View Single Post
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 11-22-2009, 05:12 PM
Supposn Supposn is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 41
Supposn has disabled reputation
Credits: 497
Default Increase cap; no significt increase, likely decrease of aggregate expenses.

Increasing Medicaid’s cap will not significantly increase, and is likely to decrease our aggregate medical expenses.

It has been proposed that the Medicaid cap for a family of four be increased to be $33,000 per year within my area. I live in a small NJ municipality within the sight of Manhattan. Within our area, what healthcare can such a family now afford?

U, S. residents with insufficient income or private support are burdens upon taxpayers. Lower income families that do not qualify or avail themselves of Medicaid or SHIP generally receive no medical attention unless it was provide by some government administered health program of by a hospital’s emergency room. This is not unique to my area. It is generally the case within our entire nation.

Emergency room patients are of two categories. Those that are direct or indirect victims of immediate injuries such as an accidents or attacks, and those that that suffer from symptoms of illnesses that can no longer be ignored.

Emergency room treatment of illness when there is no need for urgency is more expensive. Unnecessary urgency certainly is certainly not conducive to superior medical practice. In such cases we the taxpayers are now paying those higher expenses per capita. It increases the amounts of federal, state and county expenses. It increases the net expenses of hospitals and all (government, commercial or non-profit) medical insurance or plans.

We directly and indirectly now pay the expense of lower income earners’ medical treatment applied too little and/or too late. We are now paying more for medically less satisfactory results. Increasing Medicaid’s cap to 150% of the poverty line may not save us money but it also may not increase our aggregate expenses. The broader Medicaid coverage will certainly provide us with improved medical results for the money we are already spending.

Our current wasteful practice of delayed screening, diagnosing and (too often inadequate) treatment of lower income earners’ has been contrary to our nation’s health and economic best interests.

Respectfully, Supposn
Reply With Quote