Skip to comments.Fifteen governors reject or leaning against expanded Medicaid program
Posted on 07/03/2012 3:22:10 AM PDT by tobyhill
At least 15 governors have indicated they will not participate in the expansion of Medicaid under the healthcare law, striking a blow to President Obamas promise of broader insurance coverage.
Before Thursdays Supreme Court ruling, states had the option of either increasing their Medicaid rolls or being penalized by the federal government. The high court struck down that offer as unconstitutional.
Governors still have a financial incentive to participate in the expansion of coverage for low-income people, since the government will foot most of the bill through 2016. But the decision is also loaded with politics, particularly for Republican governors who are adamantly opposed to ObamaCare.
You can make the political call real quick, but the actual decision is a complicated one, said Matt Salo of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. Governors are going to be looking at the numbers and asking: Does this make sense for us?
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Hope McConnell gets the memo.
I see great problems.
Fist this article says the Feds will pick up most of the cost until 2016, can we assume that after 2016 the States bear the burden?
The Supreme Court says that States cannot be penalised (retaliated against) if they opt out. You can bet if Mr. Arrogance Obama is in the White House there will be retaliation.
I expect that 90% share the Government proposes to pay will be drastically cut over the years and the State left holding the bag.The future for Medicaid is expanding the numbers on it with less money for it IMO.
Does it really mattter who is left paying the piper?
If the Feds pay it or the States pay it,doesn’t it all come out of our pockets in the end?
Obama has messed up the Health Care of this nation to a fare thee well, and no one can straighten it out again.
The problem is going to be the increase to the 30+ million now as more and more Ghetto Slugs realize there’s “freebies” out there.
Fed gov is throwing tons of money into primary care, preventative medicine. This is the part that rules until around 2016, when, yes the states will then start bearing the burden. The problem with this (from source) is that patients will be diagnosed earlier. All good, you say? Well, it's all good until the gov decides one is too old for continuing care. That's when the "end of life" counseling begins.
A co-worker and I (we're both old, older than 55, and I'm a breast cancer survivor, for now) have decided that if the gov says we need end of life counseling to die, we will refuse the counseling. I mean, if we don't get the gov's ok to die, we don't die, right? Also, we're wondering if we die sooner than the gov says we should, can we transfer our end of life counseling (that we didn't use) to anyone else? sort of pay it forward from beyond?
Sorry for the lack of seriousness...but do pay attention to the first paragraph. By having a visit-by-visit record of our health, the gov will be very happy to "call it" and end our care.
Corrolary of Murphy’s Law: “A Smith & Wesson beats a full house.” That end-of-life counseling is going to mean a whole lot of people dying, and they won’t all be patients.
IF SECESSION NOT BE, THEN REVOLUTION MUST BE.
Ok, I can beat TWO full houses!But still, I’d rather God made the choice, not the gov.
Duhhh...give the 'federal money sitting on the table' back to those the government took it from in the first place!!!
Heck yeah! Unfortunately a sizable portion of that money is borrowed and printed! What the democrats are doing to this country is pure madness.
I'm looking at just the mere existence of a "National Association of Medicaid Directors" and asking, does this make sense for us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.