Connecticut: One-Fifth of Residents on Medicaid Leads to $1 Billion Deficit

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Connecticut: One-Fifth of Residents on Medicaid Leads to $1 Billion Deficit

Medicaid expansion by States is part of ObamaCare.

Connecticut decided to go early and became the first State to lower the standards and thus allowed 45,000 new Medicaid patients in 2010.

Connecticut received some federal funding as well.

Connecticut now has about 1/5 of its' population on medicaid and is projecting a $1 billion deficit by next June.

Apparently a $1.5 billion tax hike in 2011 has not helped.

Some say a massive fraud swindle is underway.

What's next ?


Despite a $1.5 billion tax hike on income, sales, corporations, and other areas in 2011, the state of Connecticut is projected to have a budget deficit that reaches $1 billion by the end of June 30, 2013.

Gov. Dannel Malloy (D), who prefers to call the projected deficit a “shortfall,” claims that increased Medicaid costs and declining revenues are the problem. The state’s enrollment of low-income adults on Medicaid has increased in two years from 45,000 to 83,000. The total number of people in Connecticut now on Medicaid is 671,550, or approximately one-fifth of the state’s total population.

Gov. Malloy took office in 2010. However, his predecessor, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell, made Connecticut the first state to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare, asserting that the federal assistance would provide increased medical benefits for low-income individuals while relieving the burden on the state’s taxpayers.....

Connecticut: One-Fifth of Residents on Medicaid Leads to $1 Billion Deficit



Proud story from June 2010....

(Updated) Connecticut became the first state in the nation Monday to permanently add 45,000 low-income adults to its Medicaid program under the new federal health reform law.

The new federal law permits states to receive federal funding for providing Medicaid coverage to adults.

Until now, Connecticut covered adults up to 68 percent of the federal poverty level, through the State Administered General Assistance program, which was funded 100 percent by state funds. The new law requires states to cover all low-income adults in Medicaid starting in 2014, but it also allows states to get federal funding to enroll them right away. ........

Connecticut Becomes First In Nation To Use New Health Law



Who got/gets rich from all this ?

What will happen to other States that already have big deficits when they increase Medicaid ?

Who pays the freight on C.O.D. ?




posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


State deficits aren't getting enough attention. We often hear the argument that the US gov should shrink, and the states take on more responsibility, but this will inevitably lead to higher state deficits.

The problem is the very structure of our government at all levels. Too many laws, too complicated. Too many government workers.

Not enough citizen involvement in what should be community tasks. Health care for example, should be community driven.

My state, NY, runs a deficit nearly a billion.

I'm really not sure what the answer is for making government efficient at all levels.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dear xuenchen,

Yes, 1/5th of the population should die so that we don't have to wait in lines to get healthcare. Yes 60% of all healthcare should be spent on boob jobs and liposuction. What a wonderful use of healthcare especially considering that medical doctors are the least likely to pay back their student loans. The only group that actually pays back their student loans is attorneys.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dear xuenchen,

Yes, 1/5th of the population should die so that we don't have to wait in lines to get healthcare. Yes 60% of all healthcare should be spent on boob jobs and liposuction. What a wonderful use of healthcare especially considering that medical doctors are the least likely to pay back their student loans. The only group that actually pays back their student loans is attorneys.


How about we make healthcare affordable? You're right, the country has to go broke and we have to go into debt every year. It's awesome how an actual issue comes up and you use a red herring because you don't want to address the real problem.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor,

Please tell me the real question and why we should wast over half our medical resources on beauty. Large breasts and small tommys. I await your answer.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor,

Please tell me the real question and why we should wast over half our medical resources on beauty. Large breasts and small tommys. I await your answer.


You may have a good point.

But I'm not sure insurance covers all those "elective" things.

Perhaps you are suggesting that those doctors who "specialize" in electives be "re-assigned" to emergency and "needed" fields ?

Maybe because of "shortages" of doctors and facilities ?



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor,

Please tell me the real question and why we should wast over half our medical resources on beauty. Large breasts and small tommys. I await your answer.


The real question is what are we going to do about a system with no cost saving measures that is going to bankrupt our country?

Show me where beauty is paid for by medicare/medicaid. It is not relevant to the topic at hand. It is their money they have the ability to spend it on frivolous things if they want. Please stick to the topic at hand and stay away from red herrings.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor,

Please tell me the real question and why we should wast over half our medical resources on beauty. Large breasts and small tommys. I await your answer.


You may have a good point.

But I'm not sure insurance covers all those "elective" things.

Perhaps you are suggesting that those doctors who "specialize" in electives be "re-assigned" to emergency and "needed" fields ?

Maybe because of "shortages" of doctors and facilities ?



Breast enhancement is not covered, it's paid out of pocket, and thus is not relevant.

If they do mean what you suggest that is beyond scary. The government telling people what they can do and who they have to work for, I can't imagine anyone would ever advocate for that. They have no point, they have used red herrings several times now and have not commented on the actual topic and issue you raised.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Dear xuenchen,

What I propose is a luxury tax on elective cosmetic surgery that would be used to pay for medical students who will commit to 5 years of doing non-cosmetic surgery; but, I don't see it happening. Happy Thanksgiving.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor04,

It is called supply and demand, not a red herring silly. Over half of all medical procedures are cosmetic which reduces what is available for real health needs and drives up the cost. Denying basic medical services to people in need is barbaric, when it is done so that people can nose jobs it is cruel.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
in almost all commercial insurance plans;

85% of all premiums go to claims
10% goes to overhead
5% goes to profit

the overhead and profit numbers are very stable and consistent

the drivers for the cost are the claims of course

that's you and me

smoking in our car in the fast food line because we don't want to go inside to get our 2,000 calorie dinner

it's not the gov't s fault, republican or democrat

it's us



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Health care in the US is a "for profit" enterprise.

www.nytimes.com...

The health care system is suffering from a disease and that disease is called greed!

Obama care had a chance but when it was turned over to the insurance companies; everybody suffers except the stockholders and executives.
edit on 22-11-2012 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
There is no solution in the system we now have in place. There are obviously too many sick people for this system to facilitate economically. I posed the question in a thread I have that "should we let the poor, homeless and hungry die"...I was only being partly facetious. In an economic system where healthcare and the right to treatment are wrapped up in a "for profit" system...there are always going to be problems when trying to be "humane" and trying to maintain a growing economic system of prosperity.



I invite you to come participate as this type of thing...healthcare, poverty, foodstamps...etc...etc...etc are all relevant to the topic.

The painful reality of greed and selfishness


In this thread over in social issues and civil unrest where I'm posing some hard questions about both political philosophies/ideologies. Not to put one over another but to try and break them down to their most basic fundamental value and show why it doesn't work. I get pretty wordy in there so forgive me...I am trying to lay the whole shooting match out...the absurdities, the hypocrisies and the flaws inherent to our systems...come share a thought.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
And whats the marvelous Conservative's and EXTREMIST Republican's plan? Their wet-dream plan for America is to eliminate everything that helps or cushions the burden of the common peasants of the country so that the super wealthy will have a reason to not have their Bush tax cuts expire.

Thats THE REAL ISSUE with the Right when it comes to Entitlements and Pensions, and Health-care. DONT LET THE RIGHT FOOL YA FOLKS, thats why they are all of a sudden concerned with debt and entitlements!! They WEREN'T CONCERNED about it before there was any discussion of letting the SUPER wealthy pay their FAIR SHARE and ending BUSH TAX CUTS.

Real nice of Conservatives and Republicans, eh? What wonderful old fellas, think of themselves while they EXPLOIT the peasants and use all of the SOCIAL SERVICES provided by the country and the peasants without having to pay their fair share in taxes TO PAY FOR IT ALL. Americas super wealthy Slave Masters who want their cake and eat it too (at our expense) while us peasants get a crumb if lucky from their "TRICKLE-DOWN" plans...



BUT, luckily AMERICA VOTED and said GET LOST Conservatives and EXTREMIST Right wingers!! TAKE A HIKE AMERICA SAID TO THEM!!


edit on 22-11-2012 by oper8zhin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by olaru12
Health care in the US is a "for profit" enterprise.




Many hospitals are non-profit organizations. Many "for profit" hospitals lose million$ every year.

Of course, the doctors, insurance companies and biotech companies are for profit and they make a crap ton of money.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor04,

It is called supply and demand, not a red herring silly. Over half of all medical procedures are cosmetic which reduces what is available for real health needs and drives up the cost. Denying basic medical services to people in need is barbaric, when it is done so that people can nose jobs it is cruel.


It is a red herring. If a Dr. goes to school so he can make women's breasts larger that is HIS business, not yours. He chooses his career, not you. Supply and demand means that if we have a shortage of Dr. and there is a demand the supply of Dr. will increase. The problem is that Obama wants more people on Medicare/Medicaid and wants to reimburse Dr. less to cover the costs. It doesn't matter if you saturate the market with Dr., all across the country Dr. are REFUSING new medicare/medicaid patients because they lose money on them.

Elective surgery has nothing to do with other healthcare needs. We might as well tax makeup, or pushup bras to pay for medicaid.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
in almost all commercial insurance plans;

85% of all premiums go to claims
10% goes to overhead
5% goes to profit

the overhead and profit numbers are very stable and consistent

the drivers for the cost are the claims of course

that's you and me

smoking in our car in the fast food line because we don't want to go inside to get our 2,000 calorie dinner

it's not the gov't s fault, republican or democrat

it's us


It's actually less.

On average just 74 cents of every premium dollar for individual coverage goes to medical care.

abcnews.go.com...

This means that by removing insurance companies and the 'overhead' (read as private jets) associated with them we can easilly remove about 20% of healthcare costs. Otherwise, I agree with you. That is also why smokers pay higher premiums.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Correct. The majority of Cosmetic surgery is a cash business. It doesn't use medicaid, medicare or insurance funds. There are some exceptions, like if you get disfigured due to an accident or are born with serious cosmetic defects.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor04,



It is a red herring. If a Dr. goes to school so he can make women's breasts larger that is HIS business, not yours. He chooses his career, not you. Supply and demand means that if we have a shortage of Dr. and there is a demand the supply of Dr. will increase. The problem is that Obama wants more people on Medicare/Medicaid and wants to reimburse Dr. less to cover the costs. It doesn't matter if you saturate the market with Dr., all across the country Dr. are REFUSING new medicare/medicaid patients because they lose money on them.


There is a problem with your statements, we, taxpayers pay lots and lots so that he can go to school. It should also be noted that medical doctors are the least likely to pay back their school loans. Attorneys are the ones most likely to and if they do not, they can be denied taking the bar. If you wish your taxes to pay for schools that teach people how to do breast implants, power to you. I prefer to pay schools to teach people how to keep us healthy and make us better. This has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with how we structure society so that all can get basic healthcare which apparently you are against.



posted on Nov, 22 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Dear OccamsRazor04,



It is a red herring. If a Dr. goes to school so he can make women's breasts larger that is HIS business, not yours. He chooses his career, not you. Supply and demand means that if we have a shortage of Dr. and there is a demand the supply of Dr. will increase. The problem is that Obama wants more people on Medicare/Medicaid and wants to reimburse Dr. less to cover the costs. It doesn't matter if you saturate the market with Dr., all across the country Dr. are REFUSING new medicare/medicaid patients because they lose money on them.


There is a problem with your statements, we, taxpayers pay lots and lots so that he can go to school. It should also be noted that medical doctors are the least likely to pay back their school loans. Attorneys are the ones most likely to and if they do not, they can be denied taking the bar. If you wish your taxes to pay for schools that teach people how to do breast implants, power to you. I prefer to pay schools to teach people how to keep us healthy and make us better. This has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with how we structure society so that all can get basic healthcare which apparently you are against.


Another red herring. I do not like YOUR plan so I must be against healthcare. You haven't gotten away from logical falacies since your first post. If we have a problem with Dr. repaying loans let's address that, another red herring and it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Can you please cite that, I have heard that before, but have never once seen any factual statistics. So please cite that Dr. do not repay loans or stop saying it (please only include actual loan defaults and not loan forgiveness).





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join