ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Washington DC and The Holy Land (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Obama Why doesn't the state of Kansas expand the Medicate? (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=278202)

Msmith 11-01-2013 08:49 PM

Why doesn't the state of Kansas expand the Medicate?
 
The Fed would like to hand out the money 100% for the expanded Medicaid the first three years. Now there are bunch of people lost their Medicaid coverage and couldn't get a decent plan in the Exchange.

I am sure the governor, and the 26 Republican governors, has reasons. But what is it?

2bikemike 11-01-2013 08:52 PM

I am no expert and don't really know much about the medicade stuff, but I would think that eventually the States are going to be picking up a larger tab than they do now. The 100% is just a carrot.

Msmith 11-01-2013 08:56 PM

I thought it is 100% for the first three years and 90% every year afterward.

cosmo20002 11-01-2013 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148145)
The Fed would like to hand out the money 100% for the expanded Medicaid the first three years. Now there are bunch of people lost their Medicaid coverage and couldn't get a decent plan in the Exchange.

I am sure the governor, and the 26 Republican governors, has reasons. But what is it?

http://thelinkpaper.ca/wp-content/up.../08/obama1.jpg

2bikemike 11-01-2013 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148169)
I thought it is 100% for the first three years and 90% every year afterward.

But your picking up a lot more people. Like I said I am not versed in it, I am just speculating.

I liken it to the Bullet Train Carrot. The Feds were willing to give a huge amount of money to help build them but IMHO the actual construction costs along with the operating costs are going to be a huge burden to the state coffers.

Msmith 11-01-2013 09:12 PM

According to this article:

"...So why have Kansas leaders (I use that term lightly) made the decision to leave over 100,000 working Kansans without the possibility of coverage? The answer, which has been apparent for well over a year, is political posturing. Conservatives remain hostile to Obamacare, and while some Republicans have offered their own solutions to the issue, many, including those in Topeka, have chosen to simply undercut and challenge the law at every opportunity, regardless of the impact of their decisions. To the governor and his allies in the legislature, this isnít about pursuing the best policy- itís about keeping up their street cred with the Tea Party and the far right."

How true is that?

2bikemike 11-01-2013 09:27 PM

Here is the Analysis the State performed it should give you the answer to your question.

http://www.kdheks.gov/hcf/kancare/do...sis_Report.pdf

Quote:

If the State chooses to expand Medicaid, Aon Hewittís best estimate is that the Medicaid/CHIP enrollment
will increase by 111,880 in CY2014, ramping up to 226,003 (25,416 from currently eligible Medicaid,
49,384 from currently eligible CHIP, and 151,203 from those newly eligible for Medicaid) in CY2016, once
ACA is fully implemented. These estimates incorporate anticipated woodwork effects, newly eligible
members and potential crowd out effects. Crowd out refers to enrollment shifts from private coverage to
public insurance as an effect of Medicaid eligibility expansion. Under the expansion scenario, the
enrollment of currently eligible but not enrolled is assumed to increase more than under the without
expansion scenario. This is due to extra outreach efforts initiated by various interest groups and
anticipated additional enrollment of currently eligible children when newly eligible parents enroll in
Medicaid. The enrollment increase from the newly eligible is mainly driven by the expansion of Medicaid
eligibility to all eligible individuals under 138% of the federal poverty level (FPL), regardless of parental
status or medical condition. The anticipated 10-year (CY2014-CY2023) State budget increase (state
share only) with expansion compared to No ACA will be $1.1B ($970.1M for Medicaid and $173.6M for
CHIP).

banyon 11-01-2013 09:30 PM

The answer in kansas is:

Brownback Resumequest 2016

Anything that he can add to his bullet point list of why he'd makw a great primary candidate.

Its the only way you can explain why he simultaneously rejected federal dollars for the health exchange and money for medicare on the grounds that "he does not want to be begging for federal money" and then turns around and begs for money for the NBATH facility. Because both are bullet points. One is "look at how i stood up to obama" and the other is "i was a job creator in kansas".

Of course the sad thing is that the best for kansas doesn't really factor into that equation. And of course brownback has zero chance at the nomination because he has the charisma of a slug.

Msmith 11-01-2013 09:49 PM

So for the greater good of the common people, it should put away the petty politics?

banyon 11-01-2013 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148263)
So for the greater good of the common people, it should put away the petty politics?

It's a bit more cynical than that.

Because his presidential bid is doomed to utter insignificance, he should stop using the state as his experimental fiefdom.

2bikemike 11-01-2013 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banyon (Post 10148238)
The answer in kansas is:

Brownback Resumequest 2016

Anything that he can add to his bullet point list of why he'd makw a great primary candidate.

Its the only way you can explain why he simultaneously rejected federal dollars for the health exchange and money for medicare on the grounds that "he does not want to be begging for federal money" and then turns around and begs for money for the NBATH facility. Because both are bullet points. One is "look at how i stood up to obama" and the other is "i was a job creator in kansas".

Of course the sad thing is that the best for kansas doesn't really factor into that equation. And of course brownback has zero chance at the nomination because he has the charisma of a slug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148263)
So for the greater good of the common people, it should put away the petty politics?

So Neither of you think this matters?

[QUOTE]The anticipated 10-year (CY2014-CY2023) State budget increase (state
share only) with expansion compared to No ACA will be $1.1B ($970.1M for Medicaid and $173.6M for
CHIP)
. [/QUOTE]

jaa1025 11-01-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148145)
The Fed would like to hand out the money 100% for the expanded Medicaid the first three years. Now there are bunch of people lost their Medicaid coverage and couldn't get a decent plan in the Exchange.

I am sure the governor, and the 26 Republican governors, has reasons. But what is it?

Because the state of Kansas nor any other state afford it after 3 years.

banyon 11-01-2013 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bikemike (Post 10148296)
So Neither of you think this matters?

The anticipated 10-year (CY2014-CY2023) State budget increase (state
share only) with expansion compared to No ACA will be $1.1B ($970.1M for Medicaid and $173.6M for
CHIP)
.

First, i hope those projections weren't brought to us by the same folks who projected their massive tax cuts last year would have no impact on the budget and we are already down 19% y/oy.

Second, the taxpayers of kansas will be paying federal taxes into the expansion for all of the participating states and not getting anything back thanks to these choices.

The missing element there is to figure what the economic impact is of being drained 90% of that figure is every year out of the states economy. I think i have read that no economists unless they are truly crazy think that the economic impact of the 90% federal monet coming in wouldnt greatly outweigh the complained of state portion.

970.1 mil over ten years is 97 mil a year. Hell, brownback has already lost that in just the first couple of months of his experimental tax plan.

Ace Gunner 11-01-2013 10:52 PM

don't worry -- the poor people will get this right because they actually run the country. and stuff.

Baby Lee 11-01-2013 11:04 PM

Dealer 101, first taste is free.

2bikemike 11-01-2013 11:12 PM

First, i hope those projections weren't brought to us by the same folks who projected their massive tax cuts last year would have no impact on the budget and we are already down 19% y/oy.

Second, the taxpayers of kansas will be paying federal taxes into the expansion for all of the participating states and not getting anything back thanks to these choices.

The missing element there is to figure what the economic impact is of being drained 90% of that figure is every year out of the states economy. I think i have read that no economists unless they are truly crazy think that the economic impact of the 90% federal monet coming in wouldnt greatly outweigh the complained of state portion.

970.1 mil over ten years is 97 mil a year. Hell, brownback has already lost that in just the first couple of months of his experimental tax plan.[/QUOTE]

I have no knowledge of your tax cuts and what was projected or by whom.
As far as the tax payers paying for the federal expansion is you will be paying either way. On what you get back I would assume the powers to be would have weighed the costs and came to the conclusion accepting the medicaid expansion would hurt the state more in the long run.

Both State and Federal are trying to end up with the best deal financially for them.

Dayze 11-02-2013 02:51 AM

when it's all said and done, 20 years from now Obama will be looked at as one of the worst presidents in history. and people who voted for him, will lie to others when asked if they voted for him.

Msmith 11-02-2013 06:08 AM

Cosmo, you are a strong supporter for ObamaCare. Do you think what the governor did is wrong by not accepting the Fed money?

banyon 11-02-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2bikemike (Post 10148368)

I have no knowledge of your tax cuts and what was projected or by whom.
As far as the tax payers paying for the federal expansion is you will be paying either way. On what you get back I would assume the powers to be would have weighed the costs and came to the conclusion accepting the medicaid expansion would hurt the state more in the long run.

Both State and Federal are trying to end up with the best deal financially for them.

Yes and their assumptions were preposterous and rejected by all responding economists. They assumed that 9 dollars coming into the state were economically worse than 10 dollars leaving it. That's not exactly rocket science there.

jettio 11-02-2013 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 10148364)
Dealer 101, first taste is free.

Would Congress be the one to authorize lowering the federal contribution?

Each state sends Representatives and Senators to Congress.

The only party likely to want to lower the federal contribution to Medicaid to the states would be the GOP.

jettio 11-02-2013 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148145)
The Fed would like to hand out the money 100% for the expanded Medicaid the first three years. Now there are bunch of people lost their Medicaid coverage and couldn't get a decent plan in the Exchange.

I am sure the governor, and the 26 Republican governors, has reasons. But what is it?

The GOP is bound and determined to oppose Obamacare whether it serves rational best interest of the people or not.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Obamacare mandate was not unconsitutional. But the Supreme Court ruled another part of the case, that states had to accept Medicaid expansion or lose all federal contribution to Medicaid, to be impermissible for some reason that is not easy to recall or explain.

So deciding not to expand Medicaid became the one way for state government to oppose Obamacare. Some GOP majority legislatures and governors see the expansion as a rational choice. A lot of GOP majority legislatures and governors have not really put much thought into opposing it.

Any chance of repeal of the ACA was lost when Obama was re-elected. Nearly every state will go with some form of the Medicaid expansion in the next couple of years after people live with the decision not to have it.

If Hillary Clinton, or any other caucasian Democrat, is elected in 2016, any state that has not expanded Medicaid by then will expand Medicaid in their 2017 legislative session.

cosmo20002 11-02-2013 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148496)
Cosmo, you are a strong supporter for ObamaCare. Do you think what the governor did is wrong by not accepting the Fed money?

Don't mistake arguing against the bullshit put out there as "strong" support. Yes I think the governor is wrong.

CrazyPhuD 11-02-2013 07:37 PM

Well first major issue, the states that didn't expand medicaid didn't cause people to lose their medicaid coverage. They never had it in the first place, this program was an expansion to add more people to medicaid.

Frankly the rationale behind this is fairly straight forward if you think about what the expect the long term costs to be. While the short term costs don't look bad, they are realistically a suckers bet. First three years looks great in that the Feds pay 100% and then 90% after. The problem is that no one should expect the 90% payment levels to be maintained. Afterall why should one group of medicaid patients be subsided more than another. Considering that current medicaid patients are subsidized 50-75% by the feds it's likely that the long term state costs for the expansion will also be 25-50% not the 10% claimed. After all it's not like the current administration is particularly known for keeping promises(realistically no politician is).

This fiscal burden is compounded by the fact that most if not all states can't run a deficit, they MUST pay for everything that year, which means with significant additional costs they have to either raise taxes or cut other services. All for a program that you don't support. Would you do it?

Then there's the final issue, frankly the expansion of medicaid is the roadmap to a single payer system. Why? It starts with a modest expansion today, but what happens when obamacare made insurance so expensive that middle class families that could have afforded their own insurance before now can't? Why not expand medicaid just a little further to cover that group(and then just a little further for the next group and so forth).

While there's no guarantee that they would use medicaid to support a single payer system, one can see the roadmap where they could. Again when you don't support the program and it adds cost to your budget why would you do it? They are the ones who will lose their jobs over raising taxes or reducing services all to fund a program that is far less popular in their states.

Prison Bitch 11-02-2013 08:21 PM

Liberals mad that a state in these times would be wary of adding a $100m tab to its budget. ESP a small state such as this. But then: we are taking about the same fools who think welfare benefits are "stimulus"

GloryDayz 11-02-2013 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10148185)

That's the mother****ing piece of pig shit that (yeah, not "who") hates God and America.... He's a total ASSHOLE!

HonestChieffan 11-02-2013 09:11 PM

Medicate should be ixpandit

Prison Bitch 11-02-2013 10:09 PM

Have you ever heard of a government program libs don't want to expand? Maybe homeland security.

HonestChieffan 11-02-2013 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10150450)
Have you ever heard of a government program libs don't want to expand? Maybe homeland security.

Especially one they can sell as funded by others. The biggest salesmen work for the state. Sad. Kansas should prodly stand with leaders who have principle.

Prison Bitch 11-03-2013 08:23 PM

"A liberal is the kinda person who'll give you the shirt off someone else's back" - Ronald Reagan

GloryDayz 11-03-2013 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch (Post 10157227)
"A liberal is the kinda person who'll give you the shirt off someone else's back" - Ronald Reagan

This...................

cosmo20002 11-03-2013 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryDayz (Post 10150222)
That's the mother****ing piece of pig shit that (yeah, not "who") hates God and America.... He's a total ASSHOLE!

Somewhere around this area is where people cross over from reasonable political differences to nutjob asshole.

GloryDayz 11-03-2013 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10158124)
Somewhere around this area is where people cross over from reasonable political differences to nutjob asshole.

Well, after this lady got her pick for president, I feel less inclined to withhold my feelings and engage in the true tenets of parliamentary procedure...

Obama needs to hear clearly how what I think the majority of the contry really feels. He's an asshole of epic proportion, and being nice isn't part of the game.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/tpAOwJvTOio" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

cosmo20002 11-03-2013 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GloryDayz (Post 10158252)
Well, after this lady got her pick for president, I feel less inclined to withhold my feelings and engage in the true tenets of parliamentary procedure...

Obama needs to hear clearly how what I think the majority of the contry really feels. He's an asshole of epic proportion, and being nice isn't part of the game.

You know, the phone program was started by Reagan and expanded to cell phones by W Bush.

And anyway, what does that have to do with you saying that Obama hates God and America?

GloryDayz 11-04-2013 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002 (Post 10158336)
You know, the phone program was started by Reagan and expanded to cell phones by W Bush.

And anyway, what does that have to do with you saying that Obama hates God and America?

Oh, that last part... That was just to piss people like you off! That being said, he is an lying asshole just the same! One thing is for sure, and I'll bet they're well aware of it (and won't have to worry about it), they better watch out if the conservatives ever get the White House and both chambers in congress again. Like I said, I don't see them getting the White house ever again, much less both chambers of congress, there are simply too many lazy people (and their cats and dogs) voting these days, and many of them more than once probably.

So all you can do is move all your money, or as much as you can, offshore.

patteeu 11-04-2013 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Msmith (Post 10148263)
So for the greater good of the common people, it should put away the petty politics?

Getting more people into medicaid isn't good for the common people.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.