Medicaid expansion vote
- Thread starter The Cooterpoot
- Start date
- Status
He's a buffoon.
STICK TO YOUR GUNS, TATE! DO IT FOR THE GREAT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI!
NO MORE RINOs!
NO MORE RINOs!
Medicaid reimbursement to providers does not cover the baseline cost of care in most cases.
What is lost in this piece of legislation, is that the state doesnt pay one penny for the first four years, so it is completely free to our budget. After four years, there is a strike all piece if it is not working. This is inevitable, and is going to happen one way or another in the long run.
There was also a compromise for this bill that will over ride Tate's veto.
There is also a work requirement. Which the Fed's say they won't support, so this may never happen.
There is some thought out there that says the fed will approve a work requirement because it is an election year, and could use it as a political win. I wouldn't bet on it though.
Tater is on the wrong side of this, and is too embarrassed to admit it and is doubling down.
There was also a compromise for this bill that will over ride Tate's veto.
There is also a work requirement. Which the Fed's say they won't support, so this may never happen.
There is some thought out there that says the fed will approve a work requirement because it is an election year, and could use it as a political win. I wouldn't bet on it though.
Tater is on the wrong side of this, and is too embarrassed to admit it and is doubling down.
To deny health coverage to some of the poorest people in the poorest state in America for no other reason than to make a political point is evil. And I know something about evil. We can argue political ideology but Tate is on the wrong side of this.
Last edited:
Maybe their costs are out of line?
The Bible - "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."
Tate Reeves - "Can't use our tax money to pay for the poor! No handouts for "these" people."
What a great example he is to us all.
Tate Reeves - "Can't use our tax money to pay for the poor! No handouts for "these" people."
What a great example he is to us all.
This is necessary. I didn’t feel that way 10 years ago, but I do now. Medicaid rates vary widely by state, but they’re typically bad enough to where no one will get rich on it except for legitimate value based arrangements built around reducing total cost of care, which is good.
lol, nice. Medicaid reimburses physicians at less than 30% of bcbs rates, at 90% of Medicare rates and at rates that have steadily dropped for the past few years, while inflation goes up.
Doctors make too much money*. Let’s give medical insurance to more people but underfund it*.
I think people without healthcare should just keep going to the emergency room for their sniffles and aches. Then proceed to not pay the bills and cause the entire healthcare system to raise their rates on those of us who do pay our bills.
That's not a valid comparison at all. Jesus was talking about charity, not taxation and government spending. That said, Tate is on the wrong side of this again. We should have done it 10 years ago.
So some deals don't make as much money as others? You run into that on these big jobs.
That's not really a meaningful statement. It doesn't cover the average cost of care because it's the lowest paying of the three major sources (i.e., Private insurance, medicare, and Medicaid). Providers are always going to negotiate salaries that reflect a blend of the rates they receive, and Medicaid is therefore always going to be lower than the average cost of providing service. The question would be whether it pays enough to cover overhead and then some, which it presumably does.
Agreeing that other people are going to pay for things has nothing to do with Christian obligations or morals. It may be good policy, it may not be. I personally am for expansion but if anything, I'm probably for expansion because of moral flexibility and my willingness to go along with bad policy provided I am not the one primarily paying for it.
If we had joined in at the beginning this State would be over $2 billion better off and our hospitals, particularly our rural hospitals would be in terrific shape because - THAT'S WHERE THE POOR PEOPLE ARE!
We'd also be a hell of a lot healthier. I LOVE AND ADORE TATE REEVES (vote for him every time) but the GOP and he have really screwed over all of us with this... because - politics.
We'd also be a hell of a lot healthier. I LOVE AND ADORE TATE REEVES (vote for him every time) but the GOP and he have really screwed over all of us with this... because - politics.
The trust so many have in The Rich Men North of Richmond to make things better 100% of the time is sad. insurers, big pharma, and most hospitals.are all going bank while the rest bend over and worship their D.C. Overlords. Medicaid & Medicare fraud surpasses all health insurance company profits which are now exceeding $100B per year so 17 a lot of the providers too. But despite the corruption paid for by us unrepresented Tax Slaves we collectively say "Thank You Sir May I have Another."
Last edited:
Mississippi- some of the highest grocery taxes, highest car tags, highest taxes in general (Top 20 or so), highest fuel taxes, lowest income, worst educated, and worst health care. The Republicans have the priorities like volleyball facilities, new roads for their homes, and helping friends with their businesses I guess.
I'm not one to argue theology, but there is ample space for context in this passage (Matthew 25:40). It certainly doesn't tell us it is specifically about charity. See Proverbs 14:31
It would do little if anything to improve the plight of rural hospitals. There is a possibility it would make things worse.
I don’t think the government funds welfare stuff (any and all kinds) out of a moral obligation to what Jesus said. It’s more of the best way to keep society functional.
@aspendawg is just gaslighting Christians. Many fall for it.
I find it hard to believe more paying customers is bad for business, but I'm open to learning new info. How is medicaid expansion bad for rural hospitals?
Yeah I can see it is a continuation of natural rights versus social contract.
I know "gaslighting" is one of the words the cool kids use now, but I'm not sure it's applicable here. Aspen simply has a different idea - he's not trying to convince you something did or didn't happen, or that you're crazy.
Ehh, it’s complicated. It often doesn’t cover overhead (at least at the initial FFS rates) but varies by state and provider and what services are being delivered. Hospitals will make it up with other payers and a lot of the Medicaid-heavy community providers have some alternative funding source to cover losses
Check on the rate of reimbursement. At best they won't go under quite as fast. Also, some of these people will have insurance currently. If that is dropped.....
WRONG! But if you wish to learn something, you can compare the plight of rural hospitals from state's that opted in initially to state's like ours that have still not received any support. Or go talk to the CFO at your local hospital and ask about reimbursement rates. They might balk at the additional red tape, but they would sure take the money.
It would definitely help them. You may be getting at the fact that they’d still be in a bad financial position long term, which is true, but it’d give them more runway and would improve the financial position of other health systems, which might drive acquisition + scale efficiencies/payer negotiation leverage
I'm having trouble understanding how something is worse than nothing. Fair enough on the slice of folks currently otherwise insured; I'd be interested to see how many people this is.
I, personally, am waiting for Trump to release his plan to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare. I know those 2016 and 2020 elections slipped up on us all, but 2024 could be the year.
On a serious note, I think there are 10 states that haven’t expanded. Trump won 9 of them. It just looks like partisanship to me.
On a serious note, I think there are 10 states that haven’t expanded. Trump won 9 of them. It just looks like partisanship to me.
Do you lobby for the industry, sell equipment or pharmaceuticals, or do you work in the services side?
Exactly what I'm getting at. It's not going to save rural hospitals in the long run. It may slow things down, but it's not going to really change things. Obamacare was designed to force consolidation in healthcare delivery. It has been extremely effective at that. Small rural hospitals that are not part of a bigger system are doomed long term no matter what happens with Medicaid. The ones that do become part of a bigger system may have some chance, as bigger systems have an easier time passing on expenses to others to make up for the Medicaid driven shortfall. I'm not against expansion (I'm not for it either), I'd just like to see an honest debate about it. We are not getting that now. It's being held up as the savior for Lower Bugtussle County Hospital. It's not that, and was never intended to be.
Direct delivery, That's as close as I'm going. I'm not the only one in the family in healthcare either.
At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it sounds like most of your beef is with capitalists?
- Status
Latest posts
-
The ump’s hot mic last night
- Latest: Barkman Turner Overdrive
-
Good article from the WSJ on Cijntje- Latest: TaleofTwoDogs
