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.
It is about opposing an unaffordable entitlement program. Under Obama-care Medicaid will be expanded but the feds are not going to pay for this expansion and are dumping it onto the states.
Overall, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government will finance the vast majority, approximately 96 percent, of the increase in Medicaid coverage attribuTable to the health reform legislation over the next ten years.
Quote:
Initially, the federal government will finance the full cost of covering most of these “newly-eligible” Medicaid beneficiaries.In later years, the federal matching rate will decline slightly, but still will remain well above the regular Medicaid matching rate at 90 percent.Specifically, for calendar years 2014 through 2016, the federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of newly-eligible adults up to 133 percent of the FPL. In 2017, the matching rate will be 95 percent; in 2018, it will be 94 percent; in 2019, it will be 93 percent; and in 2020 and future years, it will be 90 percent. (See Table 1.)
This enhanced matching rate for newly eligible beneficiaries is limited to adults ages 19 (or a higher age if a state has opted to cover older children) and up to age 65. It also is restricted to people who were not eligible for Medicaid as of December 1, 2009, including under a Medicaid waiver. (If the waiver only covered a limited benefit package or capped enrollment, a state may be able to treat the adult as newly eligible and qualify for the much higher newly eligible matching rate.)
From the Supreme Court ruling (can be found at supremecourt.gov, page 52):
Quote:
The Affordable Care Act provides that the Federal Government will pay 100 percent of the costs of covering these newly eligible individuals through 2016. §1396d(y)(1). In the following years, the federal payment level gradually decreases, to a minimum of 90 percent.
What's difference between Obamacare and the mandated insurance Romney imposed in Mass? I don't get it.
Romney's going to have a tough time with that. Telling us states are different is bullcrap. Stealing from those who have to give to those who don't is still stealing.
I don't think Romney can overcome the healthcare obstacle. I'm hard core conservative, and I'm not buying it.
Despite the report’s somewhat breathless tone, it’s actually old news that Mitt Romney’s health-care experts helped design Obamacare. Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who was the architect of both laws, received nearly $400,000 as a consultant to the Obama administration for “technical assistance in evaluating options for national healthcare reform.” (Gruber frequently failed to mention this fact when opining on the bill in the press.)
Quote:
Gruber, for his part, has said all along that Romneycare and Obamacare are “basically…the same thing.” Gruber told the Boston Globe in March 2010 that Obamacare would never have passed had Romney not made “the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.”
Prove it. Show us the numbers instead of just making stuff up. I guess you forgot about the $1.3 TRILLION in pension plans the States owe their union employees, or are you going to ignore that?
Correcting silliness...
Mircea
Actually, I'm itching to research this although I'm not a number cruncher. I suspect these are largely states in which the working poor not only bear regressive state and local tax burdens (think Alabama), but also subsidize through their tax dollars healthcare for middle class and rich residents of their state.
So my question specifically, is: How much Medicaid expansion could these states afford by specifically taxing the currently untaxed health insurance benefits of state residents? I don't know, but I'm confident the answer is "greater than zero" and I'll try to quantify it.
And as someone who has never had a retirement plan at work, I'd be happy to knock down those inflated State pensions a peg or two if I could.
Actually, I'm itching to research this although I'm not a number cruncher. I suspect these are largely states in which the working poor not only bear regressive state and local tax burdens (think Alabama), but also subsidize through their tax dollars healthcare for middle class and rich residents of their state.
So my question specifically, is: How much Medicaid expansion could these states afford by specifically taxing the currently untaxed health insurance benefits of state residents? I don't know, but I'm confident the answer is "greater than zero" and I'll try to quantify it.
And as someone who has never had a retirement plan at work, I'd be happy to knock down those inflated State pensions a peg or two if I could.
You have states that have no state income tax.
The Fed is now going to collect taxes for those cadillac plans.
Health insurance benefits are benefits offered by companies to attract and retain workers.
Companies subsidize the cost.
Now you will have government subsidizing the cost for those that don't have employer sponsored health insurance.
Now you have fairness. So why do you want to continue taxing ?
Everyone will now have subsidized health insurance. The subsidy will either be paid by your employer or your government.
The POOR are already covered under medicaid. This "expansion" is redefining who is poor now.
They weren't poor before Obamacare but they are poor now ?
These people can get subsidized insurance in Obamacare.
And..these people who weren't poor before but are now are only poor enough for "free" health insurance ?
(scratching head) Accuracy FAIL. There are only six states where poor childless adults are covered under medicaid equivalent to the benefits available to poor parents. Romneycare covers childless adults up to 133% of poverty level and socialist Vermont covers them up to 150% of poverty level, the other four states cover childless adults up to 100% of poverty level.
In 21 states, poor childless adults are eligible for "More Limited Benefit Package". Michigan's more limited package, historically called "GA Medical" covers childless adults up to 35% of poverty level; Michigan ended its General Assistance cash program in 1991 so I don't know what their medical program is called now. There are also millions of near-poor childless adults who do not qualify (e.g. burger flippers). The Obamacare medicaid expansion is intended to cover childless adults not covered under current medicaid rules, up to 133% of poverty level.
I thought we couldn't afford medicare?? Bringing 17 million more on medicaid is really going to bankrupt us quickly. tax and spend and spread the wealth around to where we are all poor and the rich move out of the United States before all their money is gone.
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.
