- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:44 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I thought it was Medicaid?
Same difference
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:45 am to Lsut81
quote:
Why the frick should the states expand coverage when it will end up costing them millions upon millions in 3yrs?
Are you sure this is how it works? I really don't know, but I don't remember a limit for the medicaid subsidy...maybe I'm wrong???
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:45 am to Bluefin
quote:
Plus, it would look bad for the Obama administration if the insurers say that X-number of people signed up, but a far lower number actually paid to be fully insured.
How do we know that it would look bad? We don't have the numbers to know. The numbers could look great for Obama.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:46 am to a want
I found this:
So it looks like the federal gov. covers 90% permanently after 3 years.
quote:
CBO estimates show that the federal government will bear nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion over its first nine years (2014-2022). The federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of covering people made newly eligible for Medicaid for the first three years (2014-2016) and no less than 90 percent on a permanent basis.
The additional cost to the states represents a 2.8 percent increase in what they would have spent on Medicaid from 2014 to 2022 in the absence of health reform, the CBO estimates indicate.
This 2.8 percent figure significantly overstates the net impact on state budgets because it does not reflect the savings that state and local governments will realize in other health care spending for the uninsured. The Urban Institute has estimated that overall state savings in these areas will total between $26 and $52 billion from 2014 through 2019. The Lewin Group estimates state and local government savings of $101 billion in uncompensated care.
So it looks like the federal gov. covers 90% permanently after 3 years.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:51 am to a want
quote:
So it looks like the federal gov. covers 90% permanently after 3 years.
Thats what I am seeing... What does that 10% equate to for the average state?
The issue is that states cannot print money like the Fed. They have to operate within their budgets and it looks like that 10%, although it seems like nothing, is actually huge to states
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:53 am to Lsut81
The article states it would mean a rise of 2.8% in those states, definitely nothing huge.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:58 am to Eurocat
quote:
2.8% in those states,
2.8% of what? Total Budget?
If so, thats another $750m cost to Louisiana
btw, so 2.8% isn't huge? I bet you are one of the posters that claimed the Insurance companies are evil because of all of their profits.... You know what their profits were? 1-3% on average.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:58 am to Lsut81
This too
quote:
This 2.8 percent figure significantly overstates the net impact on state budgets because it does not reflect the savings that state and local governments will realize in other health care spending for the uninsured. .
Posted on 4/17/14 at 8:59 am to Eurocat
quote:
The article states it would mean a rise of 2.8% in those states, definitely nothing huge.
From a federal perspective, not huge at all.
From a state perspective, very huge.
Get the Federal Reserve to start buying state bonds like they do treasuries and it wouldn't be a big issue for states.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:04 am to GumboPot
Remember that is just 2.8% of their Medicaid budgets, not their entire state budgets. So it's even less as a portion of what they spend (total).
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:10 am to Eurocat
To be honest, I really don't understand the numbers. There are simply too many sources, assumptions and political agendas to get a clear picture.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:11 am to Lsut81
quote:
Same difference
In the fact they are both federal health programs, yes.
Here's a pretty simple description of both:
quote:
The Medicare and Medicaid programs work together to provide medical coverage to elderly and poor people. Medicare is the primary medical coverage provider for many persons aged 65 and older and for those with a disability. Eligibility has nothing to do with income level. Meanwhile, Medicaid eligibility is designed for people with limited income, and it is often a program of last resort for those without access to other resources.
LINK
So what this tells me is that we all are eligible at 65 for one type of insurance that we all pay for in taxes. Fair enough.
For all those under 65 that can't afford insurance we all are paying for that even though many of us will not benefit from it. Not fair enough. No way this option will be sustainable for the long haul, imo.
I don't see where subsidies are available for Medicare but I might have missed it somewhere.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:11 am to Eurocat
So La already has a 50m deficit in their Medicaid budget...
Yes, expanding and the Feds picking up 100% wouldn't change that right now, but whats the impact after?
Yes, expanding and the Feds picking up 100% wouldn't change that right now, but whats the impact after?
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:42 am to Lsut81
The system can't be sustained, without much higher taxes going forward. It looks decent, right now, but thats how you hook a client, as a drug dealer. Its just so much better to stay off drugs; completely, and why we are such a deadbeat nation. These entitlements look to help on the surface, but go look at the debt clock,or workforce numbers, they will eventually bring everyone to their knees. You just have to feel sorry for the workers of this country, and their future..
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:47 am to GumboPot
quote:
All I'm saying is make 4 phone calls to the insurance companies and ask a few questions about the numbers versus calling thousands of people and statistically extrapolating from those questions.
Just get the real numbers from the insurance companies. That's all.
I doubt the good people at gallup would get that information. The administration could potentially call them, but its wayyyyyyy more than 4 calls. Probably be several thousand.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 9:56 am to Eurocat
quote:
And even more could be signed up if 24 states expanded their Medicaid programs like the law said they should but but SCOTUS said they did not have to. Then we might have more than 20 newly insured.
I don't think you understand public finance. Those states would need to increase taxes to make that happen because states need to balance their budgets and cannot print money.
I mean it's all good until someone has to pay for it....
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:00 am to ironsides
quote:
I don't think you understand public finance.
Read rest of thread.
This is not negative for any state. The reason Texas, Louisiana and several other states turned it down is purely political......and for the most part, idiotic.
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:05 am to a want
quote:
The reason Texas, Louisiana and several other states turned it down is purely political......and for the most part, idiotic.
I don't care what their motive is... The numbers are the numbers in the in.
Again, I ask.
Would you accept someone paying for you to live in a mansion rent free for 3yrs, only to be required to pay more than you can afford after those 3yrs?
Do I have an answer for what Healthcare overhaul should def be? Nope
Do I think there should be reform? Yup
I just know this isn't it
Posted on 4/17/14 at 10:10 am to a want
quote:
This is not negative for any state. The reason Texas, Louisiana and several other states turned it down is purely political......and for the most part, idiotic.
I always wondered if race played a part, since there are a lot of poor blacks in those states. I don't really have a clue though, as I haven't lived in texas for over 20 years. When I lived there, I was always amazed how racist everyone was.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News