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.

 

Texas Considers Medicaid Withdrawal

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Source


Some Republican lawmakers — still reveling in Tuesday’s statewide election sweep — are proposing an unprecedented solution to the state’s estimated $25 billion budget shortfall: dropping out of the federal Medicaid program.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This is actually a good news, because now everyone will be able to see whether dropping the medicaid program is a good idea or not. I'm very interested in this move, however I'm not so positive whether those Texan conservatives actually have the guts to do it.

Although I'm personally more into capitalism rather than socialism, I'm not allergic to social welfare program. The way I see it, if you have the dough to finance them, you may have them.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
WOW.

So in a nutshell, texas is saying it's most vulnerable and most precious citizens are worthless, ie: children, the largest demograhic medicaid covers. It also covers in some states one prent of said children,a nd sometimes disabled poor people.

But hey let's see how it works out.




posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


No that's not what they're saying. Medicaid and Medicare are BROKE. And it is a huge burden to states with low tax receipt collection. This is a direct result of unemployment. Even though Texas has the lowest unemployment of any state in the nation, they are trying to maintain a favorable environment to continue to grow economically.

Texas has more resources to help children in need and here they are:

Clickity


If people have jobs, and pay less taxes they can afford the medical care their children need. Further moren June 2007, HB 109 was enacted which created a community outreach campaign for CHIP and extended continuous coverage for children from 6 to 12 months and eliminated a 90-day waiting period, except for certain applicants.
In May 2009, Senate Bill 187 (Chapter 34) was enacted, which directs the executive commissioner of the health and human services commission to develop and implement, not later than December 1, 2009, a Medicaid buy-in program for children with disabilities whose family incomes do not exceed 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Monthly premiums according to a sliding scale based on family income shall be required.
For more information about Texas's CHIP program: Texas CHIP


But forget facts, its just easier to cry about the children in emotional outbursts that have no basis in reality.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


I'd like to see them try. They tried to completely privatize medicare and medicaid during the Bush administration but backed away before they even began the process. Even during Reagan when the Republicans had the nation in their hands they did not go through with privatizing it. They know that once they leave virtually everybody open to the healthcare corporations, it's open season and the results will not be good. Republicans do not want to live with that legacy and they are smart enough to back away from it.

...and sure, you'll have some republican and conservative politicians tout the privatization idea. Bob barr acted as if he'd do it in a second along with other programmes if he were elected president. The thing is, it is so easy to claim all sorts of things when you're running in a campaign. Actions speak louder than words. I look forward to reminding the tea partiers what Rand Paul and Co. ran for in a years time.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


No that's not what they're saying. Medicaid and Medicare are BROKE


The Medicaid and medicare programmes are broke because OUR GOVERNMENT is broke. The Department of education is BROKE because our government is BROKE. Essentially every part of our government is BROKE and we are spending debt money to continue to run the government. It has nothing to do with the faliure of these programmes, rather the mismanagement in our government.


This is a direct result of unemployment. Even though Texas has the lowest unemployment of any state in the nation, they are trying to maintain a favorable environment to continue to grow economically.

Texas has more resources to help children in need and here they are:

Clickity


If people have jobs, and pay less taxes they can afford the medical care their children need. Further moren June 2007, HB 109 was enacted which created a community outreach campaign for CHIP and extended continuous coverage for children from 6 to 12 months and eliminated a 90-day waiting period, except for certain applicants.
In May 2009, Senate Bill 187 (Chapter 34) was enacted, which directs the executive commissioner of the health and human services commission to develop and implement, not later than December 1, 2009, a Medicaid buy-in program for children with disabilities whose family incomes do not exceed 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Monthly premiums according to a sliding scale based on family income shall be required.
For more information about Texas's CHIP program: Texas CHIP


Yes,in a perfect world. In a perfect world all of us would be employed, all of us would pay low taxes, our jobs would not be shipped overseas and healthcare companies would not be keeping healthcare coverage scarce to maintain prices as high as they are. In a perfect world children and adults would not be barred from healthcare over silly pre-existing conditions. This is the libertarian fantasy world that apparently we all live in.


but forget facts, its just easier to cry about the children in emotional outbursts that have no basis in reality.


No basis for reality? The 40 million people out there without healthcare is a reality. If that reality is too much of an inconvenience for people like you to acknowledge that's nobody's problem. I'd like you to explain to the rest of us how, if say the current healthcare law was removed along with safety net programmes, would healthcare companies take in the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, those who are unemployed? You think healthcare companies will take these people in? What was stopping them before?

In a capitalist society keeping a resource scarce if more profitable for businesses. It is the reality as covering 40 million folks is not a profitable idea at all.
edit on 7-11-2010 by Southern Guardian because: fixed



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 

I'd like to see them try. They tried to completely privatize medicare and medicaid during the Bush administration but backed away before they even began the process. Even during Reagan when the Republicans had the nation in their hands they did not go through with privatizing it. They know that once they leave virtually everybody open to the healthcare corporations, it's open season and the results will not be good. Republicans do not want to live with that legacy and they are smart enough to back away from it.

...and sure, you'll have some republican and conservative politicians tout the privatization idea. Bob barr acted as if he'd do it in a second along with other programmes if he were elected president. The thing is, it is so easy to claim all sorts of things when you're running in a campaign. Actions speak louder than words. I look forward to reminding the tea partiers what Rand Paul and Co. ran for in a years time.

Of course, it's political suicide, I don't think Ron Paul himself will actually act on it if he's somehow has the authority to do so.


Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The Medicaid and medicare programmes are broke because OUR GOVERNMENT is broke. The Department of education is BROKE because our government is BROKE. Essentially every part of our government is BROKE and we are spending debt money to continue to run the government. It has nothing to do with the faliure of these programmes, rather the mismanagement in our government.

The problem is when the government is broke, it'll be really broke. There's no easy way to fix it.. 1. Appoint a dictator, 2. Let the free market sort it out (which is also brutal), 3. Cross your finger and hope you get lucky, 4. Expect the people to have more self-leadership and initiate a lead, which is virtually impossible, since the people are as childish as the government if not more. It'll take evolution I guess, to make it work.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
If Texas wants to do something foolish like this, then go ahead. It would not surprise me due to the mindset of that state.

If it works, then by golly, good for them.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
If Texas wants to do something foolish like this, then go ahead. It would not surprise me due to the mindset of that state.

If it works, then by golly, good for them.




Way to contribute by stereo typing.

The medical system is broken now, by adding a new more expensive medical system we are accomplishing what?

This is a good move imo and needs to be reviewed by every state. Just like I think the fed needs auditted, is it going to cause a huge backlash? absolutely, is it going to fix our problems in the long run? Well at least one, so let the cards fall already.

It is absurd for somebody to force 99% of the population into a direction just to save 1%. Though now your probably thinking I am cruel, so is nature and natural selection. I dont remember the lions stopping to eat 4 of 5 wildabeast babies in the great migrations yesterday on discovery. People will die, yes, but even if you have overpriced medical, people will still die.

What ever happened to charity? Why force the spoon into somebodies mouth, efven though your taking food from their children to pay for this crap.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:30 AM
link   
will not happen

even though there are some states that fought obama care it was law of the land

medicare and medicaid is the law of the land and they will enforce it make no mistake.

texas could never pull this off never but it would be one way to make illegals leave the state they are by far the largest recipient of medicaid at least.

there would be mass rioting even greater than the protests of greece.

never going to happen.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
If Texas goes through with this, they may see their jobless rate go way down. Tortilla sales would plummet, but hey, I'm sure there are tons of people fed up with those who work the system and would move there in a heartbeat should this come to pass. They might like tortillas too.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 



No basis for reality? The 40 million people out there without healthcare is a reality.


But is government the best way to solve this 'problem?' aspe.hhs.gov...

That is a demographic breakdown of the uninsured. Obviously, insurance is not just an issue of not being able to afford it - employers account for about half of all sources of insurance with the other largest provider being medicare being limited to those 65 and older as a mandatory enrollment. Medicaid is the third largest - being restricted to elderly and children/pregnant/disabled. Even then - medicaid is a bit of a different story than medicare and not insurance in the same respect.

Only about 10% of our current health insurance programs are bought by the individual.


If that reality is too much of an inconvenience for people like you to acknowledge that's nobody's problem.


Only 20 million - or about 7.5% - go without health insurance for longer than 12 months. This would seem to imply that those searching for health insurance are able to find it within a reasonable amount of time - and the majority of those 20 million are not prioritizing health insurance.


I'd like you to explain to the rest of us how, if say the current healthcare law was removed along with safety net programmes, would healthcare companies take in the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions, those who are unemployed?


Transitional periods are always difficult. However, the simple answer is: no.

Elderly tend to rack up high medical expenses and then pass on (often in the midst of accruing said medical expenses). This is a fact - one a corporation must face and deal with. Since a corporation cannot make money out of thin air, and it requires the payment for services to meet the operating costs (at the very minimum). This is a reality the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions must face as well. It is inconvenient - it is not a world of rainbows, butterflies, and unicorns - but it is the reality of life as you get older.

So, no - a corporation would be under no obligation to extend coverage to -new- elderly contracts. Continuing coverage into elderly life would not be an issue for those under insurance plans. It's not a bad idea to pick an insurance company and stick with them - being a client for a long time often comes to play in the formula used to determine your premiums (in a way that costs you less). Think about it - you are paying in all that time and have a history of claims with that company - having a record of being healthy and not costing your insurance company tends to make bouts of sickness impact your premiums less (if at all).

What about everyone who won't be covered? Like I said - transitions are difficult. There is never going to be any change that doesn't come with pains. If we used that as a reason not to change, we would never change anything - whether it was for the better or for the worse.


In a capitalist society keeping a resource scarce if more profitable for businesses. It is the reality as covering 40 million folks is not a profitable idea at all.


15 years ago, offering cell-phones at today's prices and functionality was not profitable, either. Take a look at the markets - the regulated ones versus the unregulated ones, and see which ones are doing good. Telephone service is government regulated - all your land-line prices have done is inflate with no real change. Same with cable. Computers are hardly regulated - now you can buy a computer from 3 years ago for $200 that out-performs a $2000 computer from 6 years ago. The internet is also fairly unregulated (though many networking lines are tied to government regulation of land-line telecommunications).

Healthcare is very highly regulated - laws governing production of pharmaceuticals and testing criteria that prevent start-ups from challenging existing market holders. Cisco systems started out of a college dorm. Apple in a garage. AMD started sub-contracting silicon lithography from Intel and splintered off when they saw they could create a more efficient processing architecture - challenging Intel's market. There are/were so few regulations on these markets that almost anyone could enter the market and challenge the big-dogs by targeting sectors that had been overlooked or poorly tended to. When dealing with very heavily regulated markets that require more permits to operate than employees, it is never profitable to start - and therefor monopolies are formed and preserved. This is why pharmaceutical companies can turn a 10% profit when all other markets only turn a 5% profit at best.

The best way to cover Americans with health insurance is to let the corporations figure out how to profitably insure as many demographics as possible - then use local and state governments to fill in the gaps while preventing abuse of those systems.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Texas doesn't have a state income tax, they are smart and let there residence keep the money they earn.. Their taxes in general are low, I own property in TX and 50 acres in Texas costs me 1/3 what 1 acre here in Minnesota costs for taxes a year. However, they do have pretty typical a sales tax.

these social programs are failing because they are not sustainable.. something needs to change.. they cant go on in debt forever... either funding needs a increase or they need to be eliminated... doesn't matter what the program is, its basic economics.

Just like personal finances.. you can get buy spending debt for a while, but eventually you need to change those spending habits or find more income.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

But is government the best way to solve this 'problem?' aspe.hhs.gov...


Nope, never said the government has the "best" way to solving the problem. However private healthcare companies have had more than enough time to prove they can provide healthcare for all, and instead what did they do? .


That is a demographic breakdown of the uninsured. Obviously, insurance is not just an issue of not being able to afford it


But it is. Healthcare costs have risen faster than income in the last 10years:
www.reuters.com...

And businesses? It's costing them and inturn the employers:
www.healthcarefinancenews.com...

The amount of businesses offering healthcare packages actually decreased by 10% between 2001-2007 because of rising costs:
ehbs.kff.org... (pages 32 & 44)

In addition to this you have millions of retirees and families who are employed by businesses who are uncovered, what about them huh? An estimated 30% of employers do not offer healthcare coverage. If healthcare corporations maximize profits by implementing conditions of coverage such as pre-existing conditions, what on earth makes you think they'll take in something like 30 million folks over the age of 65 years? Oh we'll just let them die off right?


Only 20 million - or about 7.5% -


Yep folks, just use simple mathmatics and you'll make those millions go away! But I know what you're trying to say here. Since we are talking about 5-10% of the population, it'd be safe to assume that most of those folks simply do not wish to be covered right?


The four largest health insurance companies in the US denied coverage to more than half a million individuals because of their pre-existing conditions from 2007 to 2009, according to a congressional investigation.

On average, the four companies – Aetna, Humana, UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint – denied one out of seven applicants’ coverage based on conditions such as pregnancy, angina, diabetes and heart disease.


www.ft.com...

Half a million people denied coverage just within a two year period. But hey, I can make that number go away! 500,000 of 300 million = 0.0016%

Ah who cares right? its only 0.0016%. Tough luck.



it is not a world of rainbows, butterflies, and unicorns - but it is the reality of life as you get older.


Ah yes, so we'll let millions of the elderly, poor, and those children suffer because, well, thats life right? Well I am sorry that you are so heartless at the current situation of this nation, clearly you are concerned over your own self right. Well it's ganna cost you and me buddy, it already has mind you. It costs the country $125 billion a year because of those individuals who are uninsured and this excludes medicare and medicaid costs:
www.commondreams.org...

It's costing the average american family 8% of their spending on healthcare. But you know, "butterflies, rainbows and unicorns". If you would rather fit part of the bill for the folks who had been uncovered and who have either died or are suffering as opposed to paying part of the bill to get those covered, thats your mentality.


Healthcare is very highly regulated - laws governing production of pharmaceuticals and testing criteria that prevent start-ups from challenging existing market holders.


Ah yes, so along with healthcare corporations rightfully rising up premiums, we should lift safety regulations on pharmaceuticals so we can let them run a muck. But let the corporations think in our best interests.
edit on 8-11-2010 by Southern Guardian because: fixed



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Is this last sentence from the article important?


“I want to know whether our current Medicaid enrollees, and there certainly could be millions more by 2014, could be served more cost efficiently and see better outcomes in a state run program,” she said.


To me, that makes it sound like they're not canceling medical care for the poor without any alternatives. But that instead, what this means is that they are considering withdrawing from federal Medicaid and going with a state run health care plan for the poor.

Not sure if I'm reading that correctly. My first thought was that if they cancel medicaid that there would be riots in the street. But if they're replacing it with a state run alternative instead of federal medicaid, then that would be OK. Yes? No? Not sure if that is what the last sentence meant, though. I can't imagine the state just cutting off medical care to the poor. Can you just imagine if they did that or said no more food stamps or what not?

I think this article would be a much larger deal and republicans would be getting a ton of more flack if they were actually proposing such a thing.

?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
In my job, I deal with Medicaid billing. I doubt even half the money is spent on the actual patient care. There is a lot of unnecessary government waste, with Information needing to be sent to multiple government agencies in an extremely inefficient manner for no practical purpose.

There is huge requirements for paperwork to be audited in an effort to cut down on billing fraud, but it does not eliminate it, and it literally can take half the clinicians day to fill out paperwork. The audits are actually ridiculous as well as apparently they notify you a few days before which client records they will be auditing - supposedly so you can get the paperwork ready. Some of the services that get paid for are of very dubious value as well, new agey type treatments, and I think some treatment goes on much longer than needed since the gov is picking up the tab.

So yes I have zero doubts the costs can be trimmed. With that said cutting off medicaid completely would be very unwise as taking mental patients off of their meds is a very bad idea.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
I'm definitely NOT a Republican supporter, but Rick Perry (R), Governor of Texas, has some really, really good ideas.

He's much, much better than the guy who preceeded him as Governor. Who was that again? lol (for those that don't know, it was none other than George W Bush).

In an unrelated coincidence, he's on Jon Stewart tonight, making complete sense as usual.

If more (or all) of the Washington politicians were like him and Bobby Jindhal (R) of Louisiana, I bet the USA would have far fewer problems.

If there was a Perry / Jindhal ticket in 2012, it would be a very strong contender for the Presidency.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Maybe this is a baby step in the process of Texas succeeding . Rick Perry seems to be all for it.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
WOW.

So in a nutshell, texas is saying it's most vulnerable and most precious citizens are worthless, ie: children, the largest demograhic medicaid covers. It also covers in some states one prent of said children,a nd sometimes disabled poor people.

But hey let's see how it works out.



It was those folks covered by Medicare and Medicaid, ie, the ELDERLY who have joined the Tea Party and are asking for a repeal of Obamacare. They don't care about their OWN healthcare, why should the State of Texas care about it for them?



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolstarr
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Maybe this is a baby step in the process of Texas succeeding . Rick Perry seems to be all for it.


Yup, Rick Perry has said several times that he is in favor of Texas succeeding. Chuck Norris has already said he would LOVE to be PRESIDENT of the Republic of Texas.

Of course, Chuck Norris doesn't have to ask to be President. The Presidency asks Chuck Norris if he will dignify it with his presence.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy
. The way I see it, if you have the dough to finance them, you may have them.


What about the Constitutionality of such programs?

That play any part in your decision to support them or not?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join