Now that the Supreme Court has made it easier for states to choose not to take part in the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, some Republican governors have already started seizing on this latitude. In just the few days since the ruling came down, both South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) and Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) have affirmatively declared their states will not take part in the Medicaid expansion. There are indications other Republican governors may also soon follow.
The governors are refusing to take part even though generous federal funding — initially, 100% of the expansion costs — means the cost to the states would be very small compared to the number of additional people who would receive benefits in each state.
There is a chance these governors may relent after the 2012 election as a result of political pressure both from regular people and powerful health care industry lobbies. But if the states do follow through in denying coverage, this could have a huge impact on the lives of millions of Americans.
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Florida is tied for first in having the largest percentage of non-elderly people making less than 139 percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL) who are uninsured, with 44 percent of this population without coverage. South Carolina is not far behind in 4th place with 39 percent of their population without insurance. These are the states where the Medicaid expansion is most critical.
While people making over 100 percent of the FPL may qualify for exchange subsidies if their state doesn’t expand Medicaid, it is possible those making less but who don’t currently qualify for Medicaid will be left without any options.
In a related note both governors said they would not set up state exchanges, but this development is less critical since the federal government can set up exchanges in any state where the state fails to do so.
Hopefully, the one positive byproduct of this incredibly cold-hearted political stance on both provisions by the governors is that it will get politicians to finally accept that federal-state partnerships in health care are a horrible approach. Medicaid has always functioned worse than fully federal Medicare because of this stupid design problem. The fact that Democrats idiotically insisted on using state-federal partnerships for exchanges and Medicaid expansion guarantees the ACA’s coverage expansion efforts will function worse than it should have.




27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
And the percentage of these who are women & minorities is?
This sounds too good to be true, until you realize that 100% of the federal funding comes from the working families in the 50 states.
“The fact that Democrats idiotically insisted on using state-federal partnerships for exchanges and Medicaid expansion guarantees the ACA’s coverage expansion efforts will function worse than it should have.”
Oh, Jon, your last sentences on your posts, today, are especially golden.
So, do we have “incompetence” or “intent”?
Are they stupid or complicit?
Are “they” impressive and worth keeping in power, either way?
Perhaps, the Democrats are weary and need a rest?
Perhaps the whole party should retire … and go to sleep, “someplace” … besides … on the job?
Ah, well …
DW
FTFY.
Yes Alan. Fist, the working families are already paying to support emergency room primary care, and second that is the definition of “Shared Risk”.
This is the second thread where I’ve read you comment. Is this accurate: “100% of the federal funding comes from the working families in the 50 states” given the large amount of portfolio and passive income extant today.
What is it in “Do unto others as you would be done by” do you not understand?
“. . .those making less but who don’t currently qualify for Medicaid will be left without any options. . .”
———
Was this yet another mistake in ACA or intentional?
Posturing to boost their conservative anti-O creds, nothing more. They will come around once their accountants straighten them out on the real cost of opt-out (since the human cost doesn’t matter to them).
I apologize for this off-topic comment, but for several weeks I have not received any response from FDL regarding my membership questions. So I will post my latest message here as well as members@firedoglake.com. I hope that a moderator will catch this and possibly forward it to somebody that will respond to me…
Why does nobody answer my emails? Is there a technical problem, or is members@firedoglake.com the wrong email address for my membership questions? If not, as someone who has provided significant financial support to FDL and its causes over the last several years I am terribly disappointed by your failure to respond. I had always assumed that the FDL support staff, even though they are volunteers, would recognize how essential it is to conduct business in an impeccably professional manner, or risk being dismissed as just a bunch of hippie dreamers with no grasp of how the real world operates.
For a long time, I was fooled into imagining that you guys actually had your act together. (Or maybe that’s just how I wanted to imagine it to be). I am desperately disappointed now to realize that my contributions have been so misguided. Keep my $1000. Do not bill me next year. If you do I will have my credit card company dispute the charges. I dont know why I expected better, I am usually pretty cynical about everything. Still a sucker after all these years. Is there some type of therapy for people who never learn from each pathetic disappointment?
Why doesn’t anybody feel this strongly about all these expensive, illegal wars we’re fighting?
All these wars are a lot of fun until you realize that 100% of the funding comes from the working families in the 50 states.
Did you have a point? 100% of our funding for the Defense Department comes from 100% of the working people in 50 states. Does this mean you oppose the DoD? 100% of the funding for any federal program comes from the 50 states. There is a reason we are called the UNITED STATES. Quite frankly I feel for the people of SC and Florida, as awful as the program is, it’s a worse idea to just tell poor people(including children) to die because they can’t afford care.
Blowing up people makes us “safe”
Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha……(okay I couldn’t say that with a straight face because I know that if someone blew up my family I’d be royally pissed.)
What?
Do you mean to say, cwaltz, that you would not feel “liberated” and all waggle-tailed about the potentially giddy joys of “freedom”, “free enterprise”, and “democracy” that would be yours to enjoy after that small sacrifice?
Always great to “see” you, btw.
;~DW
If you agree, then wouldn’t you also agree that phrases like this are misleading:
There’s no generosity involved.
Working families with insurance that is. I’ve seen estimated somewhere that about $1000 of your annual insurance premium is to cover those without insurance for their emergency room primary care. No one has suggested that anyone’s insurance premium is going to go down as a result of ACA. But now you’re agreeing that the federal government will start taking more taxes so they can be “generous” and return some of it to the states.
“Shared Risk”
There’s also a component called “Shared Responsibility” in which all participants contribute equally. I don’t guess you’re advocating that.
You’re right, the phrases can be turned around.
It’s really no one’s business that the government is fighting foreign wars, after all the wars are paid for by generous federal funding — initially, 100%, which means the cost to the states would be very small.
If you believe this statement to be misleading, then the Medicaid statement above is as well.
It is “generous” from the point of view that New Jersey folks would be footing more of South Carolina’s costs as it has been doing for quite a while.
It isn’t like South Carolina isn’t getting $1.35 per every dollar they pay to the Federal government.
The wars are free. They’re paid for with tax cuts (also free!).
That morphing from a semi-populist stance to a corporate party took its toll on the Neo-Democrats(Republicans), and they’re exhausted from maintaining the illusion that they represent the 99%.
So, we can blame governors for medicaid opt out,but we can’t blame the “wise” judge that rewrote the law and kept mandate ? the “wise” judge gave that opportunity to states,to opt out medicaid expansion,meaning that poor people and children are at their own peril.I don’t see Obama,Pelosi whining about that,wise judge din’t mandate medicaid expansion meaning more benefits for private insurers profiteers.
Are there actually health care lobbies? I thought the lobbies represented the health insurance industry. There’s quite a difference between insurance and care.
The bill was the concept of the Heritage Foundation and authored by a former Wellpoint executive. Doesn’t that, in itself, provide the answer to your question?
You can “blame” whoever you want. Frankly, governors are elected though and generally are going to be looking at being elected again(to other offices). I’m pretty sure Supreme Court justices don’t have that anvil hanging over their head(by design they aren’t supposed to so they won’t be influenced by public opinion instead of Constitutionality.)
But hey if the right wants to gnash their teeth and call Roberts names who am I to stand in their way?
Both insurers and care-providers have lobbyists. (The American Medical Association, for example, lobbies for doctors.) Sometimes their interests overlap, sometimes not. I suspect Jon was thinking primarily of insurers, but he may have had both groups in mind. You’d have to ask him.
I have to say the only reason I haven’t joined firedoglake is I don’t let ANYONE make repeated charges to my credit card and they said I could not just send a check. Your post is making me glad I made that decision.
Amen, Jon Walker, when you say “The fact that Democrats idiotically insisted on using state-federal partnerships for exchanges and Medicaid expansion guarantees the ACA’s coverage expansion efforts will function worse than it should have.”
I would add that the decision to have the four levels of standardized policies be determined at state level was even worse. Were there standardized policy terms nationwide at the different levels, everyone would eventually learn and understand their terms. The way the Obama administration is implementing, that will NEVER happen. Just perfectly awful!
Since doctors have pretty much ditched the Hippocratic Oath for the Hypocritical Oath and become a conduit for Big Pharma’s delivery of medications to the public, I’d hesitate to classify what they do as health care.
Yup!
You make it sound like that’s not a good thing. If it’s not, it should stop.