Trump's Medicaid per-capita spending caps would preserve Medicaid in rural states, gut it in California and New York (legal, health care)

[lovecrowds]

https://www.aei.org/articles/on-heal...ay-small-ball/

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/pol...ollees-hanging

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/sta...2:%22asc%22%7D

I love the "per-capita spending caps" that Republicans and President Trump want.

I am really liking how Republicans are intentionally and brilliantly crafting legislation to benefit their states with the equivilent of pork-barrel spending so they don't lose votes, but doing all they can to save money by making things difficult for largely populated who don't support the "Make America Great Again" platform.

"per-capita spending caps" would either bankrupt or render Medicaid useless in states like California and NY. While states that vote Trump would be rewarded and not feel a thing.

Hopefully, after the election of President Trump in 2020, they do the per-capita spending caps which would virtually cause Medi-Cal to fall apart while preserving a strong Medicaid system and rewarding states who voted for Trump.

It is a perfect set-up to preserve Medicaid and even expand it in states that voted for Trump while eliminating it in places like California, Oregon, New York.

Because of the high percentage of the population on Medi-Cal in California and the cost of health care which for hospitalization is double the cost of Iowa, Wyoming and South Dakota and more than the triple the cost of Montana the Medi-Cal program in California might cease to exist.

I am all for a very strong Medicaid program for states with discipline in controlling medical and hospital costs like in Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana and Iowa.

[Malloric]

California spends less per enrollee than Wyoming.
https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-i...2:%22asc%22%7D

Mostly it's just going to come down to number on the welfare doles per capital which in large part is just a backhanded way to get rid of ObamaCare expanded coverage by executive action.

California has 10,344,000 on Medicaid and 39,750,000 population or roughly 25 percent of the state. Wyoming has 49,000 and population of which is less than 10 percent of the population. Large part of that is they aren't expanded. West Virginia has the same 25 percent that California does. Montana is slightly lower than California as they are expanded as well. Not enough to offset that Montana spends more per enrollee than California though.

Overall it would hurt Montana more than California but it's really just splitting hairs. It is just a rollback on expanded coverage I reality. But then to a large part it's just squeezing the same air around to different parts of the balloon. A dollar is a dollar whether it's paid out through Medicaid or paid to hospitals for indigent care so you'd have to keep that in mind. I don't really know but my guess would be that the increases in Medicaid spending in states that expanded coverage cost more than the savings in indigent care.

[Hammer Time]

NYS is facing a $6 billion budget deficit this year. $3.9 billion is from a medicare shortfall. Emperor Cuomo calls it a manageable deficit.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by lovecrowds

https://www.aei.org/articles/on-heal...ay-small-ball/

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/pol...ollees-hanging

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/sta...2:%22asc%22%7D

I love the "per-capita spending caps" that Republicans and President Trump want.

I am really liking how Republicans are intentionally and brilliantly crafting legislation to benefit their states with the equivilent of pork-barrel spending so they don't lose votes, but doing all they can to save money by making things difficult for largely populated who don't support the "Make America Great Again" platform.

"per-capita spending caps" would either bankrupt or render Medicaid useless in states like California and NY. While states that vote Trump would be rewarded and not feel a thing.

Hopefully, after the election of President Trump in 2020, they do the per-capita spending caps which would virtually cause Medi-Cal to fall apart while preserving a strong Medicaid system and rewarding states who voted for Trump.

It is a perfect set-up to preserve Medicaid and even expand it in states that voted for Trump while eliminating it in places like California, Oregon, New York.

Because of the high percentage of the population on Medi-Cal in California and the cost of health care which for hospitalization is double the cost of Iowa, Wyoming and South Dakota and more than the triple the cost of Montana the Medi-Cal program in California might cease to exist.

I am all for a very strong Medicaid program for states with discipline in controlling medical and hospital costs like in Wyoming, West Virginia, Montana and Iowa.

Why is this a problem? Why should some states receive 3-2x the payment for providing the same service? It's time to level the playing field for all states. And it's past time for providers to figure out how to lower costs. Good to see some pressure to reign in the greed of the medical industry.

Oh yeah-California. The state that forces health care providers to provide care for criminal aliens-and then passes the cost on to every other legal user of those services.