E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFormer Medicaid and Medicare director Donald Berwick says few states were likely to reject the Medicaid funds despite the court's decision.
Updated at 7:04 p.m. ET: Now that the Supreme Court has upheld President Barack Obama's health care initiative, will Congress have to rewrite it from scratch?
It's not a paradoxical question. The court signed off on nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but it struck down one provision, and in doing so — whether it knew it or not — it may have put the poorest Americans at the greatest risk of being left without any health insurance.
Chief Justice John Roberts said as part of the 5-4 decision that states can't be penalized for refusing to join the law's expansion of Medicaid eligibility. Health law experts said that had the practical effect of flipping an all but mandatory program into one a state can choose not to join.
Here's the problem: The ACA creates state health insurance "exchanges," providing tax credits to eligible residents to buy affordable, state-certified health insurance. But the poorest Americans aren't in that eligible pool, because the law assumes they'll be covered by the expansion of Medicaid, which is no longer a given.
In states that reject the expansion, poor residents could be left without either form of coverage — as many as 15 million if all 50 states opt out, a circumstance that former Medicaid director Donald Berwick said was highly unlikely.
The White House didn't address the issue in a long Q&A it issued on the court's decision. The statement touted every provision of the act but one: Medicaid expansion.
Medicaid currently covers only some low-income people, primarily parents with children, pregnant women, people with severe disabilities and senior citizens. Adults without disabilities or children, in other words, aren't generally covered. That's the group the Medicaid expansion was supposed to help the most.
Supreme Court upholds health care mandate
Obama calls ruling victory for US; Romney vows to repeal
After the ruling: Lots left to do on health reform
If their states opt out, young working adults below the poverty line could be in a Catch-22, because "they may not get Medicaid, and they may not be eligible to purchase insurance through the exchange," said Christina S. Ho of the Rutgers University School of Law, who was a member of President Bill Clinton's Domestic Policy Council.
It works this way:
The insurance tax credits are targeted at people with incomes between 100 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Congress sought to compel the states to cover everyone under the line through Medicaid.
The federal government promised to fully cover all expenses for the expanded coverage before eventually pulling back to cover 90 percent after a few years. The states would have to pick up the extra 10 percent eventually.
States aren't required to take part, but if they don't, the law as enacted would have turned off the flow of all Medicaid funding from Washington.
That enforcement mechanism is what the court invalidated Thursday, meaning there's no penalty for a state that says, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Twitter reactions to the ruling
Because states haven't had time to consider yet whether they will opt in or out. it's difficult to say how many people could be affected.
But about half of the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans have incomes below the new eligibility thresholds, according to the latest report, in October, from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. And about 6 in 10 of them are adults without dependent children — the primary beneficiaries of the program's expansion.
If you do the math, roughly 15 million Americans could be in the newly created gray area. In 2010, when the act was passed, the Commonwealth Fund, an independent health care policy foundation, similarly calculated that the Medicaid expansion would benefit 12 million of the 15 million uninsured Americans under the poverty line.
Donald Berwick, former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the two programs, said few states were likely to take that risk.
"Those people are still living in your state, They're still poor. They're going to come to your emergency room. They're going to be operated on, and they're going to have diseases that get worse, and you're going to have to pay for that. That will come from the state — free care pools and charity in the state," Berwick said in an interview on MSNBC-TV.
"I think what's going to happen is the states are going to be under pressure from providers of care who say: 'Why are you leaving this money on the table? Let's join in with the federal dollars.'"
But Judy Solomon, vice president for health policy at the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, agreed with Ho that the decision means low-income adults could lose the promise of Medicaid coverage "even while people with somewhat higher incomes will be eligible for premium tax credits."
Writing on the center's policy blog, Solomon said: "The poorest adults — primarily parents and other adults working for low wages — will be left out in the cold."
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Stolen Valor Act struck down
- Miss.'s only abortion clinic sues over new law that could shut it down
- Brother of lesbian teen shot in head: She's 'fighting'
- Lying about military service? These bloggers have you in their sights
- Army veteran campaigns to adopt Diego the bomb-sniffing dog
- Video: Teacher who slammed student in blog is fired
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
The government is going to pay a subsidy to help pay for insurance for everyone under 400% of the poverty line. In my state that is 60%of the population. The only way to get the subsidy is to enroll thru the healthcare exchange so they can validate your income using your tax returns. These people WILL NOT have the same insurance they currently have as promised by the administration. It will be good coverage, but it is going to be a HUGE new burden on the federal budget. More people covered under one contract with better benefits will mean that your insurance premiums will go up. Private insurance companies are going to pass these cost on to the consumer, or back to the government.
This is a noble cause, but American cannot afford to take on a huge new Federal subsidy considering our enormous debt. We are going to end up like the Greeks.
Nope. Remember we were told this was going to be revenue neutral, and would save money. Heh, Heh.
Umm, we pay the exchange for our healthcare, and the government just sets the standards of what the healthcare providers must provide as minimum coverage. This is not government run, it is just the set of rules the competing healthcare corporations will have to abide by. The healthcare industry still gets the premiums we pay. They still run the healthcare, and the hospitals, and the big pharma industries still make their own drugs.
Nothing has changed if you already have healthcare through your workplace! Your rates may go down is all!
The Healthcare Act establishes, for those who do not have access to healthcare at work, because the company is too small, or because they are self employed, or poor, or have a pre-existing condition that there will be an exchange , (a website or a local office) where we can go to compare the prices of the various healthcare providers competing for the premiums for this small group of our citizens.
The Healthcare Act brings competition to the healthcare marketplace with 30 million new people into play and removes 30 million possible people from emergency room service that everyone of us pays for when they don't have coverage and cannot afford the bills.
Just like governments establish standards for clean air, or fuel efficiency, or drinking water standards, we rely on government to keep the lid on unscrupulous practices that harm our citizenry. That is exactly what the guidelines of the Healthcare Act does. There are no government "Death Panels". This is not government run!
The Medicare Expansion program and the rest of the Healthcare act is estimated to save over a trillion dollars in the first ten years and more than a trillion in the second ten years. Yes, there will be a cost for the states to expand coverage, but the offsets will still save us money in the long run, if we can believe the bi-partisan budget office. And reducing coverage costs for everyone does put more money in our pockets, doesn't it? And removing freeloaders from increasing our rates at Emergency Rooms is a good thing, isn't it? Having more healthy people in the pool will reduce coverage costs, won't it? Competition for the services will reduce the cost won't it? And more money in our pockets means we can save for retirements or buy a new car, doesn't it? And it may cause the corporations to produce more products we can now afford.
Your one-sided view is a Republican talking point! The new subscribers, who will now get coverage, are not all sick! Many are healthy children, who may need a shot, and will now get free checkups they could not afford before this Act was passed. They will give healthcare providers a chance to compete for 30 million more subscribers, that we already pay for! It will bring costs down, not up.
Preventative healthcare shall reduce hospitalization, not increase it. And if an insurance company does not want to compete in the exchange, they are not required to. It's not an either or thing. Healthcare providers can decide not to compete! They just will not get a part of the thirty million new citizens that will join someone else.
Please stop hallucinating, please!
Jack - very well said, I will have to copy this and re-post it every time I hear the nay sayers.
Thanks
Jack you have some excellent points, but I disagree with some of your statements.
HCR might not be a bad thing for health insurance companies because it will bring more business to them. How it will affect overall rates is hard to say, but I think they are going up and here is why:
1. The poor people with pre-existing conditions that were uninsurable by will now be covered under the private insurance system. If they didn't qualify for Medicare disability, then they would have to spend down all their assets before they qualified for medicaid coverage. Claims for these people will now be averaged in with the rest of the pool (Rating can only be based on age, location, and smoker status).
2. No life time maximums, and more procedures covered at 100% means more claims to average out across the pool.
The health exchange will increase competition with greater advantages for national payers who are for profit over local payers who are non-profit.
1. Private insurance is geared toward selling group coverage. There will be a huge shift to individual coverage which will require a new way to market products. Much more advertising to sign up members. More emphasis on customer service to keep members. Less customization to meet the specific needs of an employer group coverage.
1. Many small businesses will drop group coverage and push their employees into the individual market. It will make life easier for the owner of the small business in the long run.
2. Price may not be the factor people use to choose coverage. If 60% of the people will receive a government subsidy to pay for insurance, then the cost may not be the deciding factor.
3. If the individual penalty is not high enough ($95 the first year), then the young people my still choose to be uninsured. Many of the young, health people who choose not to purchase their own insurance in the past are now be covered up to age 26 under their parents policy.
Jack you may be correct that the overall cost of health care to our society may go down, but I think private insurance rates are going to go up. We may be shifting government cost to private insurance costs. The funny part is that private insurance is heavily regulated by the insurance commission, and Medicare and Medicaid are already being run by private companies.
I have a sister-in-law who's kids are on Medicaid and they go to the emergency room like it is a doctors office. It doesn't cost them anything. Half the time the ambulance takes them there. Nothing is going to change this with health care reform. They are going to continue to go to the emergency room and the hospital can't turn them away because they are afraid of law suits.
Obamma care ignored the tort reform that forces defensive medical care by doctors to cover their butts.
Tort reform is a joke!
Have you watched TV lately and seen how may commercials are sponsored by Ambulance chasers?
YES Bart ! ERGO the need for Tort Reform !
We now must work even smarter, harder and longer to pay for those, though thoroughly capable, refuse to be responsible for themselves.
It is not Obama's fault that the STATES HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION!
As it stands now, both the Federal and state governments are responsible for funding Medicaid.
That has not changed.
It is ironic that the one's on here who are trashing the plan forget that.
Alll the State's have to do is OPT IN TO RESOLVE THAT ISSUE.
bart133,
So by your logic, what if ALL the states "opt out"? Then what will happen? But more importantly, WHO is going to pay?
Think about this little bit of financial drain - the federal government does not now have the resources to enforce this joke if people don't pay. Who will enforce this tax? The IRS? Do they have the resources to do both tax return processing and prosecution PLUS enforce this crap? My guess is that the cost of government just WENT UP becausse they are going tho have to hire, oh just one or two more agents for this new task. That means pay AND benefits = a larger drain on the feds. That could ultimately lead to the federal government doing what is has in the past (balanced budget) - push down the cost of enforcement to the states. Either way it's going to cost YOU more then just healthcare costs.
That makes absolutely NO Sense ! If they opt-in they increase their expendatures, they don't reduce them! The only way to reduce them is to opt-out TOTALLY from Medicare, which of course, they can't do !
Midicare payments are made by the federal government.
Medicaid payments come from the Fed and the State. In my state Medicaid is about 10% of the entire state budget. The states will all opt-in because the feds are going to pick up the bill for the new people for the first 3 years.
Like it or not, they are not going to leave federal money on the table.
Please tell me where the Federal Government and the State Government get the money to Fund Medicaid ?
What was it that your democratic sob stated about not TAXING people?!!! That was the only way to get this piece of legislative crap past the supreme court. So admit it, he reversed himself AGAIN!
Again this schmuck LIED. Plain and simply LIED and you democratic idiots think he's so dam great. What are you going to do when it's time to pay this buttheads' tax? Whine? Or are you going to blame Bush again like your idiotic "leader"?
I have lived in 2 different countries with a national health care scam and talked with a sister about her experience in a third ...... to any citizen who thinks the government control of anything is going to be to their benefit all I can say is you poor ignorant fools.
FYI The healthcare in this country is still firmly in control of the insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act does not change that. Only moving to a single payer system would change it.
Why should we help Americans when we can spend the money in Yemen ,Iraq, Afghanistan, so the big medical suppliers can make a huge profit charging the government ridiculous prices for everything. Obviously, your 2 countries weren't Switzerland, Germany, Canada etc. There are plenty of success stories. We have sent do much money to China, they now have universal health for the entire country. The USA is the only country in the world where healthcare is for profit and sold on Wall Street. The ignorant fools are the ones fighting for the insurance companies to keep hiring thousands of doctors and lawyers to find ways to disqualify claims from paying customers. Your fool is in the mirror.
And what were those countries? And was your sister healthy and didn't require any coverage, which makes your point that it was a waste? At least, we now shall get refunds if we do not require the healthcare we pay for. That's something that will force the Healthcare industry to fix us before we need hospitalization, won't it?
Speaking of taxes and Obama, I filed my taxes this year and was hit hard. For the first time EVER, I had to pay thousands of dollars to the IRS. Needless to say, I was pretty upset. I make a decent salary but am nowhere close to $250,000 a year. It makes me wonder what this new health care tax and insurance premiums are going to look like in 2014. I shudder to think....
so NOTHING has really changed......
I make just a tad too much money for our state medicaid program....
(And, in our state medicaid won't cover single people!)
and I STILL can't afford medical insurance.
The only difference I can see is that now I'm subject to a fine
for not having insurance, and I won't be able to afford that either!
The CEO of United Health Care made $109 million in 2009. Can anyone explain why that makes your health care better or more affordable?
Mr. Johnson, who put you up to this Bull$hit? You know as well as we know, Medicaid is ALREADY DECIDED for the 80% POVERTY STRICKEN ADULTS & 133% POVERTY STRICKEN CHILDREN!
mnsbc, you better start checking what you put up in front of the American People, they are IN THE KNOW and you're going to lose viewers, JUST LIKE YOUR TODAY SHOW!!
Rigth wing hate. Left wing hate. An Act that will bankrupt a nation already well down the road to that end.
It isn't as complicated as 2700 pages.
TORT Reform: Do it and greatly reduce the actual cost of health care. Thrills the cons.
EMERGENCY Room Reform: Re-define what will, won't be treated at the ER. Sniffles? NO! Cheaper to
establish a low-cost/free clinic in conjuntion with each hospital than to treat every ailment that walks through the ER doors Make it government-owned if you must - thrills the libs.
UNIVERSAL Insurance: OK, but not even an Oldsmobile plan. Catastrophic insurance only. ACA requires
that every insurance policy have NO DOLLAR CAP by 2014. This means we will all be paying for diet pills, vagina enhancement surgery (don't sneer - google it, it's part of the UK program), stress treatments, etc.
INSURANCE Reform: Open competition across state lines. That will drop rates. Also, each state has
an insurance commissioner - let them decide how they control the insurance companies - they already do. If a mandate is required, handle it at the state level. It may be a pool established for those who do not participate. For those who do not, see ER/Cinic above.
ESTABLISH a Fair and Equitable Charges Board: $14 dollar aspirin? Give me a break. Doctor's fees? Insurance companies already use fair and equitable - take that decision away from them and give it to combined state gov/medical personnel with a citizen advizor.
PREVENTIVE Care: Journal of American Medical Association has published that only 20% of preventive programs translate into actual cost savings (google it). Support those twenty percent programs. Establish training/education programs for schools, etc. (already in place in many systems).
PRE-EXISTING Conditions: Establish a pool at the federal level.
TREATMENT Determination: Leave this to the medical experts in conjunction with state gov. Keep Feds out!
AFFORDABLE Pharmaceuticals: Repeal the laws that limit where hospitals/pharmacies source their product.
DOCTOR Education: Give incentives to doctors to help with education costs.
SCRAP ACA: It is filled with extraneous crap (student loans, charges for selling your house, etc.), and has already run from the billions into the trillion range.
Simple? Yes. Simplistic? Yes. BUT, here is the basis for a health care plan that
will not break the country.
FORCE this (skeletal) model on congress after the next election. DEMAND a bill - no longer than one
hundred pages.
I think it's time we faced some cold hard facts:
1 This country is hopelessly divided on matters of basic belief. Not just religious belief. We are divided on what government is for and what it should and should not do. We are divided on economic principles.
2 This country is still (in my view) weighted down by an unreasoning devotion to the holy word and script of what was - in the 18th century - a brilliant document. But, again in my view, the Constitution has seen its day. There is much that should be saved - the seperation of powers, the 1st amendement and some others. But much that needs to be reevaluated. Yes, the 2nd amendment is at the head of that list.
3 This country is NEVER going to accomplish that reevaluation simply because of number 1 above.
So where does that leave us?
In my view?
4 Madison was wrong. Republics only work when they are comprised of a small, ideologically similar people. The idea of a perpetual discussion or argument between differing views only results in wearing away the veneer of civility and putting us at each other's throats.
It's time to accept failure and move on. Allow those states that wish to do so to secede from this disfunctional zoo and set their own course. If they decide to join together in some manner, very well. If not? They can see to their own needs.
ONE NOTE TO THE HOPELESS -- I know trhis post probably contains one or two spelling errors. Yes, childeren, I knoow this has had 3 so far. I don't live to post or read other's posts. Or to corrrect oteher peeple. Grow up.
George -
"Republics only work when they are comprised of a small, ideologically similar people." "It's time to accept failure and move on."
You might be onto something. The move would have to be geographic - maybe use the Mississippi River and divide the two sides.
Or, maybe all those who hate/fear the Constituion could just move to another country?
Hope and Change!!!!
Taxes are a necessary part of government. Federal or State Tax is required to pay for your "free" services. This includes Streetlights, road repair, bridge repair, schools, police protection, FBI, CIA, EPA, AQMD, and healthcare!
To hate government for the sake of a party is quite delusional. Whether we pay taxes to a non-profit organization or pay money to a for-profit company for products is really the same thing. The only difference is in the way we choose to love or hate either one. We all get frustrated at paying more for the same meal at a restaurant that cost less a few years ago. Why would it be any different with taxes that serve us?
The difference is that one political party labels everything using taxes as "bad", while claiming the same products and services that come from for-profit corporations are somehow "good".
Compare the cost for non-profit State Government run Fire Departments with the cost of replacement for-profit Fire Departments. The one that costs more and provides less services is always the for-profits and they always have less equipment and resources. Of course, this is not what they promise us when Republicans put them in place in San Diego, just a few years before the wildfires proved how inadequate they really were!
Sometimes, we have to ignore the rhetoric being slung, like so much fodder to pigs, counting on the gluttony to make them fat and angry enough to go to the voting booths to vote against what some politician wants us to hate!
If we dislike taxes because we think our government wastes them, and neither political party is innocent, then we can all agree we rarely get all the government we pay for, but maybe that is a good thing! Of course, Republicans starting multiple wars, with no tax increases, makes perfect sense, eh?! Neither party is blameless. Get over it. Reagan raised taxes 3 times while acting as President. Get over it! It's facts!
Please look which party is ruining our nation! The party that does not raise taxes, but offers no economic solutions or jobs bills is worse than a party that provides solutions that sustain us with taxes.
If the structure of our political party wants to remove government services to use our taxes for subsidies to oil companies instead of spending those funds on our schools and educational system, we must acknowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong with our party leadership!
To chastise President Obama who approved a bi-partisan bill that most Republicans opposed for political reasons while seeking to diminish the Healthcare ACT by removing the ability of big Pharma to compete for the cost of their medications, then the finger is pointing as much at Republicans as it is to the Democrats, who made this bill, based on Republican designs, and had to include some flaws to get it passed. That is the way government is supposed to work when two parties refuse to negotiate in good faith!
The whole idea behind any healthcare bill is, after all, to provide the services we pay for, at overall lower cost than we pay, or will pay, because market conditions always allow for-profit corporations to raise their rates on us without legislation to control those same rates. Since Corporations only motive for their existence is in making profit, some measure of regulation is required to keep it within the cost of living our citizens make so our citizens can afford it.
The Healthcare ACT accomplishes this. The bi-partisan (meaning it has members of both parties in it) OMB claims the Health Care Act will save us over a trillion dollars in the first ten years, and more than a trillion more in the next ten years. This can reduce our deficit and is a worthy goal, isn't it? And this is the most conservative estimate the OMB could provide.
The benefits far outweigh the cost. It eliminates much of the cost of our premiums that cover people with no insurance coverage who go to the emergency rooms, by requiring they pay into the system. I know Republicans hate to be told anything, but this is a good trade-off!
The exchange idea will put "coverage conditions" on the healthcare corporations that wish to compete for our policies, and through that competition, should reduce coverage costs by the nature of the competition itself.
When was the last time our present healthcare provider gave us a rebate because we didn't use their services in a given year? Under the Healthcare Act, we will get refunds if we are healthy and do not use up the guaranteed healthcare we have paid for. Every August, we will get rebate checks for healthcare not received or needed!
No pre-existing conditions will allow healthcare corporations from denying us, or our children with asthma, from recieving coverage. And Republican voters hate this? Or do they just believe the lies Republicans pundits on FOX NEWS and CNN shove down our throats every day, seeking to convince us that which is good is somehow bad?
The topic of this news article speaks of a possibility of the loss of health resources for the poor. Because of the ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday, our States will now have the option of not taking the expanded coverage to Medicare that would cover millions more in our society, or not.
For now all we will hear from Republicans is the cost is too high! It is an outrage! Why should we allow the federal Government to provide us with funds, added to our funds from each state, to get more people out of the emergency rooms? Well, because the offset in costs to our health premiums will be affected by having more people in the "Plan"! No State or politician has had the time to actually know what this offset will be, since the ruling came out yesterday, but we shall certainly hear from the zealots on the right denouncing it anyway, as if they are economic wizards and we must listen to them because they are cute!! And the pundits on the left will try to show us why we should entertain keeping it!!
What we, as citizens, must do is wait until we have full knowledge about the ramifications to our States and Services. If many States refuse the Medicare expansion, it can cause a ripple effect across our nation. We cannot predict the resulting effect to our premiums if this occurs. Failure by the States to join the plan shall affect the people in those states and the populace will respond at the polls if they find States that have adopted the plans are doing better.
What is the offset? Republicans do not know. So don't let them tell you they know. They are just reading a set of talking points. The same can be said for the Democrats who pre-announce they know what the offset is. It shall take time and the States shall have to decide one by one to extend the coverage to more or less citizens.
Of course if your Republican Party is nothing but a Communist run Party that must vote the way your Supreme Commander" CARL ROVE" says you must, then you may want to question your party's intentions. In a Democracy, all members of Congress should be required to speak their own voice, not one given to them by Carl Rove or Grover Norquist or the Tea Party commanders. Democrats yesterday did not all toe the line regarding Eric Holder, They did not vote in lockstep! Perhaps some of them rely on the campaign funds that the NRA provides them and allowed that to sway their votes. But they were not Stepford wives! Only two Republicans refused to join the rest of the Republicans in voting for this frivolous attck on the Attorney General. I say, bully for the two Republicans who decided to vote their conscience, rather than be swayed by a figurehead who demands they capitulate or suffer reduction in future campaign financing.
The fact is we need to cover our people for their healthcare needs , like every other civilized nation has, for decades. Ours is the only citizenry of a nation that pays twice as much and gets half as much healthcare.
The Healthcare Act does a lot to resolve many issues, but will need to have adjustments to make it even better. The Romney idea of scrapping the bill on his first day in office as President, before having a suitable replacement healthcare plan in place, and losing what the Act gives us is something Romney may want to rethink.
Allowing the Heathcare industry to triple our rates while years of new legislation takes place, while we could be concentrating on jobs and new technologies seems a frivolous waste of the time for the Congressmen who serve us.
What is Romney's plan? Has he given any of us one clue? Or is that the depth of his knowlege at this point? Will he offer us Romneycare? He was the one who got this type of healthcare passed in his State of Massachusetts! Now, because Republicans label it Obamacare, to put a black face on it, it is somehow to be shunned and repealed when Romney was the man who passed this same healthcare plan in his State?
Can't we see the cuckoo birds flying around Romney's head every time he proclaims he will repeal Obama/Romney Care?
How ignorant do we have to be to not see through the wordsmithing taking place in front of our eyes?
Please wait until the Healthcare Act has actually had a chance to change our lives. If it needs fixing, then we will be better informed than we are now. We all know few Republicans, by their own testimony, even bother to read the bills they pass. They just follow the party line and Stepford vote.
Please! Let's wait and see what this will do for our rates. We, who already have insurance, are not required to do anything further anyway! We, who have insurance, will stay in our same plans we already have. The Healthcare Act really seeks to improve coverage for everyone and reduce the overall costs for everyone, too. It makes those who pay nothing now be responsible and not pass their emergency room costs to us.
Give The Healthcare ACT the chance it deserves before we remove that which took over 60 years to finally get passed. Can't we at least be patient to see how good or bad it is, before we kill it as a defenseless animal? Doesn't it have a right to life?
Apparently, Romney thought this form of a healthcare plan was fine when he endorsed it in Massachusetts! And the people there have 98 per cent of the people covered in that State! Pretty good program, if you ask me! Pretty good! It couldn't be that he is just playing politics now, could it?
"This will not end well, I just know it".
(paraphrase from Marvin, Hitch hikers guide to the presidency)
The health care bill, and immigration are just bargaining points for Obama.
Ask the idiot why Gitmo detention is still open.
"Promise me now and I will follow".
(song of the lemmings)
Can anyone explain the benefits or risks involved with HSA (Health Savings Account)?
One thing that caught my attention in a wikipedia article (Lets not go there on the un-reliability of Wikipedia) on HSA is the claim that the HSA money you do not use for qualified health expenses remains YOURS. Is that true or a snope?
If the money does remain yours, and you die unexpectedly, do the funds in the HSA account transfer to any surviving beneficiaries as cash or into an HSA for them?
Sounds good if you get to keep your deposits to your HSA in your pocket to use as you choose rather than in the pockets of the insurance industry, which chooses how to spend that money.
Is money deposited into an HSA counted as taxable income by the IRS? Does regular insurance provided by an employer or other provider such as state medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, or private insurance count as taxable income?
Could anyone help me answer these questions? I think they are relevant to how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will affect most Americans
Our State funded Health care plan is taking kids who need a filling and sending them to the hospital for general anesthesia which probably costs $10 or $20,000 per child. Now you know they wouldn't do that unless the state was paying for it. What is the reason for that, you ask? Because the child was a little antsy and tried to bite down when the dentist was trying to do the dental work. So instead of putting a bite guard in the child's mouth and telling the mother to tell the child to be still, the dentist risks the life of a little child by putting him under general anesthesia. I think that can only be to get a big charge and more money. There is no way people are going to get good health care at a decent cost. Is the fox guarding the henhouse? Our government is so corrupt that the little people are being cheated at every turn. Now if you go back to this article and read what Donald Berwick, the director of Medicaid, said when asked about whether or not poor people would be left without either form of coverage, he said it was highly unlikely. Highly unlikely? That screams to me that millions of people (without children) are going to fall through the cracks while again, people with children are going to have such wasteful amounts of money spent on them, it will be looked at in retrospect as borderline fraud.
Well somehow I got to read lots of articles on your blog. It’s amazing how interesting it is for me to visit you very often.
Hydroxycut
It is being said that the governor of Az. will not participate in any health care act that was enacted by Obama and will continue to challenge the republican supreme courts decision. I personally favor letting the 1% pay all the health care cost of the other 99%, this would not effect the 1% lifestyle in any way. This might even get the 1% to use a small portions of their wealth to find ways to reduce health care cost. They have all been able to find ways not to pay their fair share of taxes (Mitt Romney is an example paying 14% of income in taxes (legally) while a family fo 4 making 30,000 a year pays 32%) Make Romney the president of the 1%ers and let him find ways to reduce health care cost. If corporation and the 1% can spend $1 billion dollars plus on a candidate for president which is pocket change to the corporations and 1%ers they can easily fund health care in the US because they have been able to (legally) find ways to pay no taxes.
Passing and adding through worthy subject, <a href="">Calendula Salve</a> i am sure that you focused all aspects with real experiences. It's nice that you worked well and gave good material over here.
if the poor are left out of the insurance will they also be penilized (taxed) for not having it?
There are provisions for the poor receiving coverage. Unlike the Republican Party's preference, the ACA won't leave people to die on the streets.
My opinion over this topic is perhaps not so impressive like the reader's point of view. But i am pretty glad to add new information in my memory after reading such phenomenal addition over your blog. Happy sharing please. Laveneder Salve
Pretty awesome to share such wonderful experiences and comments as metioned above but I like my work in my own way if you like then please visit this please <a href="">personal finance management</a>
Pretty awesome to share such wonderful experiences and comments as metioned above but I like my work in my own way if you like then please visit this please <a href="">personal finance articles</a>