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.
In any event, prior fed funding for uncompensated healthcare (ie, ERs) is being phased out. Losing that funding plus not accepting expanded Medicaid planned to replace it as well as providing additional revenue means that Texas is losing a huge amount of money for healthcare. Each year.
Thus ever-increasing premiums for those who are enrolled in health plans to make up those losses.
Nothing to me though, I don't live in Texas.
Other states as well as Texas refused to expand medicaid.
And several of those states that did expand medicaid are now having budget issues.
Americans are going to be in for a world of hurt in the next 5-8 years as all these government funding programs come to a head. Medicare, medicaid, SS, SSDI all have funding issues that are being kicked down the road with temporary bandaids to deal with later.
Americans are going to be in for a world of hurt in the next 5-8 years as all these government funding programs come to a head. Medicare, medicaid, SS, SSDI all have funding issues that are being kicked down the road with temporary bandaids to deal with later.
Medicare will still be around. Too many people are on it. its lobby is too strong and powerful. SS has no real problems, a very simple change would cure its perceived shortfall.
The US will have no choice but to implement a variation of Medicare for everyone else in the next few years though.
As far as Texas is concerned, only an idiot would turn down free money.
Medicare will still be around. Too many people are on it. its lobby is too strong and powerful. SS has no real problems, a very simple change would cure its perceived shortfall.
The US will have no choice but to implement a variation of Medicare for everyone else in the next few years though.
As far as Texas is concerned, only an idiot would turn down free money.
I see either means testing or asset testing.
Seeing SS and medicare are for retired people I think asset testing is preferable.
NOTHING is free. There is no "free money". That's taxpayer money which the USG has taken from us or borrowed from the Fed Reserve which we have to pay back.
I see either means testing or asset testing.
Seeing SS and medicare are for retired people I think asset testing is preferable.
NOTHING is free. There is no "free money". That's taxpayer money which the USG has taken from us or borrowed from the Fed Reserve which we have to pay back.
True, nothing is free. But in taking the money, it wouldn't have come out of the state budget or the pockets of those currently enrolled in health plans in the state. Like I wrote, its a Texas problem.
True, nothing is free. But in taking the money, it wouldn't have come out of the state budget or the pockets of those currently enrolled in health plans in the state. Like I wrote, its a Texas problem.
And that's the part I don't understand. It's supposed to be 100% funded by the FedGov for a few years.
But states must have been on the hook for something because they are having budget problems because they underestimated how many would sign up for expanded medicaid.
And that's the part I don't understand. It's supposed to be 100% funded by the FedGov for a few years. But states must have been on the hook for something because they are having budget problems because they underestimated how many would sign up for expanded medicaid.
Right now the feds are paying 100% of expanded medicaid, that will reduce slightly each year and in 2020 and all years after the most they will have to pay is 10%. I don't buy the story about how it will hurt their budget, I think it's purely a political pander to get themselves re-elected by constituents who hate welfare or any social service programs unless they are the ones receiving it.
I remember you mentioned this issue before, and I'm sorry but it's been awhile, it had something to do with not being able to get a policy that was valid in two states right? But what I don't recall is whether you couldn't get one, or if it was too costly. I think this was in Texas...did you try BCBS? I know they have multi-state plans because I have a friend who has one: Multi-State Plan | Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas
Thanks for trying to help. BCBS is who I currently have. They offered multi state plans in 2015, but canceled them in my zip code for 2016. I have no idea why my zip code is affected this way - it's not like I live in some weird place or live in a county with more than the average old or sick people that I can tell.
I'm comparing other plans (all of which are more expensive, but it may be worth it to have a multi state plan) now. We're going to get hosed any way we cut it.
Thanks for trying to help. BCBS is who I currently have. They offered multi state plans in 2015, but canceled them in my zip code for 2016.
I'm comparing other plans (all of which are more expensive, but it may be worth it to have a multi state plan) now. We're going to get hosed any way we cut it.
That sucks, so sorry to hear it. From what I hear Texas refuses to review plan rates and leaves it up the HHS to do it. In California the State reviews the rates and is pretty good at making sure rates are competitive and that companies serve most of the states population.
True, nothing is free. But in taking the money, it wouldn't have come out of the state budget or the pockets of those currently enrolled in health plans in the state. Like I wrote, its a Texas problem.
Here's what I don't understand.
OK - Texas doesn't take "free money" from the FG for expanding Medicaid. So fewer people are on Medicaid. But many of those can sign up for subsidies via Obamacare but some can't. So they just do like lots of poor people do, and have always done, and go to the ER when they're sick and then they just don't pay the bill. So the hospitals get stuck, like they always have by some people.
But the hospitals are NOT "getting stuck" by other people who now have insurance, since supposedly more people than ever have insurance, right? So shouldn't that be sort of a trade off?
Meanwhile, I'm paying my insurance, rarely go to the doctor, and if I do, I pay my bills. And boy are my bills high. SKY HIGH. I'm smart enough to figure this out - I'm paying for myself and for other people. "Hey, we got a live one over here - she'll pay! Stick it to her!"
So how come my premiums are going sky high? Insurance companies aren't stuck with bills that the uninsured don't pay. Supposedly more people than ever carry insurance now. Many people who don't qualify for Medicaid DO qualify for subsidized insurance. So why are my premiums going up due to limited Medicaid? I don't see how the two tie in together.
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.
