States are losing billions by not expanding Medicaid

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100
States are losing billions by not expanding Medicaid

States losing billions in refusing to expand Medicaid, report finds - NBC News.com

Red states may be sticking to their Republican beliefs in small government, but a new study finds they are passing up billions in federal funding by saying no to the Medicaid expansion. Texas will lose $9.2 billion in 2022; Florida says goodbye to $5 billion; Georgia is out $4.9 billion; Alabama loses out on $2.1 billion; and North Carolina is giving up on a potential $5.7 billion. Indiana, which is still undecided on whether to join the Medicaid expansion, would bring in nearly $2.6 billion in Medicaid money in 2022 if it did.

These figures include offsets for the states' portion of Medicaid costs. The study also included potential savings from fewer uninsured people using emergency rooms they can't pay for.

What do you think about this? Should these states be required to join in? I know the Supreme Court already said no to that question, but that was before a study of this nature and this magnitude had been done. Why, in the UNITED States of America should where you live determine whether you can get medical care? Especially when your state is giving up the chance for billions of dollars to help cover your medical care?

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

No states should not be forced to join into the Medicaid expansion. We may be the united states, but our constitutions was written in a way that gives states the power to do what is right for their citizens. If states do not like the choices that are being made by those in power then they can vote them out.

I actually have a lot of respect for states that are willing to turn down federal funding.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

Absolutely not.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"mom3girls" wrote:

No states should not be forced to join into the Medicaid expansion. We may be the united states, but our constitutions was written in a way that gives states the power to do what is right for their citizens. If states do not like the choices that are being made by those in power then they can vote them out.

I actually have a lot of respect for states that are willing to turn down federal funding.

I just can't figure out how turning down billions and denying access to medical care is "doing right" for their citizens.

This just seems like a strange hill to die on.

Raise drinking age or lose federal funds. Check. Adopt NCLB standards or lose federal funds. Check. Accept federal funds to expand MediCaid? Oh hell no!

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Absolutely not.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Then maybe it should be put to a vote in the states declining the money.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Then maybe it should be put to a vote in the states declining the money.

If you were to put it to a citizen vote if Obamacare should be repealed or if TN should embrace it with open arms I would guess at least 75% if not more would say repeal it. Our local news posted a story on FB today (they have a question of the day) asking if anyone had tried the healthcare.gov website since it had been revamped. There were TONS of comments about how they want nothing to do with it and are staying far, far away from it. To say that Obamacare is unpopular here would be a vast understatement. Yes, you will have some people that are for it, just like I am sure there are conservatives where many of you live, but they are far and away in the minority.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

For reference, Look at this article. Tennessee: Obamacare will triple men's premiums, double women's | WashingtonExaminer.com Weather or not you think it is true, it is what many of the people of TN believe and contributes to why it is so unpopular in this area.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Wait what? We're back to Obamacare?

The federal government isn't forcing states to take money. Since it is a state decision, it should be up to the people to decide if the state takes or loses the money right?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

If you were to put it to a citizen vote if Obamacare should be repealed or if TN should embrace it with open arms I would guess at least 75% if not more would say repeal it. Our local news posted a story on FB today (they have a question of the day) asking if anyone had tried the healthcare.gov website since it had been revamped. There were TONS of comments about how they want nothing to do with it and are staying far, far away from it. To say that Obamacare is unpopular here would be a vast understatement. Yes, you will have some people that are for it, just like I am sure there are conservatives where many of you live, but they are far and away in the minority.

To be clear: 75% of the citizens of TN have chosen to remove their children from the coverage long before they turn 26? Those with pre-existing conditions have told doctors/medical professionals that they will pay out of pocket for anything related to that condition? Those who seek mental health treatment also decline to allow their insurance company to cover the bill and pay out of pocket instead?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

For reference, Look at this article. Tennessee: Obamacare will triple men's premiums, double women's | WashingtonExaminer.com Weather or not you think it is true, it is what many of the people of TN believe and contributes to why it is so unpopular in this area.

— Today, a 27-year-old man in Memphis can buy a plan for as low as $41 a month. On the exchange, the lowest state average is $119 a month — a 190 percent increase.

— Today, a 27-year-old woman in Nashville can also buy a plan for as low as $58 a month. On the exchange, the lowest-priced plan in Nashville is $114 a month — a 97 percent increase. Even with a tax subsidy, that plan is $104 a month, almost twice what she could pay today.

What is the coverage?

It's just so misleading with all the "could buy a plan for $58/month" but now the lowest-priced plan is $114/month. Notice, it doesn't say the plans are the same or even similar.

I tried to follow the links to TN's exchange and get information, but they've got nothing.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What is the coverage?

It's just so misleading with all the "could buy a plan for $58/month" but now the lowest-priced plan is $114/month. Notice, it doesn't say the plans are the same or even similar.

I tried to follow the links to TN's exchange and get information, but they've got nothing.

Regardless if they are better off or not, many people BELIEVE they are better off without it. That is why if there was a populous vote on Obamacare I do not believe it would pass in TN.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Jessica80" wrote:

The federal government isn't forcing states to take money. Since it is a state decision, it should be up to the people to decide if the state takes or loses the money right?

If I am understand correctly, that is what the debate is. The OP asks if States should be required to.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

A lot more people in TN would have access to affordable care if they expanded Medicaid. It sounds to me like you all would just prefer to cut off your noses to spite your face.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I dont believe that most people look at it as "loosing money" I think a lot of states are trying to live within the means of the state, realizing that at some point in time money from the feds will run out. If they can run their medicaid system without taking federal dollars or taking a smaller percentage then they will feel less hurt when the money runs out.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Regardless if they are better off or not, many people BELIEVE they are better off without it. That is why if there was a populous vote on Obamacare I do not believe it would pass in TN.

And it seems that many people in Tennessee don't seem to know the FACTS and are instead relying on their BELIEFS about this.

And I also seem to recall that one prior debate you were referencing the amount your family pays, rather than the actual premium amount which includes what your employer contributes; that might be one of the biggest problems here, people not understanding the difference between what they pay and what the real premium is.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

If I am understand correctly, that is what the debate is. The OP asks if States should be required to.

Yes. But these states are moving forward without a vote.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Spacers" wrote:

And it seems that many people in Tennessee don't seem to know the FACTS and are instead relying on their BELIEFS about this.

And I also seem to recall that one prior debate you were referencing the amount your family pays, rather than the actual premium amount which includes what your employer contributes; that might be one of the biggest problems here, people not understanding the difference between what they pay and what the real premium is.

"Jessica80" wrote:

Yes. But these states are moving forward without a vote.

My point is, even if there was a vote I believe the people would vote to do just as the State is doing. These people have their political futures in mind. If it was against the wishes of the voters they would not do it. Also, if it was against the will of the people they would get it on the ballet to vote on it. Just this past week the city council tried to pass something that people were against. The people rallied together and in just a few days they had over 10,000 signatures and got it put on our next election. If the people of TN disagreed with TN not running their own exchange they would do something about it. However, the vast majority believe that was the right thing to do. Whether or not you think it was the right thing to do is neither here no there. It is a State issue, and while some State will support it, others will not.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6561

"Jessica80" wrote:

Yes. But these states are moving forward without a vote.

I don't remember there being a vote when Obamacare was passed.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

You guys act like those billions are free money or something. We are still paying those billions. Or actually our grandchildren will pay it.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You guys act like those billions are free money or something. We are still paying those billions. Or actually our grandchildren will pay it.

I just don't get it.

You know what is so awesome about having access to health coverage? I will get to look at my grandchildren and tell them thank you! My mother's father died before I was born. My father's mother died when I was 7. Both of them died from causes that today could be treated and cured. Assuming access to health care, of course. I would gladly pay more in the form of taxes or increased health premiums to have known them. And I am willing to pay more so that other families can get early diagnosis and treatment for things that shouldn't have to be fatal.

All of us pay the price one way or another. It's kind of like an IRA. You can either pay the taxes when you put it in (Roth) or when you take it out (traditional), but you are going to pay taxes on it. As a society we just need to decide whether we want to pay to keep people healthy and for early detection/treatment, or if we want to pay for emergency care, disability, and those left behind.

You say our grandkids will be picking up the tab for all of this. Well, let me tell you, my grandfather was 42 when he died. If the same thing happens to me at 42, you taxpayers would be paying a whole hell of a lot more for what I will leave behind than it would cost to treat me. You would be paying for a lot longer too.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I remember when I was in HS in the 90s, and my US history teacher was telling us how were were still paying Civil War Benefits to a few widows (ones that were very young and married older former soldiers). That was shocking to me. First time it hit me that taxes paid are paid for past things. (I was about 14 or 15).

That seems like an okay reason right? War and all. Much better deal than the health of people who live in this country, right?