Conservatives Tossed Out a New Option: Dropping Out of Medicaid

Started by RubySlippers, November 20, 2010, 07:17:13 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RubySlippers

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/09/side-effects-obamacare-encourages-states-to-drop-medicaid/

I did some checking the basic idea is a state would cover elderly care costs like they do now under a non-Medicaid scheme then in 2014 and after put everyone else into the subsidized government plan since they are very generous to those nearing the Federal Poverty line.

For reference at the ,just over Medicaid eligibility, 3% of your income for premiums as the max amount and out-of-pocket percentage covered by the government would be 94%.

In example if a person made $14,000 and would have been under Medicaid they would be hit no more than $420 a year [$35 a month]. And if they had medical care costing $1000 would pay on their end $60. If someone was homeless obviously it would be a whole different ball game with very low incomes or $0 income.

Now there is a debate is this legal the lawmakers assumed no state would drop-out of Medicaid but its a voluntary program and if they can save more money just leaving there is nothing stopping them. And the law doesn't make allowances for citizens in a state with no medicaid program. Add to that the states could save lots of money doing this in Texas you can note the projected savings.

I'm mixed on this I can't see this hurting me the rates would be so low I could pay for the program and if they have to write-off a large bill due to my inability to pay the costs - oh well. And I have modestly sympathy for people when it is so low cost not buckling down to pay for health care for themselves. $25 a month is not that much and 6% for out-of-pocket costs is very fair. On the other hand your dropping the safety net for all and might make things worse.

Jude

I don't know enough about how health care works to really weigh in substantively on this ue, but a brief reading of the resource material provided leaves me quite skeptical.

For one, it's the heritage foundation and they're notoriously conservative so they're constantly looking for ways to take potshots at the president.  Secondly, Ed Haislmaier, the guy who's numbers and stuff they cite in the article (who by the way is employed by them) as evidence to back up their claim isn't a statistician, he's not a scientific, he's not a research fellow at a non-partisan institution:  he's got a bachelor's degree in history and a record of conservative analysis.

Not exactly the most reliable source; that doesn't mean this couldn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath on this one until I see the information corroborated by an actually trustworthy organization.

I also find it funny that the article in which the New York Times discusses the issue only has information from the Heritage Foundation to cite as well.  It's like the Heritage Foundation is linking to analysis of their own opinions in order to support those opinions -- seriously circular logic.  I have to wonder if they're conjuring up this entire possibility for cheap political points.

RubySlippers

There are two factors we never had before Tea Party backed legislators that openly talked about doing things like eliminating Social Security so people may be more open to the idea that make the laws. And the fact this is not a Federal mandate States can drop the program there is nothing stopping them if they think they will save money.

And Texas is not just hinting around they are crunching the numbers to see if dropping Medicaid will be a good option in 2014. Which would put the Federal reform in a bind do they expand coverage that is subsidized, fight the state in court if they do that or some other option. They will be covering under the plan senior care under another program leaving the rest of Medicaid patiants go into subsidized Federal Care which for most would be affordable for them at first.

I know a hospital administrator that handles the finances she said the Medicaid drop would help them regular insurance pays the most to the hospital so exchanges would be no different even if they can't collect the patiants share of the out-of-pocket costs. Most medical doctors and other providers would also benefit with higher pay over Medicaid which might stem the problem of getting people into see doctors that can't now under Medicaid.

Bayushi

Sad truth is, if my state dropped Medicaid, I would just plain be uncovered.

Who would insure me? I'm disabled, I receive $674 a month (can't afford it anyways), and have past medical history a mile long. Then my family medical history is even more frightening.

I would be up a creek without Medicaid. Well, more likely, I would be DEAD without Medicaid.

RubySlippers

Well under the idea you wouldbe under the Federal program so they could not take more than 3-4% of your income for premiums or $20.22 per month in your case (3% I'm assuming the lowest figure if this happened) and the out-of-pocket costs would be subsidized at 94% as the governments share so for every $100 you would pay $6 for any bill. Good news is the law will require the exchanges take you and at these costs the law makes no options save you might have to pay per month 4% not 3% for the premiums.

The idea is the states would dump people off assuming the Federal government would put everyone in an exchange and you would get coverage there, since you have income you would be paying something just very low.

The law did not take into account a sate might do programs for the elderly and drop Medicaid so no one is sure what would happen for those in the 133% pf the Federal Poverty line or less if they did this. I would assume since the Medicaid program is optional not required the government we default to the best benefits the law provides for.

[Information from Landmark: America's NewHealth-Car Law and What It Means for Us All by the Staff of the Washington Post]

Bayushi

Unfortunately, I don't think that would work, either.

I do not have a taxable income. SSI cannot be taxed.

...oi!

RubySlippers

Actually it would you would only be given two options if Medicaid is dropped pay for it since its not a tax but a cost to get insurance you would be expected to do so at the discounted rates or not be covered.

Its true they could not tax penalty you but they would by default reduce your option to the exchanges. I do think its unlikely but if the Republicans don't take the Senate at a filibuster proof level and/or the Presidency this may be the last option some states could try.