Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow. how could you be so irresponsible? not providing yourself with health insurance? wow, just wow. we seem to have a form of single payer now. you couldn't afford it before. so now I pay more, to make it more affordable for you. I am the single payer.
Not irresponsible, priced out of the market. I'm self-employed and make too much to be eligible for Medicaid, but had no group rate like people who get their subsidized insurance through employers. In effect, I've been paying to make your subsidized insurance more affordable for you for years. That was okay with you, right?
There are millions of us independent contractors out here who had no access to insurance we could afford before the ACA. The exchanges have been a godsend to the many responsible Americans who wanted to purchase insurance but had no way to do it.
I pay my premium every month, just like you do. To you, that makes me a mooch. But that says more about you than it does about me.
" But on the plus side, I and millions of other Americans who were uninsured now have health insurance."
When Obama and the dems ere pushing to get ACA passed the claimed 30 million, sometimes they said 40 million and 50 million, were without insurance.
TODAY the CBO says that in the end there will 30 million WITHOUT insurance.
Net gain ZERO. So, what is the point? Unless you don't care about the new 30 million.
Most of those 30 million live in states where the GOP governors and/or GOP-controlled Legislatures refused to expand medicaid or establish exchanges. They refused for purely political partisan reasons.
Yet the Right continues to blame Obama for it. One can only be amazed...and disgusted.
How dare those governers protect the residents of their states from having to bear the financial burden of an expanded medicaid program? So irresponsible of them!
How dare those governers protect the residents of their states from having to bear the financial burden of an expanded medicaid program? So irresponsible of them!
Yeah, especially since it wouldn't cost the states a single penny to provide coverage to millions of their uninsured residents for the first three years. Zero. Yeah, such a "financial burden" zero is.
Think of all of those people who will get sick and/or die over the next three years when they could have gotten care at zero cost to the state. Not that you will lose any sleep over "those people," right?
And after that, when the states will be expected to pick up a small percent of the cost, it will still be cost effective for the states compared to the costs incurred by not covering all these uninsured. In effect, it is financially irresponsible of states NOT to expand Medicaid.
These governors are denying their constituents healthcare coverage for purely political reasons. It's completely unconscionable. But the right applauds it because it denies people they consider unworthy of healthcare from receiving it. Which makes them equally unconscionable.
Yeah, especially since it wouldn't cost the states a single penny to provide coverage to millions of their uninsured residents for the first three years. Zero. Yeah, such a "financial burden" zero is.
Think of all of those people who will get sick and/or die over the next three years when they could have gotten care at zero cost to the state. Not that you will lose any sleep over "those people," right?
And after that, when the states will be expected to pick up a small percent of the cost, it will still be cost effective for the states compared to the costs incurred by not covering all these uninsured. In effect, it is financially irresponsible of states NOT to expand Medicaid.
These governors are denying their constituents healthcare coverage for purely political reasons. It's completely unconscionable. But the right applauds it because it denies people they consider unworthy of healthcare from receiving it. Which makes them equally unconscionable.
After 3 years the states are on the hook to continue the program.
How dare those governers protect the residents of their states from having to bear the financial burden of an expanded medicaid program? So irresponsible of them!
Because that most likely won't happen. States typically cannot afford the HC for their people. Thus central supports, and these will most likely to continue after the current Medicaid expansion. Those states that decided against expansion now will most likely see some worsening HC scores in the years ahead.
After 3 years the states are on the hook to continue the program.
No, after three years the states are responsible for small percentage of the cost of the program. And think of the millions of people who can be helped right now.
But it's obvious you didn't read the rest of my post past the first paragraph. You didn't read the CBO report I linked that shows how expanding Medicaid actually saves states money in the long run. I understand why you didn't--can't have any facts mess up the right wing talking points you have been fed. Whatever you do, don't educate yourself beyond what you've been told--it might make you actually think. Scary, scary idea, having to think for yourself...
Because that most likely won't happen. States typically cannot afford the HC for their people. Thus central supports, and these will most likely to continue after the current Medicaid expansion. Those states that decided against expansion now will most likely see some worsening HC scores in the years ahead.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicaid expansion will add very little to what states would have spent on Medicaid without health reform, while providing health coverage to 17 million more low-income adults and children. In addition, the Medicaid expansion will reduce state and local government costs for uncompensated care and other services they provide to the uninsured, which will offset at least some — and in a number of states, possibly all or more than all — of the modest increase in state Medicaid costs. Expanding Medicaid is thus a very favorable financial deal for states.
There are no financial reasons not to expand Medicaid. It's all purely political posturing. Millions will suffer for nothing, which is just fine with the rightwingers, because "those people" who would benefit are not worthy of healthcare anyway.
We were surprised and fortunate IMO that we here in AZ expanded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
