Skip to comments.Should Everyone Be Allowed to Enroll in Medicaid?
Posted on 06/21/2017 9:24:04 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
As for Medicaid, about two-thirds of enrollees nationwide are in privately managed plans and the states have turned to private contracting for the same reasons we did in Medicare: the private plans are cheaper and better.
So on the evidence, it would appear that conservative Republicans dont have much to lose by allowing a public option and they may have something to gain allowing those currently enrolled in public programs to leave and enroll in better private sector alternatives.
Heres the catch. The competition must be on a level playing field. That means we cant have private plans exposed to the risk of bankruptcy while the public plans have an unlimited access to taxpayer bank accounts. Also, neither type of plan can be allowed to dump its sickest, most costly enrollees on the other without financial compensation.
So here is a proposal. Let Medicaid (excluding the blind, disabled and elderly) be a public option in the individual market. This means that private Medicaid plans (which already enroll about two-thirds of Medicaid patients) would become competing plans. Anyone could enroll even Bill Gates (something Democrats should like) and anyone could leave them and join some other private plan (something Republicans should like).
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Now, now, read the article first. :-)
Medicare pays doctors 50 cents for a dollar of service. They would close up shop if this happened.
Less gov. interference in our lives.....not more.
This is retarded.
Some folks who signed up for Covered California expecting full or partially subsidized Zerocare, were shifted to the state Medi-cal (Medic-aid) rolls. Many of these folks weren’t qualified for Medi-cal because they exceeded income and/or asset ceilings, but did qualify for Zerocare subsidies.
After the State arbitrarily switched these folks, pre-Medicare age recipients started receiving rather terse form letters saying that the State intended to attach the recipient’s estate for the costs and would chase their estate down in other states’ if the recipient relocated - even insisting California be notified if the recipient moved out of state.
Otoh, I’ve never seen any disclosure from the State that defines what the actual monthly Medi-cal premium liability is to the recipient. In essence, it’s buying blind. Getting switched back to Zerocare has been a mess for many, leaving recipients with concerns there will still be a financial liability against their estates for an unknown sum they shouldn’t have been liable for to begin with since they signed up for Zerocare not welfare. We all know how states are once they decide you owe them money, and I’m not sure how they’re going to handle things once Calif goes single-payer because they’re not saying.
I hope people watch their own states like hawks to make sure that estate impoundment and funny business targeting the assets of pre-Medicare seniors isn’t part of their own state plans because it’s one heck of a trap.
As long as we have a federal reserve that can create unlimited debt in a completely printed currency with manipulated interest rates, progressives and Fed.gov can have any social-engineering scheme the can think of
Medicare pays doctors closer to about $0.12 for a dollar of service. But this is a total distortion because the reimbursement rates are so low that the doctors have to charge significantly more than the services worth so the whole system is completely distorted. The reimbursement rates are embarrassing, they are ghastly. It is like a system where you walk into a restaurant and the menu says the meal cost $375 but you get an 88 percent discount.
This is hilarious. Any government program that has as one of its requirements “no gaming the system” has already admitted failure. This would quickly become a tax payer financed public to private wealth transfer. Of course this lunatic would then claim but “gaming the system” was against regulations. Haha, hoho, lol, what a tool the author is.
I’m still stuck on the previous question:
Should government be allowed to provide insurance?
To which my answer is no.
This precludes me from answering the current question.
I'd wager that most people who don't want insurance would sign up for a high deductible policy that only covers catastrophic situations.
“Medicare pays doctors 50 cents for a dollar of service”
Doesn’t matter when you lower the bar on obtaining a Medical license and import third world Doctor’s whom would be happy to earn 60k a year.
More likely, a private to public wealth transfer.
But still ghastly—from financial, medical, and freedom perspectives.
A public option for all would completely undermine the free market. A disastrous idea even if voluntary (at first, of course, until the free market collapses). Pretty much like free public school for all.
He’s not a lunatic. He is a rather intelligent man, free market advocate. I believe he is trying to come up with a solution here that is politically possible. As long as Americans think government should solve their problems and provide for them, we won’t have a true free market in health insurance or care.
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.