I have a question please.

[nwarounder]

Originally Posted by R.M.

So I was chatting with one of girlfriends and the subject of medicaid and Trump wanting to depose of it came up. Would anyone here know what the replacement will be? Thanks.

The same thing America had before: Jobs.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nwarounder

The same thing America had before: Jobs.

From which one may obtain group insurance ....

.... with coverage for pre-existing conditions at a better rate.

I recognize that it's more fun to congest the streets, vandalize property, and color in coloring books than get one's ass up in the morning, dress, and get yourself to work on time ... BUTT!!!

[preggolover89]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did someone say CHIP is a "substitute for expanded Medicaid"?

It was Fluffy69 ... just consider the source and ignore it.

Maybe I misunderstood you. You noted multiple times the "resources available before the ACA" or something to that effect. I'm not sure what resources you're talking about, just pointing out that healthcare for the poor before the ACA (and now during the ACA for states who have not expanded medicaid) is insufficient.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Let's be honest, shall we? The single reason we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even Obamacare is so Democrats can buy votes from the poor and disadvantaged. Health care is a by-product. And government health care is typically poor, at best. So any attempt to control costs is met with, "They're going to take your health care away!" Get it in your head. Government doesn't help people. Government BUYS people! They get them hooked on "free" stuff, and they've got them for life, unless the person involved discovers s/he's a slave and fights for freedom.

Government never asks "How much do we need to spend to make sure people are cared for?" But "How much will keep them voting for us?"


Government is not your friend.

Try running as a Republican on the platform that you'll abolish medicare and social security, see where that gets you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by preggolover89

Try running as a Republican on the platform that you'll abolish medicare and social security, see where that gets you.

I know where it will get me. Doesn't change the truth.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by preggolover89

It seems like you're saying that indigent care was fine before the ACA (or fine now in Texas since they didn't expand).

The fact that Texas did not take the expanded Medicaid option from the ACA law is a fact that LLIDIOT just won't except.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

which may necessarily require some tweaking with respect to "Medicaid," which the Dems tied to Obamacare.

Not for the 19 states that rejected the expanded Medicaid option from the ACA. Texas is one of the 19 states that rejected the option.

I thought you downloaded the ACA law to your computer. You didn't see that part about Texas?

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears.

[lustylad]

Hey flighty,

Since you are eccie's self-proclaimed resident expert on Obamacare, can you tell us what percentage of those who gained health insurance as a result of the ACA took the expanded Medicaid?

At least one study puts this percentage as high as 97%!

While the number of insured Americans increased by 9.25 million, growth in Medicaid accounted for 97 percent (8.99 million people) of that net gain.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...caid-expansion

Why did we have to pass that crazy clusterfuck of a bill back in 2010 when a simple Medicaid expansion program could have done the trick?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by preggolover89

Maybe I misunderstood you. You noted multiple times the "resources available before the ACA" or something to that effect. I'm not sure what resources you're talking about, just pointing out that healthcare for the poor before the ACA (and now during the ACA for states who have not expanded medicaid) is insufficient.

He posted about Texas. I posted about Texas.

Two things. Prior to Obaminablecare Texas had in place and available health care for persons who for one reason or another were unable to get coverage on the "open market" AND various "market" options approved by the State for issuance in the State that provided various levels of care depending on what folks could afford. The Texas legislature provided mandatory requirements that exceeded Medicaid and EXPANDED it after Obaminablecare started its crankup ... Texas already had decent coverage ("sufficient" for what?) and a "portal" for the opportunity to select policies from nonemployer resources ...

.. a problem with a lot of folks is they consider Texans (real ones and not the carpetbaggers who congest metro areas) as being a bunch of backwards hicks who are racists. So their "prejudice" taints their "interpretation" and "discourse."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why did we have to pass that crazy clusterfuck of a bill back in 2010 when a simple Medicaid expansion program could have done the trick?

He can't. I can. As I have repeatedly said .. Obamacare initiative was led by Pelosi in an effort to bail out the California failed retirement system that included medical coverage for the retirees, but the State of California couldn't pay the tab for the costs of the program ... which involved retirees fleeing the State with their retirement packages so they could live off of it while the State gouged the residences with excessive tax burdens to pay for the frivolous bullshit the California legislature and "referendums' demanded.

The "REAL NEWS" fades quickly: Remember the lump sum retirement packages? Here is a quote to cite just one example:

"According to a state controller’s report for 2015, Loyalton had revenues of $1.17 million, expenditures $1.68 million, liabilities $6.16 million, assets $11.1 million, fund equity $4.8 million, and population 733."

https://calpensions.com/2016/09/26/i...owns-pensions/

As I have further posted in the past the California bullshit costs Texans directly (and those NonTexans residing in Texas) as well since Reliant Energy included the losses from "skips" by businesses and individuals in the rate increases obtained by Reliant from the Texas Utility Commission ... so when we pay our electric bills ... we are paying California defaulted bills.

The same with Obamacare ... and now California is talking shit about becoming a "sanctuary state" ... tax shortfall with an increase in services.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

I thought you downloaded the ACA law to your computer. You didn't see that part about Texas?

Section Number of the ACA "about Texas"? Before the end of the year!

Because after that the ACA won't be around! Remember? You LOST!

You also lost this "discussion" (primarily childish name-calling by you!)

"Texas" is mentioned one time in ..

.....PUBLIC LAW 111–148—MAR. 23, 2010 at 124STAT803 ...

in a reference to: "Texas A&M University" ....

Now dig up another "cut and paste" from the "LatinTimes"!!!!

Sorry I didn't format for Big Chief tablets for you.

[R.M.]

What my main concern is for people that has disabilities that will still be covered. Yes and they are here in Texas. Have a great day.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by R.M.

What my main concern is for people that has disabilities that will still be covered. Yes and they are here in Texas. Have a great day.

I suspect that the "main concern" for those with "disabilities" is perhaps a stricter review of "qualifying" for benefits ....

.. ether through legislation "tweaking" the standards for "a disability" or an administrative review process more focused on "fringe" applications where the disabilities reported are of questionable disabling conditions.

As the shift to a "Nanny State" has progressed over the past eight years (about) the Federal benefits have been used to supplant "the job" that was not readily available due to the economy and when unemployment expired people were "developing" disabilities to secure indefinite benefits while they were "unemployed" ... which became a "condition" itself.

Using a "disability" to replace unemployment will not be necessary if a job is available....but the Government has to be focused on producing jobs as opposed to securing votes!

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hey flighty,

Since you are eccie's self-proclaimed resident expert on Obamacare, can you tell us what percentage of those who gained health insurance as a result of the ACA took the expanded Medicaid?

At least one study puts this percentage as high as 97%!

While the number of insured Americans increased by 9.25 million, growth in Medicaid accounted for 97 percent (8.99 million people) of that net gain.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...caid-expansion

Hey Lad,

Here are the answers.

1. I didn't self proclaim anything. Rey Lengua wrote in a prior post that I could tell you anything about your health insurance plan. (I would agree with him).

2. That study you posted is for 2014 enrollment numbers. We have had two other enrollment periods since then.

3. The RAND corporation has produced another report which includes 2015 enrollment numbers. In their report it looks like the percentage of people getting Expanded Medicaid to a private health insurance plan on the government exchanges is about 60%. From the link:

Key Findings

Since the Affordable Care Act's major provisions took effect, there has been an estimated net increase of 16.9 million people with health insurance.

• 22.8 million people became newly insured.
• 5.9 million people lost coverage.
• The number of uninsured Americans fell from 42.7 million to 25.8 million.

Among those gaining coverage, the largest share (9.6 million) enrolled in employer plans.

• 6.5 million enrolled in Medicaid.
• 4.1 million enrolled through the Marketplaces.
• 1.2 million enrolled in other non-marketplace individual plans.
• 1.5 million used other sources (Medicare, military insurance, state plans).
  
  Here is the link. http://www.rand.org/pubs/external_pu...s/EP50692.html
  
  
  4. The reason they did not put everyone in expanded Medicaid is that Medicaid does not have the same level of benefits that a private health insurance plan does. A cutoff had to be made somewhere. The cutoff is a family of 4 and makes < than $24,000 you get the expanded Medicaid if your state took it. If you are family of 4 and income > $24,000 you qualify for a private health insurance plan, like from a health insurance provider such as BCBS. Again, all private health insurance policies must have the 10 minimum benefits, weather its group insurance through your employer or government exchanges in the individual market.

[LexusLover]

"Enrollment numbers"?

That's like saying the economy is improving, because job applications are up!

"Enrollment numbers" means nothing ... it does not distinguish from people who had insurance before ObaminableCare and lost it because of higher premiums, it does not factor in the number of people who don't pay their premiums or stop paying their premiums, and it does not consider the number of people who get on the "Government Tit Insurance" when they can't afford private insurance.

[gnadfly]

"As affordable as a cell phone bill..."
"Average family will save $2,500 a year..."
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor..."
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan..."
yadda, yadda, yadda!
lies, lies, and damned lies!

The business mandate was never implemented as predicted.
Obamacare was legislated to be more difficult to disable the closer to 2017 it got.

Good riddance!