Like all other supporters of health care reform I was more than just pleased when the PPACA was upheld. There is a lot of talk about the impact of this law on business growth, and this talk is important. In France companies stay small so that they will not have to abide by that nations many regulations, the thought is that companies in the U.S will do the same.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
Showing posts with label Medicaid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicaid. Show all posts
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Reaction to GOP budget
First of all, as the economist I quoted previously has said, Ryan's idea is not new. It is called privatizing Medicare, and has been tried before. My first problem with this idea of changing Medicare is this. People who now benefit will still get "old' Medicare, meaning those my mothers age and older would still receive medical treatment. For everyone else Medicare would change from a provider of health care to nothing more than a rebate program. People would have to find their own insurance carrier when they retire, and the federal government would give them a rebate on care the individual finds and pays for. Now keep in mind that the GOP want a full repeal of the new health care law which does away with pre existing conditions. So this private insurance that you have to find at retirement, if the GOP has their way, could reject you based on your health. Since that hasn't happened yet lets ignore that for now. Okay so you are ready to retire and you have to find a provider for yourself. That provider could deny any care that you might need because they are a private insurance company. The next problem is finding a doctor. See Medicare is excepted everywhere, this would not be the case with a private insurance. So it puts a lot more stress on the individual to find insurance that they can afford, and that will be excepted by their doctor. Ryan says that this will save money. Well of course it will, not paying for things saves money. This is not a fix to a broken program, this is breaking a program that has a few flaws. With the new health care law costs to individuals and states decreases over time. The problem with Ryan is that he is short sighted. If I can refer to an analogy I made before, if you don't pay your rent you save money. The problem is you end up homeless. By not supporting Medicare more people will end up without insurance. Ryan is not a genius, he's a shortsighted entitled child.
Now on to giving states block grants for Medicaid. This sounds like a reasonable idea right. Why not let states customize Medicaid, they know what their people need right? Well yes and no. States have already cut essential health care to disabled and low income adults. The only thing that keeps them from doing the same to children is Federal mandate. By giving Medicaid as a block grant that Federal mandate would be void. So states could, and no doubt would, cut services to children. Why would they do such an awful thing you ask. Because many people in Republican led states are under the impression that nearly all Medicaid dollars go to illegal immigrants. So to satisfy their voters Republicans will cut dollars to "criminals". I could go on, but perhaps this post is long enough.
Now on to giving states block grants for Medicaid. This sounds like a reasonable idea right. Why not let states customize Medicaid, they know what their people need right? Well yes and no. States have already cut essential health care to disabled and low income adults. The only thing that keeps them from doing the same to children is Federal mandate. By giving Medicaid as a block grant that Federal mandate would be void. So states could, and no doubt would, cut services to children. Why would they do such an awful thing you ask. Because many people in Republican led states are under the impression that nearly all Medicaid dollars go to illegal immigrants. So to satisfy their voters Republicans will cut dollars to "criminals". I could go on, but perhaps this post is long enough.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Arizona health plan
Some of you may have heard about those 98 people on a waiting list for organ transplants in Arizona. If you haven't let me explain. The state of Arizona had a program that helped people who needed organ transplants and could not afford them. I say had because Jan Brewer recently cut all funding to the program. After the story broke on national news a Republican from Illinois went through the Arizona state budget to see what could be done to save the program, he found 27 possible solutions. Jan Brewer didn't use any of them. Instead she unveiled her own plan.
She would cut all Medicaid benefits to 280,000 childless adults in her state, some of whom are severely mentally ill.
She says that the money saved would go to fund the transplant program and save the lives of the now 96 people on the list.
I think this is the most disgusting display of robbing Peter to pay Paul. As if the concept of stealing health benefits from half a million people were not horrid enough, the money would not benefit those on the transplant list until July.
Another major flaw in this plan is that the Medicaid money would not be enough to pay for all of the surgeries and the likelihood of finding a doctor willing to do surgery for pennies on the dollar is slim. The other major flaw is this. Under the old program the government gave the state a grant of three million dollars to help pay for the transplants, now that it is gone so is that money.
Finally Governor Brewer seems to be counting on the fact that none of these 280,000 people who would now have no insurance will get sick. Does she think that these people will remain healthy because they can no longer see a doctor?
So, why be concerned? For one thing this plan is horribly misguided, there are some who are saying that Brewer is using the transplants as an excuse to cut benefits that she would have cut anyway. That doesn't seem to be a bad assumption.
I care because these are people who are the most vulnerable, adults who don't have children and persons who are mentally ill have very few resources that they can count on for help.
The other reason is that as of last year, the state of Utah has looked to Arizona for guidance. I shudder to think that our legislature might pick up on this idea and write a bill of their own just like it. Make sure you know how to contact your representatives this is one idea that fails everyone.
She would cut all Medicaid benefits to 280,000 childless adults in her state, some of whom are severely mentally ill.
She says that the money saved would go to fund the transplant program and save the lives of the now 96 people on the list.
I think this is the most disgusting display of robbing Peter to pay Paul. As if the concept of stealing health benefits from half a million people were not horrid enough, the money would not benefit those on the transplant list until July.
Another major flaw in this plan is that the Medicaid money would not be enough to pay for all of the surgeries and the likelihood of finding a doctor willing to do surgery for pennies on the dollar is slim. The other major flaw is this. Under the old program the government gave the state a grant of three million dollars to help pay for the transplants, now that it is gone so is that money.
Finally Governor Brewer seems to be counting on the fact that none of these 280,000 people who would now have no insurance will get sick. Does she think that these people will remain healthy because they can no longer see a doctor?
So, why be concerned? For one thing this plan is horribly misguided, there are some who are saying that Brewer is using the transplants as an excuse to cut benefits that she would have cut anyway. That doesn't seem to be a bad assumption.
I care because these are people who are the most vulnerable, adults who don't have children and persons who are mentally ill have very few resources that they can count on for help.
The other reason is that as of last year, the state of Utah has looked to Arizona for guidance. I shudder to think that our legislature might pick up on this idea and write a bill of their own just like it. Make sure you know how to contact your representatives this is one idea that fails everyone.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)