It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Medicaid enrollment surges, stirs worry about state budgets

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   
State expansions of Medicaid under Obama.Care have been experiencing a higher than expected volume of new "enrollees".

We know from the ACA that the Federal Government is helping the States that did in fact expand, but the money is only going to last for a few years and then .... probably kaput.

Some States are affected more than others.

Perhaps there is some sense afterall to the States not expanding.

Maybe this whole program backfires because the jobs just are not coming back at full pay.

How will the 2016 candidates for office handle this dilemma?


Medicaid enrollment surges, stirs worry about state budgets



More than a dozen states that opted to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have seen enrollments surge way beyond projections, raising concerns that the added costs will strain their budgets when federal aid is scaled back starting in two years.

Some lawmakers warn the price of expanding the health care program for poor and lower-income Americans could mean less money available for other state services, including education.

In Kentucky, for example, enrollments during the 2014 fiscal year were more than double the number projected, with almost 311,000 newly eligible residents signing up. That's greater than what was initially predicted through 2021. As a result, the state revised its Medicaid cost estimate from $33 million to $74 million for the 2017 fiscal year. By 2021, those costs could climb to a projected $363 million.




"Just Take a Pill"





posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Politicians don't have any answers nor does the candidates.

What is likely to happen is raising the state income tax cover the spending shortfall.

Or the states will seek more funds from the federal government.

Prolly a combination of both.

So medicaid is expanding which proves the epic failure of the ACA.

Because those enrollments should be going the other way.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
Another goal of Obamacare coming to fruition.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I should point out that "helping the states" with the revenue directly absconded with from their citizens could hardly be considered help.

Let the states collect their own taxes so that the federal government must come to the states for aid, not the other way around.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
State expansions of Medicaid under Obama.Care have been experiencing a higher than expected volume of new "enrollees".

We know from the ACA that the Federal Government is helping the States that did in fact expand, but the money is only going to last for a few years and then .... probably kaput.

Some States are affected more than others.

Perhaps there is some sense afterall to the States not expanding.

Maybe this whole program backfires because the jobs just are not coming back at full pay.

How will the 2016 candidates for office handle this dilemma?


Medicaid enrollment surges, stirs worry about state budgets



More than a dozen states that opted to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have seen enrollments surge way beyond projections, raising concerns that the added costs will strain their budgets when federal aid is scaled back starting in two years.

Some lawmakers warn the price of expanding the health care program for poor and lower-income Americans could mean less money available for other state services, including education.

In Kentucky, for example, enrollments during the 2014 fiscal year were more than double the number projected, with almost 311,000 newly eligible residents signing up. That's greater than what was initially predicted through 2021. As a result, the state revised its Medicaid cost estimate from $33 million to $74 million for the 2017 fiscal year. By 2021, those costs could climb to a projected $363 million.




"Just Take a Pill"





That is a good thing. Those that qualify for Medicaid didn't have insurance before. Or had insurance that did not cover the basics. So, they were going to energency rooms before or didn;t have standard coverage as decided by a panel of physicians. Taxpayers pay for the ER, costs a lot more than visiting a doctor. Also, doctors that deal with medicaid know that medicaid will not pay inflated prices, so they bill on the schedule medicaid gives. That $700 MRI, worth about $250 is billed at $250 and paid by Medicaid at $250. The program will not run out of money.

Staates that expanded Medicaid were given money to do so.


edit on 19-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)


From your s source "Some lawmakers warn the price of expanding the health care program for poor and lower-income Americans could mean less money available for other state services, including education." Source The lawmakers themselves, I doubt worry about what to do if their child breaks their ankle. They have insurance.
edit on 19-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

So states that couldn't afford to pay for Medicaid before expanded the program they already couldn't pay for, so now they REALLY can't pay for it.

How do suddenly make money appear where it isn't?

What part of "no money" do you not get? Governments are not some breed apart because they are governments. They do not have magic money. If the money isn't there, it isn't there.

Have you been making more money these last six years? I haven't? Are you budgeted to the fine line? I am. So when the tax man comes to pay for this, where are you getting that money from?



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


but the money is only going to last for a few years and then …. probably kaput.

Since when did running out of money ever stop the people in charge? They'll just borrow some more.

The alternative is hungry poor people pouring into the street. They will divide the funny money up evenly of course, as much as possible to 'defense' and little as possible to the impoverished.

There conundrum is-- a little more to make our mansion walls a little higher and the moats deeper, or a little more to starving hungry zombie hoards at the gates.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra

No wonder the U.S. is $18 trillion in debt.

And that goes for 99% of all nations and local governments.

Big debts will be the shellacking.

The seams are drying and splitting as we speak.




posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Just make the politicians take a pay cut, that will cover the missing money, but its easier to blame obama and the poor as usual.

Thanks for the propaganda course mr X, i learn so much from your threads lol.
edit on 19-7-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
In stead of spending time worrying about how bad the costs will be, why not get everyone together and figure out why so many people are now getting sick and needing to go to the doctors. There are many different reasons for increasing health costs, most of them are either due to eating foods loaded with chemicals that should not be there or chemistry is being consumed that is suppressing our immune system. They also want us to go get unneeded tests so they can pay to get their labs and new equipment. That equipment is not cheap, but of course they even have a tests to check how well they are giving it to us up the ---- I think those colonoscopy procedures are a gauge to test how we take it, just bend over.

We should not have so many people who work in the medical field, it is a big part of our economy now, that is dangerous.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Just make the politicians take a pay cut, that will cover the missing money, but its easier to blame obama and the poor as usual.

Thanks for the propaganda course mr X, i learn so much from your threads lol.


Not to just poke you for the comment but,the cost of every elected official, high is it might be, is equivalent to a cheap pedicure compared to the gargantuan costs of socialized welfare assistance.

I think they should lose their pay too but, like our foreign assistance (bad as that is or may be), it isn't a significant cost.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Just make the politicians take a pay cut, that will cover the missing money, but its easier to blame obama and the poor as usual.

Thanks for the propaganda course mr X, i learn so much from your threads lol.


Also, put them on Medicaid instead of the platinum plans they have now. If it is good enough for the people, it is good enough for YOU.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: reldra




That is a good thing. Those that qualify for Medicaid didn't have insurance before


No it's not a 'good' thing.

There were already 50 million people on medicaid. That was already having funding issues.

Add millions more to it, and that is a recipe for disaster.

Funny part there is that MEDICAD was created specifically for the POOR.



Medicaid in the United States is a social health care program for families and individuals with low income and limited resources.


en.wikipedia.org...



Medicaid protects middle-class families, seniors, children, and people with disabilities. - See more at: familiesusa.org...


There should be no middle class 'families,seniors' on it. Since MEDICARE was created for seniors. 'Middle Class' on medicaid!

And the ACA should have never been created. Since MEDICAID was suppose to be talking 'care' of it.

If people were being 'denied' health insurance that would be from the government.

And they could have at any time they wanted with the wave of a 'magic' pen change the requirements.

edit on 19-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Just make the politicians take a pay cut, that will cover the missing money, but its easier to blame obama and the poor as usual.

Thanks for the propaganda course mr X, i learn so much from your threads lol.


Instead of making the politicians take a pay cut, how about cutting the federal bureaucracy and making the bureaucrats take a pay cut? And let's look at cutting their benefits down to size while we're at it. That would save a LOT more than just cutting the salaries of the pols themselves.



posted on Jul, 19 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Just make the politicians take a pay cut, that will cover the missing money, but its easier to blame obama and the poor as usual.

Thanks for the propaganda course mr X, i learn so much from your threads lol.


Not to just poke you for the comment but,the cost of every elected official, high is it might be, is equivalent to a cheap pedicure compared to the gargantuan costs of socialized welfare assistance.

I think they should lose their pay too but, like our foreign assistance (bad as that is or may be), it isn't a significant cost.


The problem, as in any nation with a central bank, is the interest payments that are carried on the government debt. Want to save 10 or 20 trillion over the next 10 years? Nationalize the central bank, the fed.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Wait, I thought it was free healthcare.

What's all this talk of money and budgets and such?
edit on 20-7-2015 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz




Wait, I thought it was free healthcare.

Why did you think that? Where was that claimed?



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I guess this hurts the next round of tax breaks for the rich? I somehow doubt it!



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Never heard that statement?

I have, many times, from ignorant/apathetic people.

I'm sorry that my source is not from a reputable news source, but from my own personal experience.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz




I have, many times, from ignorant/apathetic people.

So you agree that no such claim was ever made.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join