GOP Senator Confronts Planned Medicaid Cut

As far as "making hard choices", I suppose you believe it would be preferable to go back to a society where more infants died. If it is your opinion that it would be better for that to happen then for any moneygrubbing premature babies to get their hands on a dime of your money that is your opinion. Everybody has opinions. That's all I'll say about that.

"The poor" do not receive an "endless array of healthcare". Maybe Medicaid is different where you live, but here it covers that which is necessary and offers few choices. You don't get a lot of choices as far as doctors or medications or anything like that. It isn't some great program nor can it ever be. It is means tested and for those who can't afford health care.

If someone has other options then they shouldn't be allowed to join the program. So let's start with eliminating Medicaid fraud. Let's go after all of the doctors who bill Medicaid for thousands of dollars worth of services never rendered. Let's go after every single illegal immigrant on the program. Right there a lot of money has been saved.

Where is the actual PLAN? All that is being proposed is that the federal government "cut Medicaid". All that means is the states will have to come up with the money (i.e. raise taxes) and if they can't, then they'll cut the benefits of a program that isn't filled with benefits as it is. For example, if they started demanding a lot of deductibles and co-pays there are people who really, genuinely can't afford to pay those things.

Before taking measures like that, why not really go after the criminals who are using and abusing the system?

Where is the real plan here? I know there are a lot of people like yourself on FR, who hate the idea of "confiscating other people's money" to care for those who can't provide for themselves, whether it be education, medicine or what have you. Maybe you won't be satisfied until all of the programs are gone and I understand that mentality.

But for those who don't want to see the disabled rounded up in institutions or dead (as happened in the glory days), there are some REAL REFORMS that can and should take place before they just start randomly cutting.

Indiana Medicaid provides excellent care for the indigent. For instance--all mental health drugs are available on formulary. I have seen the formularies for the medical side of things, and they are quite liberal. Wishard Hospital in Indianapolis provides care for the indigent, including those who do not qualify for Medicaid. It is staffed by the professors at the IU School of Medicine.

And yes, I do believe that our technology has outstripped our ethics and our pocketbooks....we simply cannot afford to fund all the medical technologies which we are developing. And that is true for Medicaid and private insurance both. Should we try to foster life whenever we can? I'm not sure the answer to that question is yes. And I know for certain that we simply can't afford it. Unless you are advocating that we simply keep confiscating the wages of the productive until even that isn't enough to pay for the kind of care we technically can provide?

In some cases, the disabled were better off in institutions. There are hundreds of chronically mentally ill persons who would be better cared for--and more stable mentally--in a state mental hospital. But the civil rights activists got on board and advocated for their "rights" to be homeless, psychotic and destitute on the street. I work with these people every day. I work with doctors at the state mental hospital--and the care is excellent.

The question isn't whether Medicaid is means-tested. The more basic question is whether all those who qualify are unable to work. And another basic question is why should I pay for healthcare for the children of a woman who refuses to quit having children she can't afford?

I agree with you that we need to quit providing free medical care for illegal immigrants. That is criminal. But the civil rights lawyers are already gearing up to secure the court's imprimateur on providing that care.

before they just start randomly cutting

It seems odd to me that you would make a statement that the current administration is 'randomly cutting' anything.

I have empathy for the individuals that actually need assistance and can't get it from anywhere else. However, I don't understand how a thinking individual can actually believe what you seem to be hearing, like nobody has put any thought into the situation, and that it's random cutting.

That's just ridiculous.

Pennsylvania Medicaid is certainly not as nice as Indiana Medicaid (i.e. all mental health drugs being formulary). In Pennsylvania, all drugs must be generic, if it's not available in generic form it isn't covered and some popular ones (i.e. Zoloft) are not available.

I'm pro-life and I will never be comfortable with allowing people to die when they could live. As for it being affordable, the question cannot even be answered until all of the other problems have been addressed. It's ludicrous to me that we're talking about letting premature babies die or kicking the indigent elderly out of nursing homes (nursing home care is a large part of Medicaid budgets) to save tax dollars when every other avenue hasn't been tried yet. Every single other avenue must be tried first. If life isn't worth it to you and you're pro-choice (i.e. making hard choices), then that is a whole other argument.

I'm not talking about keeping people on life support who are vegetables and can't survive. And people like that aren't draining Medicaid all that much anyway. I'm talking about real issues, not hypotheticals.

If you don't believe the program should exist at all, just come right out and say it. And if you have a viable solution that is more moral than Medicaid, I'd like to hear it. "Private sector" doesn't cut it.

Why attack Medicaid which is at least means tested before going after the two big ones that aren't? This seems obvious to me. If the country is really so desperate for money and if the conservatives in power are really interested in viable solutions, why not start with means testing more government programs? It's not just about being "able to work". Health care costs are TOO HIGH for the average person to afford to go without health insurance (unless their children never get sick). What if someone is able to work but their job doesn't provide health insurance? And the kid gets sick? Who pays, in that circumstance, in that moment? This is the real world, not the perfect libertarian fantasy where everyone is a producer and there are no useless eaters.

I am a caseworker for the state of Illinois and I work strictly on cases for the aged and disabled. Prior to my current caseload I worked on medical assistance for families with children. A big problem I see is that the Governor of my fine state wants to expand the Family Medical plan(as medicaid is called)The income level for families has risen to over 200% above the federal poverty level. People who can seem to afford that $30,000 SUV parked out in the parking lot can't seem to afford something as important as healthcare. We don't count assets against the Family medical plan but if you are disabled or elderly we are going to come after you for having liquid assets over $2000. I think that assets need to be considered on the Family Medical plan of Illinois as well-in that we would be saying that before we are going to help you-you will need to exhaust your assets instead of burdening taxpayers first.

eason, I haven't seen any actual plans of any real reforms (besides the states cutting benefits, demanding copays that people can't afford, etc.).

All I have seen is that the administration wants to reduce the amount of money that the states get from the federal government to subsidize their Medicaid programs. That is what I mean by RANDOM CUTTING. They're not targetting fraud or anything specific, they're passing the buck and just CUTTING a dollar amount.

Thus meaning bankrupt states like MS have to cut their Medicaid program off completely. Or others have to start charging premiums and copays and deductibles that indigent people and children can't afford.

Thus meaning bankrupt states like MS have to cut their Medicaid program off completely.

Which goes to my point that the people that actually make changes are the ones to go after, rather than the posters on this site.

We all have opinions regarding one bill or another, but there is a process in our country that can make a difference, and it isn't posting to people that may or may not have the same opinion.

You haven't expressed a plan (reminiscent of the democrats in their last race), and asked for others that share your ideas, to assist in following through on trying to affect a change.

Health care costs are high for a number of reasons: costly technology that extends life (should society really bear the costs of heart-lung transplants?); end of life care, especially for those with AIDS; overuse of tests to prevent liability suits; and the fact that no one really pays for their medical care.

If people were forced to buy their own medical care, they would become very careful shoppers. That would force costs down, because competition always does. If people were made to pay for their poor lifestyle choices, i.e., HIV, obesity, smoking, then they might make life changes that would decrease health care costs. If people actually followed the dictates of preventive care (actually took the medications prescribed for them, which a majority of people fail to do; change their diets; exercise; watch their blood sugar, etc.,), then costs would go down. If people did not insist on keeping the elderly alive with feeding tubes and extraordinary measures, health care costs would go down.

I don't believe that other people should pay for my health care. If you want to live in a socialist society, then move to one. There are plenty out there.

As for Social Security, why should that be means tested? IT IS NOT A TÅX. You are supposed to get out of it what you put into it. It is a forced retirement program. Now you seem to imply that I should pay for other people's failure to plan. That is immoral.

None of these programs used to exist--no Medicaid, no Medicare, no Social Security, and guess what? People got by. They didn't all just die off, as you seem to indicate. More people took responsibility for themselves and for their family members, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO. 40 years of the "Great Society" and we are throwing ever more money away--stealing ever more money from others--and the problems get worse, not better.

Why is it that you thinnk you should be able to take my money? Would you call me, a stranger, up on the phone and say, "Hey, I need to pay my electric bill, give me $100?" Probably not. Then why is it ok for the government to do it? You obviously don't have an income, so you can afford to be very free with other peoples' money. Get your hands out of my wallet.

Very true. Indiana Medicaid is pretty strict, I believe. I don't see too many of the folks who come to my doctors' offices driving anything but junkers. But many of them would be capable of working, especially if they quit producing kids they can't afford.

In addition, Indiana law allows the elderly to give away their assets over a period of a couple of years, and then after only 3 years (I believe) use Medicaid to pay for their long-term care. That is immoral and should be prevented.

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.