ACA lowers premiums instead of giving health insurance for free. Which do you prefer?

 

Can you reiterate? I think I got confused on some of what you were saying. I still think you're confused between medicaid and medicare, but to be eligible for medicaid, you need to be 133% below the poverty line. That might need to be lowered, but that's a whole different debate.

 

No. let me explain to you the difference between liberty and freedom. Freedom is the ability to choose. Have you heard the phrase, free men decide, other men comply. You are free to not pay your healthcare. You are not at liberty to not pay it. Does that make sense.

You can only take away liberty.

- - - Updated - - -

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...ordable-care-act-pays-for-insurance-subsidies
I posted a liberal souce about the "subsides" paid to people making under 400% of the poverty level. If taxpayers do not pay where does that trillion $'s come from? I researched it at length and do not know where you come up with your info.

 

No, Medicaid, I'm not stupid I don't qualify in Florida solely based on income you must be poor and in one of the groups covered if it was only income right now at $0 annual income I would get it my only support is from my father now. I cannot work my disability status is too severe. I know the hospital social worker has been fighting to get me on it for months hoping to back bill for my care and the nursing home, doctors and such are waiting to see if they will get paid.

Here do you see the only requirement is income, no its not, here in Florida?

http://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/access-florida-food-medical-assistance-cash/medicaid

 

Florida is under the State rules not the ACA, to get t I must either be deemed poor and disabled by the state OR be on SSI (in which case I'm automatically eligible) - get it now.

 

Just wondering..... how many people make 400% below the poverty level? Those are the people who deserve tax payer money. And no, the expenditure is closer to about a million $. Not a trillion, lol.

 

Of course you don't qualify for medicaid. It is for the extremely poor. What is your income? I wouldn't mind lowering the negation to 100% below the poverty line, but people who are not poor shouldn't get free insurance. Just sign up for normal insurance.

 

That is 400% above the poverty level not below. It includes most Americans. I am starting to think you are trolling me. If you think the ACA only cost a million you are delusional no offense. You are very confused on the ACA, for every southern state besides Arkansas you get no help from the govt if under 133% of the poverty level. Like TK is trying to tell you.

 

From the CBO it will cost 2 trillion from 2015-2024. With a 500 billion coming back from the penalty for not buying insurance. The net cost is 1.5 trillion for the next decade.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45159

 

Let me begin by saying that you have no idea what you are talking about. If you had bothered to read the bill, as you claimed to have done, then you would see that the ACA does not remove anyone from Medicaid. Just the opposite, it expands the program. The original law "required" all states to expand the eligibility requirements to allow more individual into the program. To offset the cost increases to the states, the Federal Government would pay the states 100% of the increases for 2014 thru 2016, 95% in 2017, 94% in 2018, 93% in 2019 and 90% from 2020 forward. After the law was passed, SCOTUS ruled that the Federal Government could not mandate how states spend state funds. As such, SCOTUS ruled that states could chose for themselves whether to implement the Medicare expansion. I refer you to section 2001 of the law.
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

So, if the ACA does not remove individuals from Medicaid, and does expand the program, then why do you think that Conservatives are against the program? There are numerous reasons, one of them is that individuals that already could afford health insurance are being allowed free healthcare at the expense of tax payers. So please educate yourself on an issue before posting.

You also claimed that the ACA would cost nothing. The Implementation of the ACA is projected to be about $2.6 trillion in the first decade. That does not even include the cost of Medicare/Medicaid expansions, or Federal Subsides to families that qualifies.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/analysis-obamacare-to-cost-2-6-trillion-over-first-full-decade/

 

Wrong about what exactly? I said that most people are insured, never denying that more people were added to the pool. Just that said additions were neither economically prudent or sustainable. That's the whole point BTW behind 'X' number of people insured(which is remarkably fewer than the 40 million used to justify the propaganda machine)

[video=youtube;zZumG-3Pwp0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZumG-3Pwp0[/video]

So either I'm left to believe the 8 million who could buy health care, did(This of course isn't taking into account those who got canceled) or I'll call BS.

Indeed, it seems Crap Care will not fix a largely illegal immigrant/ market place problem. This is because Der Leader and his groupies are to the Left of Social Conservatives and no smarter than them.

While I'm on the topic of the lemming Liberal illiteracy, why the hell did they impose a deadline? Of course not all Americans would meet the deadline and it runs contradictory to their utopia of "everyone being covered". Doesn't it pose a risk of "burdening the system?"

They have it, but at great cost to Middle Class Americans. The Demand Also wasn't seemingly as high as they thought

Of course, health insurance is an over-rated luxury, if given an alternative even fewer people would buy Health Insurance.

This discussion of ours though has just given me a bright idea for my HC Proposal, so thank you (You'll see it as I bump and update that post)

Where's the proof of this statement of yours? Here, let me help. It doesn't exist.

Secondly, the arrogant statement you made shows how out of touch Democrats are, proclaiming that the 'deal' is good for Americans and they know better.
How can they proclaim so? Are they those Americans? Not so, as the Congressional Republicans very famously stuck out their necks and capitulated due to successful Democratic Propaganda, as well as America's general ignorance. If the House cannot govern economics as was historically tabbed, then what is its duty?

Either to be retained by Democrats? Or failing that, will they work to make the House obsolete? Now that I ponder this, given past attempts at a 'Super Congress', it seems like a political possibility.

But at any rate, even if richer Americans can afford to help pay for other Americans, under what obligation are they to do so? Is there not more merit in self-sufficiency rather then robbing Pan to pay Paul? Suffice to say the money wasted here, could've been better used by citizens

And so it was set up by a room of idiotic monkeys we refer to as Democrats. If Americans were financially educated, they too would laugh at the absurd, outright insane proposal that forcing more people into the marketplace, would somehow lower premiums. To dumb it down, your Democratic Leaders are trying to tell you you'll use less gas by filling up your tank!

Preposterous, whether the tank was full or half-empty, your car's consumption wouldn't have changed. Just, if you only needed a half-tank for your purposes, the Democratic Party is now forcing you to get a full tank of gas. To illustrate it more, let's say this actually happened! I can see Nancy Pelosi going all "If people get a full tank of gas, they'll visit the gas station less."

Except that's not true, given various destinations, distances, emergencies, etc. All they would've accomplished is forcing more consumer spending.

Now, back to Crap Care. In Crap Care, premiums are going up because of increased insurance. It's called Supply and Demand. The prices are going up because covering these medical costs are insane! The price is going up because Der Leader was stupid enough to add non-essentials in the makeup of Crap Care! The Price is going up because of the very real possibility of a Supply Shortage due to not meeting the demand.

And finally the Price is going up because Der Leader gave no one competitive options(no, Medicare doesn't count) while enforcing his mandate. Why on EARTH would your lower prices when the government's extorting your future customers on your behalf?

The Cap Limit is neither looking out for the people, nor an effective means of Price Control. It's a dam, meant to slow down the avalanche of rising premiums.

To once again put it simply: The Cap Limit is an open confession by Democrats that they couldn't do crap on premiums. They're just hoping the Dem voter's that stupid. And IMO it's a pretty smart wager.

Now onto the 'boom', this is going to be shortlived. The number of incoming practitioners is less(no duh) than the swarm of patients, once again leaving a major shortfall crisis. Then Crap Care has the audacity to pay them less! This is the weakest bubble in our time. It WILL Collapse. Der Leader and his party's stupidity assures it.

The Heritage Foundation recommended it in the mid-90's. Until We The People said "Hell no"

The Madam tried to orchestrate a political move, but the divided congress said no.

It was only with their Super Majority did Crap Care see the light of day.

And it's the worst economic bill in U.S History. PERIOD