Soaring Medicaid enrollment could hit state budgets

[jkapp]

Remember how all the liberals and democrats chided the GOP governors who didn't expand Medicaid?

www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/soaring-medicaid-enrollment-could-hit-state-budgets/ar-BBjWWk2

Under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, enrollment in the program is soaring past expectations in a handful of states, raising some concerns about whether states will have trouble covering the costs down the road.

So far, some 12 million people have enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion—with most states that expanded their program seeing sign-ups significantly surpass their expectations. At least seven states saw massive waves in enrollment totaling about 1.4 million more people than originally estimated, Politico first reported.

...They’ve been criticized by Obamacare proponents who chide them for leaving federal funding on the table—especially in the first two years. Wisconsin Democrats released a study last month claiming opting out of Medicaid expansion would save the state $400 million over two years. Now as other states Medicaid rolls grow, there is concern that it could cost those states more than anticipated after 2016 when they are on the hook for paying 10 percent.

I mean, come on, who would have guessed people would clamor to sign up for free healthcare?

[mroped]

The law made it possible for more to enroll through Medicaid. Many of those that enroll didn't have any kind of insurance which means ER was the medical care of choice and would let the state on the hook for the expense of as in many cases lose all they had. Bankruptcy was quiet common in such cases.
Now, being enrolled through Medicaid, at least let's hope that they would have the decency to go and check their problems before they escalate and cost the state an arm and a leg.
Savings will be on the long run but for now, the state's have to pony up!

[djAdvocate]

so wait, the states are getting a 90% subsidy, and complaining?

[zibazinski]

Does anyone actually know a doctor who takes Medicaid? Even doc in the boxes don't. DD is forced along with her classmates to provide free care in the near future while she is in school. After that? Not happening.

[zibazinski]

So you can sogn up for something all you want but what good will it do you?

[EVT1]

May 19, 2015 18:40:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Does anyone actually know a doctor who takes Medicaid? Even doc in the boxes don't. DD is forced along with her classmates to provide free care in the near future while she is in school. After that? Not happening.

So then there is no problem then is there

Since no doctors take Medicaid what is all of the whining about?

[zibazinski]

I'm not whining but signing a ton of people up with no one who takes their insurance does not fix the so-called problem.

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2015 5:58:32 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I'm not whining but signing a ton of people up with no one who takes their insurance does not fix the so-called problem.

letting them just show up at emergency rooms without paying doesn't, either- but it has been the law since 1986.

[weltschmerz]

May 19, 2015 18:15:48 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Remember how all the liberals and democrats chided the GOP governors who didn't expand Medicaid?

www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/soaring-medicaid-enrollment-could-hit-state-budgets/ar-BBjWWk2

Under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, enrollment in the program is soaring past expectations in a handful of states, raising some concerns about whether states will have trouble covering the costs down the road.

So far, some 12 million people have enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion—with most states that expanded their program seeing sign-ups significantly surpass their expectations. At least seven states saw massive waves in enrollment totaling about 1.4 million more people than originally estimated, Politico first reported.

...They’ve been criticized by Obamacare proponents who chide them for leaving federal funding on the table—especially in the first two years. Wisconsin Democrats released a study last month claiming opting out of Medicaid expansion would save the state $400 million over two years. Now as other states Medicaid rolls grow, there is concern that it could cost those states more than anticipated after 2016 when they are on the hook for paying 10 percent.

I mean, come on, who would have guessed people would clamor to sign up for free healthcare?

Damn right! The poor should just be allowed to die!

Oooh, maybe you could have "fights to the death", televised. The winner gets healthcare.

Think of the ad revenue!

[swamp]

May 19, 2015 18:40:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Does anyone actually know a doctor who takes Medicaid? Even doc in the boxes don't. DD is forced along with her classmates to provide free care in the near future while she is in school. After that? Not happening.

Yes, I do. 

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2015 14:42:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 19, 2015 18:15:48 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Remember how all the liberals and democrats chided the GOP governors who didn't expand Medicaid?

www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/soaring-medicaid-enrollment-could-hit-state-budgets/ar-BBjWWk2

Under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, enrollment in the program is soaring past expectations in a handful of states, raising some concerns about whether states will have trouble covering the costs down the road.

So far, some 12 million people have enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion—with most states that expanded their program seeing sign-ups significantly surpass their expectations. At least seven states saw massive waves in enrollment totaling about 1.4 million more people than originally estimated, Politico first reported.

...They’ve been criticized by Obamacare proponents who chide them for leaving federal funding on the table—especially in the first two years. Wisconsin Democrats released a study last month claiming opting out of Medicaid expansion would save the state $400 million over two years. Now as other states Medicaid rolls grow, there is concern that it could cost those states more than anticipated after 2016 when they are on the hook for paying 10 percent.

I mean, come on, who would have guessed people would clamor to sign up for free healthcare?

Damn right! The poor should just be allowed to die!

Oooh, maybe you could have "fights to the death", televised. The winner gets healthcare.

Think of the ad revenue!

because corporate death panels are just so much better than public ones, don'cha know?

[Deleted]

"Soaring costs"? Who could have expected that!?!?

Oh yeah... anyone with a firm grasp of basic math. Even at only 10% for those in the expanded Medicaid... it's still more than paying nothing (if there was no increase).

Understanding/accepting these as facts:
Average spending per capita (across the US) for Medicaid: $6,815 (source)
Number of people in "expanded" Medicaid: ~12,000,000 (source: article in OP)



Which is more?

10% of (12,000,000 x 6,815)
or
ZERO/NADA/ZILCH/NOTHING

[jkapp]

May 20, 2015 14:42:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

May 19, 2015 18:15:48 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Remember how all the liberals and democrats chided the GOP governors who didn't expand Medicaid?

www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/soaring-medicaid-enrollment-could-hit-state-budgets/ar-BBjWWk2

Under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, enrollment in the program is soaring past expectations in a handful of states, raising some concerns about whether states will have trouble covering the costs down the road.

So far, some 12 million people have enrolled in Medicaid through the expansion—with most states that expanded their program seeing sign-ups significantly surpass their expectations. At least seven states saw massive waves in enrollment totaling about 1.4 million more people than originally estimated, Politico first reported.

...They’ve been criticized by Obamacare proponents who chide them for leaving federal funding on the table—especially in the first two years. Wisconsin Democrats released a study last month claiming opting out of Medicaid expansion would save the state $400 million over two years. Now as other states Medicaid rolls grow, there is concern that it could cost those states more than anticipated after 2016 when they are on the hook for paying 10 percent.

I mean, come on, who would have guessed people would clamor to sign up for free healthcare?

Damn right! The poor should just be allowed to die!

Oooh, maybe you could have "fights to the death", televised. The winner gets healthcare.

Think of the ad revenue!

How about that awesome quote from the left...what is it again?  Ohhh, its on the tip of my tongue...

Oh yeah, why not make poor people PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?! 

Oh...right...the taxpayers have to pay for them so they can spend their money on things they want, not on the things they need.  WE have to pay for the things they need...

Good ol' liberal version of personal responsibility: getting taken care of by responsible people so they never have to take responsibility for themselves...

[jkapp]

May 19, 2015 18:28:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

so wait, the states are getting a 90% subsidy, and complaining?

No, it sounds like those states are getting a 90% subsidy but finding out they will end up paying EVEN MORE than before.

You know, that whole estimate of cost thing...its not a government strong suit. They always tend to under budget what they think things will cost...usually by at least 100%.

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2015 21:29:37 GMT -5 jkapp said:

May 20, 2015 14:42:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Damn right! The poor should just be allowed to die!

Oooh, maybe you could have "fights to the death", televised. The winner gets healthcare.

Think of the ad revenue!

How about that awesome quote from the left...what is it again?  Ohhh, its on the tip of my tongue...

Oh yeah, why not make poor people PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?! 

Oh...right...the taxpayers have to pay for them so they can spend their money on things they want, not on the things they need.  WE have to pay for the things they need...

Good ol' liberal version of personal responsibility: getting taken care of by responsible people so they never have to take responsibility for themselves...

let's use an abstract example to see if your case makes sense.

let's say there is some country, which we will call country I.  in country I, the minimum wage (which is also the prevailing wage) is 1/3 of the poverty line in that country.  there are no unions, and no overtime.  so, if you want to not starve, and you are a typical worker, you have to work 3 jobs during the week (24/7 in other words), or you have to work two jobs during the week, and one during the weekend.  the government offers NOTHING in terms of social benefits, so if you don't like it, tough.

from what you said above, i can't imagine that you would have any objection to that.  do you?

(ps- country I exists)

[jkapp]

May 20, 2015 21:35:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 20, 2015 21:29:37 GMT -5 jkapp said:

How about that awesome quote from the left...what is it again?  Ohhh, its on the tip of my tongue...

Oh yeah, why not make poor people PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE?! 

Oh...right...the taxpayers have to pay for them so they can spend their money on things they want, not on the things they need.  WE have to pay for the things they need...

Good ol' liberal version of personal responsibility: getting taken care of by responsible people so they never have to take responsibility for themselves...

let's use an abstract example to see if your case makes sense.

let's say there is some country, which we will call country I.  in country I, the minimum wage (which is also the prevailing wage) is 1/3 of the poverty line in that country.  there are no unions, and no overtime.  so, if you want to not starve, and you are a typical worker, you have to work 3 jobs during the week (24/7 in other words), or you have to work two jobs during the week, and one during the weekend.  the government offers NOTHING in terms of social benefits, so if you don't like it, tough.

from what you said above, i can't imagine that you would have any objection to that.  do you?

(ps- country I exists)

Objection to what? 

In country I, what does it take to live?  How expensive is the food that they need to work three jobs just to not starve? 

So while you answer those questions, here's another abstract example:

Country V...this country has good schools, happy population, and hefty social/welfare programs.  In fact, the public benefits are so good, nearly 20% of the population refuses to work and just lives off of those benefits.  So from your blind support of social programs, I can't imagine you would object to that.  Do you?

(ps, country V also exists)

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2015 21:53:36 GMT -5 jkapp said:

May 20, 2015 21:35:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let's use an abstract example to see if your case makes sense.

let's say there is some country, which we will call country I.  in country I, the minimum wage (which is also the prevailing wage) is 1/3 of the poverty line in that country.  there are no unions, and no overtime.  so, if you want to not starve, and you are a typical worker, you have to work 3 jobs during the week (24/7 in other words), or you have to work two jobs during the week, and one during the weekend.  the government offers NOTHING in terms of social benefits, so if you don't like it, tough.

from what you said above, i can't imagine that you would have any objection to that.  do you?

(ps- country I exists)

Objection to what? 

In country I, what does it take to live?  How expensive is the food that they need to work three jobs just to not starve?  

i already answered that.  it takes 3x the prevailing wages to surpass the poverty line.  this would include modest housing, utilities, food, and basic transportation (a bike is most common in country I), plus maintenance for all of the above.  it does NOT include free healthcare, foodstamps, or anything else that you are railing against above.  so, do you have any objection to the IDEA that a country is out there where people have to work 120 hours a week (without any help from the government) just to keep out of poverty?  it is a really simple question.  yes or no?

to make it MORE clear, if i were to say that i would like to see that happen HERE, would you have any objection?

So while you answer those questions, here's another abstract example:

i would rather not move on to other examples.  i am trying to establish what "works" for you, not what does not.  if you don't mind, that is.

[djAdvocate]

honestly, i can't see why any capitalist would have any objection to paying 1/3 of poverty wages, if that is, as the expression goes "what the market bears".  after all, the business of business is to maximize profits, not feed people.  if they can't work 120 hours/week, that is just tough beans.  they can go and live in the jungle and subsistence farm.  this is the answer i expect, so feel free to give this answer.

[Deleted]

May 20, 2015 22:19:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

honestly, i can't see why any capitalist would have any objection to paying 1/3 of poverty wages, if that is, as the expression goes "what the market bears".  after all, the business of business is to maximize profits, not feed people.  if they can't work 120 hours/week, that is just tough beans.  they can go and live in the jungle and subsistence farm.  this is the answer i expect, so feel free to give this answer.

“Everybody go back to work…Because this is a business, and we’re in the business of being in business and we’re doing business and nobody’s business…Do it! Business. Good! I want business done…Just the way it should be!”

- Monty Brewster | Brewster’s Millions (1985)

[jkapp]

May 20, 2015 22:19:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

honestly, i can't see why any capitalist would have any objection to paying 1/3 of poverty wages, if that is, as the expression goes "what the market bears".  after all, the business of business is to maximize profits, not feed people.  if they can't work 120 hours/week, that is just tough beans.  they can go and live in the jungle and subsistence farm.  this is the answer i expect, so feel free to give this answer.

If you want the simple answer, then yes. However, I would debate on whether the example above is truly what it takes to just "get by." Many developing countries have populations that are trying to hit their version of the American dream by quickly upping their lifestyles...at also very high costs.

Now, would you care to answer my question or continue to dodge it?

[jkapp]

Ohhh!!! And Obamacare shows its crappy colors again...

www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/obamacares-dark-secret-31-million-still-cant-afford-treatment/ar-BBk1UTO

Obamacare's dark secret: 31 million still can't afford treatment

The president’s health care law sliced America’s uninsured rate down to historic lows by expanding coverage for tens of millions of Americans. At the same time, however, the number of insured people who still lack access to robust coverage is rising sharply as more people buy high-deductible policies. (as if there were any other kind)

A new study from the Commonwealth Fund reveals that about 23 percent of Americans with coverage are considered underinsured—up from 12 percent in 2003. That means roughly 31 million Americans who bought health insurance still have trouble affording treatment under their policies.

The findings are a huge problem for the Obama administration since the entire goal was to expand access to coverage to millions of Americans that they presumably would use instead of delaying treatment. But a handful of recent studies show that even people with health insurance are delaying treatment because they can’t afford it. (that wonderful AFFORDABLE care act strikes again)

A December Gallup Poll showed at least 38 percent of insured, middle-income people, said they had delayed medical treatment because of the cost. “While many Americans have gained insurance, there has been no downturn in the percentage who say they have had to put off needed medical treatment because of cost,” Gallup’s Rebecca Riffkin wrote in a post on the pollster’s website.

[djAdvocate]

personally, i am more concerned with being left on the hook for someone's $500k in medical expenses.  if we could stop that, that would be a huge step forward.

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2015 18:04:28 GMT -5 jkapp said:

May 20, 2015 22:19:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

honestly, i can't see why any capitalist would have any objection to paying 1/3 of poverty wages, if that is, as the expression goes "what the market bears".  after all, the business of business is to maximize profits, not feed people.  if they can't work 120 hours/week, that is just tough beans.  they can go and live in the jungle and subsistence farm.  this is the answer i expect, so feel free to give this answer.

If you want the simple answer, then yes. However, I would debate on whether the example above is truly what it takes to just "get by." Many developing countries have populations that are trying to hit their version of the American dream by quickly upping their lifestyles...at also very high costs.

Now, would you care to answer my question or continue to dodge it?

the standard in Country I is $1/hr.  if you think that is "refrigerator and cell phone" money, you think wrong.

thanks for the straightforward answer.  i won't berate you for it.  but i will say that i think accepting that low of a standard of living for ANY American is not something that i will ever tolerate.  and i am betting that most Americans feel precisely the same way.  thank God.

[djAdvocate]

May 20, 2015 21:53:36 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Country V...this country has good schools, happy population, and hefty social/welfare programs.  In fact, the public benefits are so good, nearly 20% of the population refuses to work and just lives off of those benefits.  So from your blind support of social programs, I can't imagine you would object to that.  Do you?

first of all, i don't know where you get 20%
second, i don't agree that they just "live off" benefits.  in my experience, they have a lot of trouble living off them, and don't abuse them.
third, i don't blindly support welfare.  i have stated my position on it many times.  i think that welfare should be a safety net first, and secondly a helping hand to help people transition from one place to another in their lives, and nothing more.  anything outside that does not meet with my approval.

i think that answers your question, but if not, tough shit.  it was not intended to do anything other than piss me off, as far as i can tell.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2015 18:08:14 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Ohhh!!! And Obamacare shows its crappy colors again...

www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/obamacares-dark-secret-31-million-still-cant-afford-treatment/ar-BBk1UTO

Obamacare's dark secret: 31 million still can't afford treatment

The president’s health care law sliced America’s uninsured rate down to historic lows by expanding coverage for tens of millions of Americans. At the same time, however, the number of insured people who still lack access to robust coverage is rising sharply as more people buy high-deductible policies. (as if there were any other kind)

A new study from the Commonwealth Fund reveals that about 23 percent of Americans with coverage are considered underinsured—up from 12 percent in 2003. That means roughly 31 million Americans who bought health insurance still have trouble affording treatment under their policies.

The findings are a huge problem for the Obama administration since the entire goal was to expand access to coverage to millions of Americans that they presumably would use instead of delaying treatment. But a handful of recent studies show that even people with health insurance are delaying treatment because they can’t afford it. (that wonderful AFFORDABLE care act strikes again)

A December Gallup Poll showed at least 38 percent of insured, middle-income people, said they had delayed medical treatment because of the cost. “While many Americans have gained insurance, there has been no downturn in the percentage who say they have had to put off needed medical treatment because of cost,” Gallup’s Rebecca Riffkin wrote in a post on the pollster’s website.

This goes along with the biggest problem I've had with Obamacare (aside from it's illegal fines, and it's poorly thought out financial "plan", and it's unsustainability, and it's unconstitutionality, and Obama's illegal changes to it after it was passed... of course)...

Having an insurance CARD is nice and all... but it's pretty much pointless if you can't actually use any medical services, whether it be because you can't afford the deductible, or whether it's because no one is seeing anyone with whatever card you have.

[djAdvocate]

i've concluded that this was never the actual goal of ObamaCare.  but i am sure others will reach their own conclusion, depending on their party.

[Deleted]

Scrap Obamacare.

Institute a 2% federal "sales tax for Medical coverage". Let that tax run for 5 years WITHOUT ANY SPENDING FROM THE FUND, then make all "necessary" medical issues a $25 co-pay (that includes lab work/tests/scans/whatever) and the rest gets billed to Uncle Sam (at rates that Uncle Sam regulates). Adjust the tax rate as necessary.

Keep insurance available for private rooms, optional procedures (perfect example: need operation {injury or whatever... $25 deductible + Uncle Sam pays for original operation}, but scarring occurs - Insurance could be used for subsequent surgeries to repair the scarring), extra "home" services, et cetera.

[djAdvocate]

if the experience of CT (or was it VT?) is any indication, it takes somewhere north of 10% INCOME TAX to make a workable private system.

this is probably why everyone is one a non-stop freakout about this issue.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2015 20:21:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if the experience of CT (or was it VT?) is any indication, it takes somewhere north of 10% INCOME TAX to make a workable private system.

this is probably why everyone is one a non-stop freakout about this issue.

That's likely because costs aren't regulated enough. Remove the $25 per pill Tylenols and other over charging and it's amazing how much more streamlined and inexpensive it could get.

And even if it did need 10%... 2% x 5 years is (roughly) 10%... and I did say: "Adjust the tax rate as necessary".

[djAdvocate]

i was figuring more...10% x infinity = infinity.