In Pictures: Obamacare Puts One-Fifth of U.S. On Welfare

Posted November 16th, 2009 at 3.02pm in Health Care.

Medicaid is a means-tested welfare program created in 1965 to provide health care for low income families. Despite the fact that it is one of the most poorly performing of all the federal welfare programs it has become the cornerstone of how health insurance is expanded under Obamacare. The Health care “reform” bills advancing in the House and Senate would expand Medicaid by making this government-run health plan available to all adults with incomes at or below 150% of the poverty line. The change would dramatically multiply eligible recipients, with 46 states seeing increases of at least 20%, including 16 posting jumps of 50% or more. Almost 21% of the entire U.S. population would be eligible for Medicaid and seven states and the District of Columbia would have eligibility rates of at least 25%.

Full article: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/16/...us-on-welfare/

__________________

If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?

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

OnaLanLine.
SCHIP covers children and pregnant women. Similar to Medicaid it is medical insurance jointly funded by the states and the federal government. The states a (under general federal laws) directly regulate and administrate Medicaid and SCHIP. The primary difference between SCHIP and Medicaid is their differing “caps” and their age qualifications for eligibility.

The U.S. Congress’s determined too great proportion of children were not receiving medical treatment. It was for that reason they provided a more liberal income cap for children and pregnant women. The cap for Medicaid eligibility is now at the poverty line which is approximately $1,100 per capita/per family. The cap for SCHIP is quadruple the poverty line.

There are many families that are eligible for SCHIP but do not avail themselves of that benefit. I attribute that to Medicaid and SCHIP being administered within many (if not most) states as a public assistance rather than as entitlement programs. Unlike the purely federal Medicare, State administered insurance plans can limit patient’s choice of health care providers.

Unfortunately many of those who do not avail themselves of SCHIP benefits can not afford the non-government medical insurance that is available. We as a nation pay the social and economic net detriment due to the 135 of our children that are not covered by any (sufficient or insufficient medical insurance).

I advocate that SCHIP’s cap should be reduces from four times to twice the poverty line but Medicare be made available to all children and pregnant women. If our nation can not afford to do so for all children, can we at very least do so for all children and pregnant women that are below the current SCHIP cap of twice the poverty line?

[Actually the enforcing expenses for a quadruple the poverty line cap is problematic. Considering that higher income earners are presumed to pay their share of taxes, it is feasible and reasonable to simply make Medicare an entitlement of all legal USA residents who are willing to pay Medicare’s fees and co-payments].

To the extent that SCHIP patients can be shifted to Medicare, governments’ medical expenses are decreased. Those families will be paying Medicare fees and co-payments. Medicare is a fully federal program and the state will no longer be paying any SCHIP expenses. To the extent that any members of a family’s members are covered by a government medical insurance program, the cost of any additional non-government medical insurance, (including but not limited to employee group family insurance) is reduced.

Respectfully, Supposn

oddly these people also have the right to vote.
Maybe we can just hold there hands on the way to the doctor and the voting booth.

__________________
"At the moment that the whole world has accepted that government will centrally plan all of the economy, take care of its citizens from cradle to grave, and rule a worldwide military empire –all with money that comes from nowhere - at that very moment the age of government will end. "

I think there needs to be some kind of reform

A good friend of mine's wife had minor heart surgery and it cost $65000 and the insurance denied payment because they said she had a preexisting condition. But she is only 25 and there is no way to prove she didn't have a preexisting condition.

I do think we need to be protected by law from insurance scum.

Im not sure about the Gov. plan. Although Social Security was in this same situation, and people would go ape Sh_t if the government discontinued that.

So I'm not sure, I think that we need to give something a chance.

I just wish the bill were kept a little more basic.

BTW, my first post and glad to be here.

people voluntarily pay more than that in options on a $40K SUV, which is worth 27K the day they drive it off the lot, and voluntarily get sub 20 miles per gallon at $2.50+ a gallon, and drive them on their several thousand dollar annual family vacations that they booked on line with their $2000 dollar computer system and their $50 monthly internet fee.

__________________
"At the moment that the whole world has accepted that government will centrally plan all of the economy, take care of its citizens from cradle to grave, and rule a worldwide military empire –all with money that comes from nowhere - at that very moment the age of government will end. "

Yeh insurance reform!

__________________
.
No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105

A State [or the US] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution. Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S (1943)

Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the feds as an "individual entity, Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773
.

I would agree that Americans spend money on dumb things
So if the SUV breaks within the warranty period, does the dealership have a basis just to say.....NO....we are not covering that?

__________________
Best For The U.S. - Get Involved

americans want to spend their money on luxuries and have their necessities paid for. Guess what, the reserve status of the dollar is soon ending, and the money for nothing game comes to an end, as the world has tired of subsidizing our luxuries. We will soon learn that the government has nothing to give that we haven't first allowed it to take from us, while we were busy thinking we could get something for nothing.

__________________
"At the moment that the whole world has accepted that government will centrally plan all of the economy, take care of its citizens from cradle to grave, and rule a worldwide military empire –all with money that comes from nowhere - at that very moment the age of government will end. "

Squid, I completely agree with you, I live my life modestly, one car, single family home, no credit cards, DSL lite.

But without reform the only way insurance companies would straighten up is if Americans got so fed up with it a large Majority canceled there policies. Which would force the insurance issuers to start giving a quality product.

But when you pay for insurance with a good faith belief that the insurance company will be ethically sound, and they do just the opposite, that is not the American way and they need to be punished. But should it be the government that does that? Maybe not. But this country was built to protect the people by law. Just hopefully we don't get punished in the long run.

__________________
Best For The U.S. - Get Involved