Part of the Affordable Care Act was a Medicaid expansion to provide coverage to low-income families and upon Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Federal Government is also funding the expansion for states implementing the law until 2022 to the tune of $931 billion while states only need to pay an additional 7 percent. Yet, idiots like Rick Perry and Rick Scott have decided they will refuse the government money, refuse to implement the law and leave an estimated 2.3 million Americans in Texas and Florida uninsured.
This is yet another, blatant example of how Republicans don't give a second thought to anyone not in their political and financial circles. They don't care about the working class. They don't care about seniors. How much more evidence do people need of who is on their side and who clearly is not?!
Rick Perry was shooting off his mouth to Fox News on Monday calling Medicaid a "failed program." Perhaps Perry should stick to shooting opossums and deer at his "N-head" ranch in Texas and leave the big decisions to the big boys.
Will the underprivileged have to pay the penalty for not having health insurance coverage because their state doesn't offer it? A double-penalty for the low-income families already struggling. Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.
What else are these southern gun-slinging, fetus-loving, senior-hating Republican governors going to do next? Try to outlaw abortion in their states? Attempt to ban all gays from residing in their states? Allow unemployed people to die at hospital doorsteps?
It is shocking that Governors of some of the poorest states in the nation are considering blocking federally mandated medicaid expansions to their citizens. Not very "Christian-like" is it?
Image Source: AP
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 49 ( 1 removed by Lora Covrett )
States are having a tough time staying on budget now. This new program becomes an unfunded mandate in a few years.
Greece is the word.
Perhaps there are some budget items in these states which are not so important to people's health and lives that could be sacrificed.
Perhaps the money coming into the state to fund these medical treatments will increase the income of the people of the state to more than make up for the increase in the state budget. (Each dollar spent circulates (on average) for a while increasing the income of several state residents before leaving the state. Those incomes are taxed by the state in various ways.)
M Thatcher
But you have a "half-white" black man show up at their door with their daughter and watch how quickly he becomes all black in their eyes.
R.F. Why do you always play the race card when you cant make a strong argument?
I won't.
If you believe getting elected is a sign of intelligence, when were you born? Yesterday?
George W. Bush. Sarah Palin. Dan Quayle.
The list is longer, but that's enough to prove my point. (And, yes, they are all Republicans.)
George W. Bush. Sarah Palin. Dan Quayle.
The list is longer, but that's enough to prove my point. (And, yes, they are all Republicans.)
By definition, politicians in American get elected, both Dems and Reps. Singling out ONLY ONE group does NOT prove your point. It only shows that you are biased because you are implying that all Dems are intelligent and all Reps are not. There are dumb Reps and there are dumb Dems. Ditto with intelligence, which many here, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE, seem to be lacking.
That they were all Republicans is more than mere coincidence. Not that there are no dumb Democrats. But it is harder to get elected as a dumb Democrat because progressive voters value intelligence more highly. Conservative voters are more likely to overlook stupidity if the candidate professes uber-patriotism, certain brands of Christianity or tells them they can have another tax cut.
Haaaaaaaa! Ahhhhh...Haaaaaaaaaaaa!
all three have vowed to put cameras in every functioning womb in their states.
It's called being a good Evangelical Christian.
Did you not know that all Evangelicals Christians have become Church certified Pregnancy Police and thereby have an appointed religious mandate to assert control over a womans reproductive organs.
Such invasion of one's privacy used to be referred to as the Peeping Tom Syndrome, today, it's called The Evangelical Oversight.
How viable will the Affordable Care Act [ACA] remain, in the future, if the 26 states, who challenged the Law in the lower courts, all opt out of expanded medicaid coverage, as the result of the Supreme Court ruling?
If there are a significant number who fall through the safety net and have no coverage, how much could this eventually translate into needless deaths, much less an excessive burden of costs, against the CBO predictions of ACA eventually winding up as a money saver.
So, therefore, with regard to Chief Justice Roberts's triumphant ruling:
I say, not so fast.
Not only did the Chief Justice make his favorable decision politically volatile--by designating the mandate as a legal tax. But he certainly helped to drive the decision, by SCOTUS, to strike down States' obligation to accept expanded Medicaid coverage, thereby sabotaging, potentially, at least part of ACA's viability.
But when they turned 65, the ins company wouldn't pay for anything unless they too Medicare B out. It is costing them right at $1500 more a year to have ins with Medicare. It shouldn't be mandated by the gov or ins that they take that when they turn 65. We are in worse shape financially after taking the gov program.
It sounds like they need to sit down with an insurance advisor and cut through all the red tape: some of these things sound remarkably redundant.
My friends your parents age are not dealing with all that stuff.
This is not counting our co-pays, deductibles, or meds. That is probably another 12 to 15K a year.
I think this issue is blown out of proportion -- by providers and insurance companies. The government looks like the bad guy, but they are not. They are trying to force these two to be civil.
Insurance companies are robbing us blind. Providers jack the prices up so they can negotiate down with the insurance company; thereby getting what they really wanted all along...and then charging the patient (you and me) the additional amount (in the form of copays) that probably all goes to exec bonuses.
I have one med alone that would be over $50k a year if I didn't have ins - and this is just for 6 shots a year.
I have 19 differnet diagnoses and in Jan I was taking 48 pills a day. And I just turned 34. I have had 13 hospital stays (112 days) in the hospital is less than 3 years. I understand the amount I pay - actually my mother pays. I am a class 2 dependant on her ins.
My son will not be able to be be insured untill he is 18 because of the no "child only" polcies. Thankfully he was insured before this law was issued. The only way he can have ins is for me to sign over my rights to my mother or place him on government programs. If I have (adopt) another child, s/he will have to go on Medicaid to be covered. I don't want to do that.
I have family members that were denied treatment because the dr didn't accept Medicaid - my aunt and uncle both died because treatment was denied (cancer treatment for my aunt and heart surgery for my uncle).
When I went to a new dr, the first question the office asked me was if I had health ins. They wouldn't take anyone without ins, wouldn't take medicaid either (though they would take Medicare for seniors). My son's ped won't accept Medicaid or PeachCare either. This worries me because I am planning to adopt soon and this child will not be able to see the same ped as my son.
But for my son, we pay more in ins premiums than his 1 or 2 dr visits per year. His premiums are $1620 a year, yet 1 office visit is less than $200. On a bad year (though he is only 4) we may go 3 times.
I should have said if I change his ins. I tried to change the policy to another deductible and I was told that it couldn't be done as he was "grandfathered" into that policy and to change anything we would essentially have to cancel that policy and write another - which now couldn't be done because of the law.