I mean, I am sympathetic to the bolded statement and that is basically my position on it. But that has nothing to do with whether it's the right thing to do. It's politically expedient and self serving. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. But on average the right thing to do on a policy isn't going to be the politically expedient and self serving thing to do also. Politics wouldn't be so contentious and wouldn't attract such flawed people if that were the case.
Medicaid expansion vote
- Thread starter The Cooterpoot
- Start date
- Status
No, which is why I haven't offered an opinion on exactly how this would hit their finances. The only thing that I can say that I think I know about rural hospital finances is that a rising tide buoys all ships. Rural areas are on decline. The ability to support a hospital in a declining community seems like a tough proposition. MS rural communities are typically very poor. Very poor people don't have good/any primary care and tend to use hospitals a lot. It seems that taking in more federal $$$ to support that is net good. That's logical. Everything doesn't behave logically, and I don't know enough about running a rural hospital to render a meaningful opinion that is steeped in actual knowledge and not speculation.
By the same token, anyone "being in healthcare" does not necessarily mean they have any idea about rural healthcare hospital administration. Honestly, I suspect that someone in coding could speak to the reality of what this means.
This is a true statement. As hard as it is for some that aren't connected to the medical community in Mississippi finds it to believe. I had a friend of mine that is an MD and director of a pretty large ER in the state tell me that passage of this bill would be the worst possible outcome for healthcare in Mississippi. Also have a lifelong friend that is a cardiologist that said the same. I won't pretend that I know enough of the intricacies of the issue to fully know why. They did both delve into the top layer of it, and it made sense.
According to this guy expansion will not help rural areas. I don't believe everything I read but he does give statistic that can be research and verified.
Not to mention rural hospitals have zero buying power and pay suppliers more than large IDNs for the same product and/or service.
I'm sure it's that great entity that's been doing such a great job over all these years. Just give it more and it will do even more****
I do not remember trying to come off like the government did everything perfectly. We all know that is not true, and it usually far from the truth. I was just pointing out there are certain things that prayer and churches are not going to be able to fix given the size of the issue is too much for them.
Had a co-worker who went to Mexico for a V tacking. Apparently it's cheaper to get your curtains hemmed in Mexico.
The only way rural hospitals will survive, no matter what they do with Medicaid, is if they become part of a bigger system. That much should be obvious just by observation alone. That is the case nationwide. If the federal reimbursement rates were better that might not be the case, but they are what they are. As for Mississippi, you are going to eventually see 7-8 big systems and all the little ones will be swallowed or go away. It's nearly that way already.
I'm not saying this to disparage rural hospitals and transparently speaking this is a stereotype with exceptions.... the all stars do not work in rural hospitals. Think about how that impacts the cost of healthcare in those facilities from the delivery of healthcare all the way down to the negotiations with suppliers and providers. It's like the MLB vs the minor leagues. The MLB has the best of the best and the minors are full of potential, veterans just hanging on and guys that will never make it.
And those who don't pray or pray to whatever can do their part too right? Maybe if those who have been given much (relative) do their part then government wouldn't have to do so much.....since we are hypothetically speaking.
Increasingly, Americans are completely unwilling to give up anything on behalf of someone else. We are a society of 6ft privacy fences and no sense of community. We worship individual liberty at the expense of a better society. There should be a happy medium, but alas, that is not a goal of anyone in power, or clamoring for power.
That is exactly what he meant, Medicaid does not cover the costs to the physician. Doctors take care of the patients because it’s the right thing to do .
They aren’t paying customers they are underpaying money losing customers, you know some jobs are like that. Albeit through no fault of their own.
The big winners with this are UHC et al. They (UHC) insure more lives than regular Medicare, had record profits, all while administering underpaying insurance and keeping the profits.
Despite my moniker on here I am actually an atheist with my outlook coming from how poorly my own family was treated by a local Baptist church even after my father had donated hundred of thousands of dollars to them. It was almost as if once they got his money they had no more use for him. That is a hypothetical world I would love to live in. One in which we all do our part to help our fellow man would really be a wonderful place. Unfortunately we both know that is not the world we live in. Church folks try so hard to say that they help people, and they do but it is not enough. Plus many of churches I have crossed paths with in my life have been more interested in taking care of themselves as opposed to anybody else. Now I know that is not all churches, and I am not saying it is.
I think we should all try to have the interests of our fellow man at heart, I know this is utopian thinking but it is my right to hope. Your are right sir, and again this is completely hypothetical, but maybe if those who were given much would spend less time looking to elect politicians to give them tax breaks and trying to figure out ways to take advantage of people then all of the burden would not have to fall at the feet of the government. It is almost as if we ask the government to do basically an impossible job, and then criticize and ridicule it when it inevitably falls short. Now for my wealthy friends reading this remember this is hypothetical.
Well, some of that is an inevitable result of identity politics and high taxes. If you're a married couple with two W2 workers, between Sales taxes, property taxes, 15% FICA, income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc., not that hard to pay between $50k and $100k per year in taxes. When more than half the money the government spends is on transfer payments and a bunch of political rhetoric revolving around who is going to be taken from and who is going to receive, I can understand some people thinking they've already paid. It's basically the flipside of the fallacy of people thinking forcing other people to pay has somehow satisfied their obligation.
Pushign for individual liberty and a better society are pretty much the same thing in the aggregate. Maybe if you had enough individual liberty a society would get rich enough that they'd decide to move away from it (I guess there is an argument that's what the majority of US voters did), but in practice, we don't have to worry about having too much individual liberty. We are just nowhere near that being a problem in aggregate.
Well said sir. Bravo!!!! Don't you love how the goal now is not to use the power to help people only to help one's self? This is how some of the dumbest among us get elected to government and then use the power they have to only enrich themselves. It is also why 1% of the world controls 99% of the wealth this could not be if they were wanting to help other people.
Sorry to hear about your experiences. I'm a believer but not extremely religious. I fall very short every day of how I should really act. Not intentionally of course but I own it and I know I will be accountable.
"Religious " people drive more people away from religion than anyone. Your example that you provided is a prime example of how your screen moniker works. He's very effective.
Worshipping individual liberty without the discipline of individual responsibility is a fool's errand.
I would argue we've lost the discipline of individual responsibility. I find it hard to believe that we would not have a better society if we each got our house in order and then expanded from there but I could be wrong.
Something that my father did teach me was one does not need a church or the people in it to have a relationship with God. This relationship can be built anywhere at anytime, or least that was his belief. I picked my dark character because I have always thought the Devil is one of the most misunderstood characters in the story of humans. We use him to justify so many things, or excuse so many things that are really our responsibility. I will say that I did get lucky and marry a beautiful Catholic woman, and because of her I have come to see the Catholic church as a good thing. I know insert the priest and boy joke here, but my experiences with that church have been nothing but positive. One thing else I have always enjoyed is they never have asked me for any money, they do pass the hat, but in the Baptist churches from my youth money seemed to be the one true God.
My understanding is this bill requires the new "expanded" Medicaid recipients to be full time workers who make less than something like $15k per year. I can't imagine that's many people at all. If any. I think the legislature is pulling a fast one and getting us arguing about something that isn't doing anything anyway. They look like they are doing the right thing by expanding Medicaid while making the expansion worthless. A Mississippi Special.
ETA: looks like the deal just reached covers those working at least 25 hours a week and making less than $20k. Supposed to be 200k peeps. Sounds high.
Last edited:
at 18.4 cents per gallon, there are only two states (AK and MO) with lower fuel taxes
history has shown they understood those things much better than the Obamacare opponents.
Most of the Obama Admin were neo-liberals, who believe in deregulation and tax cuts for capital. They absolutely believed in consolidation being beneficial to the consumer, like Clinton, W, HW, and Reagan administration's before them. The Biden Admin is the first to buck that trend since then. You on board with that now? You going all trust-busting all of a sudden?
The public option was supposed to counter any profit seeking rate increases. Lieberman insisted on killing it at his donors prompting. Obama accepted, for politics (and he probably didn't mind anyway).
Sounds like your typical budget cutting Pol. Of course they should accept triage, how do you cut budgets to fund tax cuts otherwise? She probably thought these red state Trumpers should be for that.
Your father sounds like a wise man! Congrats on landing a great life partner. Somehow I managed to outkick my coverage.....still trying to understand how I got so lucky.
I get it about the devil....he's a good boogeyman for sure. I guess beyond scripture I just logically can't imagine that some of the most evil things that we do to each other is not spiritually related. So, logically, if you have a spiritual power that evil then you have to have something that helps offset it or we'd be living in something worse than a post apocalyptic dystopia. To each their own....we'll know for sure soon enough ****
Sooooooo tax the rich more and thax these peeps less then? Man, youre going all lefty on us quick!
I also have found the Catholic church more palatable than the Baptist one of my youth. My big objection though is how they ignore the growing evil within the American conservative movement. I know that's a tough subject, and would cost them congregants, but if they can't tackle the difficult subjects, what good are they? They are claiming to be the moral authority, and I can see they are not, so I seek that within.
I'm afraid that this is less of the world changing and more of us becoming old/mature enough to see the reality of it. Keep in mind that in America, arguably the best system of government conceived, our original constitution designed all the power to reside with white, land owning, men. An absolute desire to keep/maintain power for which we still feel repurcussions.
I will absolutely say that I am surprised, and therefore my mind is somewhat changed, to see how many here think the expansion needs to happen(for the many different reasons they list). Genuine surprise.
So yeah- my mind is changed on that assumption.
- Status
