Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and ROBERT GEBELOFF
October 2, 2013


A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.

The disproportionate impact on poor blacks introduces the prickly issue of race into the already politically charged atmosphere around the health care law. Race was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the state-level debates about the Medicaid expansion. But the issue courses just below the surface, civil rights leaders say, pointing to the pattern of exclusion.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...ed-by-health-law.html?hp&_r=3&pagewanted=all&

We've been told that the 40 million uninsured will be covered by ObamaCare. Yet there will still be those in poverty that will not be able to afford ObamaCare. How is that?

 

The people not covered are the ones who were supposed to be covered by the extension of Medicaid. But about half the states have chosen (as per the SCOTUS decision on the ACA) not to participate in that part of the ACA. Many of these states have incredibly strict requirements for accessing Medicaid. For example a family of 3 in Arkansas cannot have an income greater than $3,133 to qualify for Medicaid. In Alabama the cutoff is $4,501, one dime more and you don't qualify. The Exchanges and subsidies are designed for those with incomes greater than 135% of the official poverty level (about $25,000). So yes in those states that did not buy into expanding the medicaid base, people who make between the states cutoff and the 135% mark are screwed. That rap belongs entirely on the States that choose to not expand medicaid. Here is a chart showing what the medicaid cutoffs for a family of 3 are in the various states. The ones shown in red are the ones that have opted out of medicaid expansion. As one would expect they are also largely republican controlled states whose legislatures and governors are in thrall to the various front groups of ALEC, Adelman, the Koch Bros and other wealthy neo-fascist individuals and organizations.

 

Expanding Medicaid costs a lot of money and most of the states are deep in debt now. How shall they pay?

 

This nation has plenty of money; stop pretending that we cannot help our own people.

 

Under the law three years the Federal government covers 100% of the costs and then at worse its 90%, in Florida the states numbers say over ten years it would cost $300 million on our to start and we would get back $5.5 billion with an average economic return on the economy as a whole around $28 billion. So it costs the states very little to do this and in fact it makes money. And hospitals and medical providers get paid from people who now area big batch of red ink and get stabilized budgets they can work with, in states not expanding they are getting hit harder than before.

 

Obviously you did not read the New York Times article. We can plainly see that even Left Wingers don't believe the New York Times.

 

,said the poster who clearly doesn't understand math.

 

The more ACA rolls out the more I realize how uninformed I am.

Everything I have seen here in Canada, where the US is routinely vilified for having 1/3 of its population not covered for medical, has optimized Obamacare but it, and the connection to Medicaid [trust American bureaucracy to have several programs where one would do] would completely solve that problem.

And now I read, at the eleventh hour, that the geniuses who crafted this epic bill, have had three years to bring it all together, failed to negotiate the proper funding at the state level to ensure the poor were covered?

That illegals get this ACA FREE, but the poor have to hope for Medicaid and not get it?

FFS, I would have thought that country had learned from "No Child Left Behind"....phantom programs only (*)(*)(*)(*) people off. Canada learned a long time ago with a Prime Minister named Brian Mulroney that if you're going to have a program you need to fund it or we will end your political career.

Perhaps Americans need to put down their guns and do what we do with (*)(*)(*)(*)-for-brains politicians. We don't go nuts, we don't have unseemly mass rallies and recalls, we quietly go about the business of ignoring them for the rest of their lives. Mulroney was reduced to just two seats in Parliament from a possible 325 and no one has said anything good about him for 22 years.

Try that approach and you might actually get some results. But having millions STILL without coverage after all this (*)(*)(*)(*) storm, all this time kind of proves the impression that this whole program is another "Cash for Cars."

 

So what's your plan? Borrow forever? Raise the income tax to 100%? What's the plan to get the money to pay for all of this?

 

You are absolutely right about that.

But its not how much you have but what priorities you set.

At this juncture, with three wars, billions in corporate welfare, tax credits for the very rich [Obama's tax increase hit the medium rich and confessional corruption there isn't anything left over.

Cut the corporate welfare and you'd be able to fund medicade. Cut the rest, get out those wars and you'd be able to afford universal care like the rest of the industrialized world.

 

No need to stick to the unfair system we have now, that's for sure. Can't pile nearly ALL of the wealth at the top and have others slave their way to nowhere. Where's the real incentive in that?!

 

So you believe.

Part of it is math... the other part is dealing with HUMAN beings. I'd say your understanding of reality is skewed, if you believe it's all a "math" problem.

That is, we need not overspend or go broke... in order to do right by the people who are citizens of this nation. But we definitely need to reorder our values and priorities; that's for certain.

 

Are you slaving your way to nowhere? That sounds like a personal problem.

 

Yes, I heard about the large number of poor not being covered earlier today. It's so sad that the most affordable places to live in the USA have the largest number of poor and the least protection from their state government.

And, it's too bad that not every state has the money bags or the leadership to push ahead. But, oh well, we get to watch the Republican social experiment unfold right before our eyes.

 

This fact is just another lie that the democrats didnt tell us about!!!!!

 

How about saying something worthwhile.

Your response is nonsense.

 

OhBummerCare is Midnight Basketball with neither Balls nor Basket!

 

THIS...is NONSENSE....COMMUNIST NONSENSE!!

"Can't pile nearly ALL of the wealth at the top "

The stinking Politicians have no BUSINESS distributing MY Money nor anyone elses Money.

Piling the money INDEED..

 

No, not actually. It is the truth.

 

The truth or THE TRUTH? is that offical Obama State Approved TRUTH...or rehashed SOVIET TRUTH there comrade???

Pass the Borscht!

 

You are a slave?

You know any?

There are people where you are who are forced to work for no pay, live in chains and so forth?

There are no schools there for people to better themselves, programs for training? None of that?

Wow, Obama sure is one big (*)(*)(*)(*) up!

There were no slaves when he came to power and now you say there are.

And you vote for him?

BTW, you were asked to prove your claim - again and instead came back with that lame ]face saving drivel about slavery.


You have no real information do you? It's made up. Bull(*)(*)(*)(*), right?

Has to be, you never substantiate anything in this or any other thread

- - - Updated - - -

Oh...because you SAY it is.

I'm tired now, but when I have a few years I will check to see if you have backed anything up with anything remotely resembling proof.

 

I sense weve encountered an OBAMA WANNA BE......a possessor of TRUTH...

 

We'll see.

 

MeshugeMikey, Do you know that some states aren't leading the charge into your so called "socialism" and they are the ones who have this poverty problem?

 

How is it the fault of states, " ALEC, Adelman, the Koch Bros and other wealthy neo-fascist individuals and organizations" that the democrats left between 7M-20M people uninsured?