Trumps Medicaid Chief: "Bootstraps"

[DlAMONDZ]

From the WashingtonPost

Hours after she was sworn in, the Trump administration’s top official for Medicaid and her boss dispatched a letter to the nation’s governors, urging states to alter the insurance program for poor and disabled people by charging them insurance premiums, requiring them to pay part of emergency room bills and prodding them to get jobs.

The letter, sent Tuesday night by Seema Verma, the new administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, also derides the Medicaid expansion that 31 states and the District of Columbia adopted under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

By giving states greater help with these new beneficiaries, it contends the ACA has “provided states with an incentive to deprioritize the most vulnerable populations.” The three-page letter does not mention that, for the first three years, the federal government paid the entire cost of covering the expansion group and still pays nearly all of that.

 

[hashmander]

 

[Alpha Male]

OP honest question...in your opinion why should someone who doesn't work receive free health benefits? And why should the hard working tax paying citizens have to cover it in addition to having to pay for their own?

edit: sorry actually from reading your post I couldn't tell if you were for or against this. I just assumed you were against this cuz the thread title. if I'm wrong disregard

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

OP honest question... why should someone who doesn't work receive free health benefits? And why should the hard working tax paying citizens have to cover it in addition to having to pay for their own?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe that individual doesn't work because of health reasons?

Are we supposed to let that individual die in the streets?

 

[88m3]

Stuff like this has been shown to do more harm than good time and time again.

Republicans need to move on and create a serious platform.

 

[Alpha Male]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe that individual doesn't work because of health reasons?

Are we supposed to let that individual die in the streets?

There's a difference between people who can't work because of a disability and people who willingly choose not to work.

I don't think anyone on the right has a problem taking care of the former. If you were once employed and became unemployed due to health reasons, or you just flat out can't work at all... that's what the security net is for.

 

[Dr. Acula]

OP honest question...in your opinion why should someone who doesn't work receive free health benefits? And why should the hard working tax paying citizens have to cover it in addition to having to pay for their own?

edit: sorry actually from reading your post I couldn't tell if you were for or against this. I just assumed you were against this cuz the thread title. if I'm wrong disregard

Many people who utilize medicaid are people who either are the working poor and pay taxes, are down on their luck, or the sick elderly who were paying into federal government's coffers at one time and are now utilizing those benefits.

You could be poor tomorrow by the way. Do you have kids? You better hold on to your job for dear life and hope a downturn in the economy doesn't coincide with your company doing layoffs. Otherwise you're in for a bad time. Also don't ever get in an accident or develop a debilitating disease.

Also its very bizarre that every social program has to be distilled to whether a minority of people who use it somewhere are possibly abusing it. The good it does for those who have a legit need for it is ignored and the narrative is that its bad because there is a smaller population, probably laughably small relatively speaking, are abusing it. No system is perfect and there will always be people looking to exploit a system. The goal is fix the possibility of abuse, not getting rid of a system that works for a larger segment of people.

Also, paying for a social program like medicaid, medicare, and socialized medicine has shown to lower everyone's cost. Because people reduce their reliance on emergency care and therefore get preventive care which is cheaper in the long run to take care of health issues, because now they can pay for it. Before the expansion of medicaid and ACA, emergency care was the primary way poor people received healthcare. Then they can't pay the higher prices of emergency cares, hospital in order to stay open relied on help from governments which is then passed on to you through taxation. So, either the person utilizes emergency care without coverage and cost you more money or you provide a subsidy so they can catch illnesses earlier in their progression. If I was a heartless zealot in my belief in capitalism in all cases, the choice seems obvious to me.

Before ACA, most bankruptcies were due to medical cost and still makes a large portion of them. Yet, every other developed country with socialized medicine to some degree don't even entertain the thought that a health crisis can bankrupt you. Its not even something happens. Its like...a unicorn or fairy to them. Only US citizens are stupid enough to put up with it because they've been scared by the big bad S word by people who need to buy their second Learjet.

 

[acri1]

OP honest question...in your opinion why should someone who doesn't work receive free health benefits? And why should the hard working tax paying citizens have to cover it in addition to having to pay for their own?

edit: sorry actually from reading your post I couldn't tell if you were for or against this. I just assumed you were against this cuz the thread title. if I'm wrong disregard

So what should happen when someone who doesn't have insurance gets sick? Just let them die?

 

[Techniec]

Many people who utilize medicaid are people who either are the working poor and pay taxes, are down on their luck, or the sick elderly who were paying into federal government's coffers at one time and are now utilizing those benefits.

You could be poor tomorrow by the way. Do you have kids? You better hold on to your job for dear life and hope a downturn in the economy doesn't coincide with your company doing layoffs. Otherwise you're in for a bad time. Also don't ever get in an accident or develop a debilitating disease.

Also its very bizarre that every social program has to be distilled to whether a minority of people who use it somewhere are possibly abusing it. The good it does for those who have a legit need for it is ignored and the narrative is that its bad because there is a smaller population, probably laughably small relatively speaking, are abusing it. No system is perfect and there will always be people looking to exploit a system. The goal is fix the possibility of abuse, not getting rid of a system that works for a larger segment of people.

Also, paying for a social program like medicaid, medicare, and socialized medicine has shown to lower everyone's cost. Because people reduce their reliance on emergency care and therefore get preventive care which is cheaper in the long run to take care of health issues, because now they can pay for it. Before the expansion of medicaid and ACA, emergency care was the primary way poor people received healthcare. Then they can't pay the higher prices of emergency cares, hospital in order to stay open relied on help from governments which is then passed on to you through taxation. So, either the person utilizes emergency care without coverage and cost you more money or you provide a subsidy so they can catch illnesses earlier in their progression. If I was a heartless zealot in my belief in capitalism in all cases, the choice seems obvious to me.

Before ACA, most bankruptcies were due to medical cost and still makes a large portion of them. Yet, every other developed country with socialized medicine to some degree don't even entertain the thought that a health crisis can bankrupt you. Its not even something happens. Its like...a unicorn or fairy to them. Only US citizens are stupid enough to put up with it because they've been scared by the big bad S word by people who need to buy their second Learjet.

Nothing like shytting on scum bag right wing talking points

 

[Dad]

Sick babies & the elderly gonna hurt the most off this

 

[Alpha Male]

Many people who utilize medicaid are people who either are the working poor and pay taxes, are down on their luck, or the sick elderly who were paying into federal government's coffers at one time and are now utilizing those benefits.

i don't think this was aimed at those people.

Hours after she was sworn in, the Trump administration’s top official for Medicaid and her boss dispatched a letter to the nation’s governors, urging states to alter the insurance program for poor and disabled people by charging them insurance premiums, requiring them to pay part of emergency room bills and prodding them to get jobs.

looks to me this is designed for non-working people recieving free benefits.

granted the actual letter wasn't even posted but i'm just going off the article... which could just be spin.

 

[Alpha Male]

So what should happen when someone who doesn't have insurance gets sick? Just let them die?

Why doesn't this person have health insurance? Do they work? Can they afford 300 bucks a month? If they can't then why haven't they applied for medicaid?

Shouldn't attaining health insurance be everyone's top priority?


edit: FYI the trump administration is looking to cut the costs of insurance even more.

 

[Uncle Kingpin]

FYI the trump administration is looking to cut the costs of insurance even more.

Is this some slick way to say people dying will save money? The only way to control the cost of healthcare is through subsidies and regulations which is the opposite of Trumpcare. What many people overlook in this whole conversation is hospitals and doctors, the ones who know from experience how complicated healthcare is, agreed to a reduction in payments (from 2-7%) as part of the ACA because they know extending coverage subsidizes everyone else. The main reason hospital bills have historically been so high is because they have to make up for all the people who couldnt afford to pay and had to be written off. And they are not getting that back in this repeal bill so when you combine payment reductions with a massive influx of uninsured poor, it's a recipe for skyrocketing costs.

There is already a two tiered health system developing and this will only accelerate the process. Concierge doctors who do housecallsOr waiting forever in a packed ER only to be sent back home because your not dying enough to get admitted

 

[mc_brew]

Did it ever occur to you that maybe that individual doesn't work because of health reasons?

Are we supposed to let that individual die in the streets?

a compassionate and christian nation would let that person die in the streets.... it's those godless liberals that find it necessary to save the scornful from themselves and the rewards they've earned...

 

[BaileyPark31]

Why doesn't this person have health insurance? Do they work? Can they afford 300 bucks a month? If they can't then why haven't they applied for medicaid?

Shouldn't attaining health insurance be everyone's top priority?


edit: FYI the trump administration is looking to cut the costs of insurance even more.

I really hope youre just trollin'..