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.
The cost of Medicaid is an issue but how will the people living above the threshold for Medicaid but below the income threshold for ACA get health care not presently available. Meanwhile almost all republican controlled states refused Medicaid Expansion to cover this segment of the uninsured poor.
Quote:
Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have
declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance
program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are
impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay
for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later
years.
People living below the poverty level do get medicaid.
This expansion, which states must take over financially is for those above the poverty line.
The expansion is for those with incomes up to 138% FPL
1. Not everybody under the FPL is Medicaid-eligible. In fact, most people aren't.
2. It's a misunderstanding that states bear all of the costs of the expansion. It is still a fund-matching program, with contributions by both the state and federal governments. The plan was that the federal government would cover 100% of the expansion costs for the first three years, then 90% until 2020. After that, the regular matching formula applies. It is not just being dumped on the states to fund.
In my opinion, states that rejected the expansion are shooting themselves, and the country, in the foot. The taxpayers will continue to pay for write-off of healthcare costs incurred by the poorest (and often sickest) citizens, but with no control or oversight that Medicaid expansion would provide. It looks good on the surface, politically, to reject the expansion in red states...but it's a stupid and costly move.
Last edited by Slithytoves; 10-21-2013 at 07:45 PM..
The cost of Medicaid is an issue but how will the people living above the threshold for Medicaid but below the income threshold for ACA get health care not presently available. Meanwhile almost all republican controlled states refused Medicaid Expansion to cover this segment of the uninsured poor.
They will continue to go to Hospital emergency rooms for their healthcare.
There's a reason the Feds are slo-mo dumping Medicaid on the states: eventually all those boomers are going to be drained of cash in their nursing homes and will end up on Medicaid.
The cost of Medicaid is an issue but how will the people living above the threshold for Medicaid but below the income threshold for ACA get health care not presently available. Meanwhile almost all republican controlled states refused Medicaid Expansion to cover this segment of the uninsured poor.
They buy health insurance, the same way they always have.
The expansion of Medicaid is to cover the people you are talking about, that is what the new guidelines are.
The "coverage Gap" is the states that choose not to expand medicaid.
I know. I was responding to HappyTexan's assertion that people under the FPL already get Medicaid. It's a common misconception that it's already available to everybody in that group, and a flawed argument against making changes.
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.
