[harry chickpea]

As I mentioned before, the Feds will put in money at first, but then want the state to take over funding. Think of it like a Dish Network contract, where you pay little the first year, then your first born the next year.

[Tourian]

Well then if thats the case our legislation should use that year to rebalance the budget so that the state can bear the cost. That is if getting healthcare to all its citizens under this new law is a high enough priority.

[harry chickpea]

I understand your point of view. Seen one way, that is humanitarian. Looked at from a different perspective it would be a setup for failure and higher taxation to support a system that is so broken that only a major change can cure it. IMO, over the long term, fixing the system will save more lives and cost less.

I don't particularly care for the immediate effects of the governor's decision, and I don't particularly care for him compared to our previous governor, but I have to admit that his decision was a fiscally sound one.

[artstarvedinar]

Those 300,000+ folks may be poor, but they have a vote just like anyone else. I hope they get a chance to use it. The Gov. is wrong on this one IMHO, but at least he and his buds will have a good time at the new convention center in Gulf Shores one day. THAT is what he considers his crowning achievement. Pathetic.

[Tourian]

Ok so Archibald writes a column claiming that UAB study says Medicaid expansion would bring 30k jobs and 1.3B in earnings and that it would pump 20b into the economy over the next 7 years that would cover the program costs.

so why not? Is this study flawed? Is there a valid reason to still say no to this or is it just partisan politics as usual?

[harry chickpea]

I suspect it falls under the old adage - "figures lie and liars figure." That said, it is no worse than the way business strives for short term profits over long term sustainability, often at the cost of an eventual bankruptcy.

Relying on future dollars to provide current day services made some sense when the U.S. far outstripped most of the world in industrial capacity, was building infrastructure, and projections showed continued growth. We then shipped income producing machinery and income producing work offshore. The chances of the general population creating enough real value to continue to support such profligate spending is slim. Yes, 5% or so of the U.S. population will do quite well in controlling money flow, but controlling wealth is not creating real wealth. Alabama's balanced budget now and in the future will save it in hard times. In other words, a swimmer gleefully accepting a long term anchor around the neck being held afloat by short term balloons that will deflate over time is not a prudent course of action.

The very concept of a major city in bankruptcy was impossible even a few years ago. Detroit is just a beginning of what I see as a trend in government. However, even while we all see that debacle, it is still more politically savvy to give people stuff they won't be able to afford in a few years, and let the next guy deal with the fallout.

At some point in the future, I see KK&R branching out into taking over bloated and failing cities and states, just like they have done with businesses.

[Tourian]

I do not see UABs motive for twisting the numbers. Opponents of the ACA insist that doctors will go broke and the system will fail because of so many freeloaders. Why then would a medical system want to lie to support a system that helps so many "freeloaders?" Its profit margins would be at stake.

[riponkhan]

I have a high deductible Humans policy, so I know that chances of my collecting on it are slim, and I pay out of pocket on all my medical. I went to a diagnostic center affiliated w/ the local hospital, figuring that even though I would pay a little more there, the "allowable" billing on my insurance would knock it down to a reasonable level.

[GreggT]

Originally Posted by harry chickpea

Was looking up some other stuff, found a link to what I was referencing. It wasn't in a "textbook" but in something called a "newspaper." You do know what those are, I trust? :
Bentley: No insurance exchange, Medicaid expansion | GadsdenTimes.com


Tuesday, November 13, 2012
MONTGOMERY — Gov. Robert Bentley on Tuesday said Alabama will not create a state insurance exchange under the federal health care law, nor will it expand Medicaid as it currently exists.

Bentley, speaking in Birmingham, said both options are too expensive. “I am not going to set up a state-based exchange that will create a tax burden of up to $50 million on the people of Alabama,” he said.

...

He also said he won’t expand Medicaid “under the current structure that exists” because Alabama “simply cannot afford it.”

Bentley established a commission to reform current Medicaid financing and delivery. The Legislature also has a reform committee.

Medicaid will cost the state $600 million this year and will require at least another $100 million next fiscal year if not changed.

...

Carnes said at least 350,000 more Alabamians would have been able to enroll in an expanded Medicaid, a joint state-federal medical coverage plan.



So... if you disagree, rather than flailing at the messenger, please research before you type, or take it up with the gov.

Just what does your post have to do with the state run BC/BS administered AHIP program? You keep going back to Medicaid but AHIP = Bananas, Medicaid= Walnuts, no relation!

[harry chickpea]

I keep going back to Medicaid because that is directly related to the topic of the thread.