Take a long-term view on health care
The most momentous decision state budget negotiators face is whether to expand Medicaid.
Love it or loathe it, few would disagree with Carilion Clinic President and CEO Nancy Agee’s observation that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a “catalyst for change.”
“For one thing, more Americans, and hopefully more Virginians, will have access to medical care,” Agee told a Roanoke audience earlier this month.
February 20, 2013 - 6:25 AM
As Medicaid expands and federal regulations take total control of the program away from the states, and federal funding contributes less and less over the years, the states will be stuck with the increasing costs.
Giving up what control of Medicaid they had and being stuck with increasing costs passed on to the states is not a good deal for states and only means an increase in state taxes.
As you say, “There is much to gain from embracing that change and using it to Virginia’s benefit.” On top of that, the need is there and it is not just going to go away because they don’t “want” to meet it. Turning away the federal money is truly “cutting off your nose to spite your face” IMO.
–
This decision has to be for the long run, and Virginia’s need is growing.
Obamacare calls for an expansion of Medicaid eligibility from 100% of the poverty level to 133%. Government Medicaid funding is already scheduled to decrease after a few short years and will undoubtedly decrease further over the long term forcing the states to make up the difference.
One study says that VA will save $150 M in costs the first 7 years but then lose $700 M over the next 3 years. That does not seem like a good “long term” health care plan to me.
http://watchdog.org/69912/crony-capitalists-line-up-for-perverse-medicaid-expansion-virginia/
A better plan is block grants to the states and let each state spend the money according to its own individual health care needs. One size does not fit all!
Obama and the tax and spend Dems have accepted the failed European socialist model of low productivity and GDP, high unemployment, high taxes, and huge debt and cradle to grave entitlements.
Just like the European socialists, the Dems don’t believe we have a spending problem.
The coming sequester will only slightly slow the growth in spending by less than 3% or just $85 B in a $4 T economy, hardly draconian. There are no true spending cuts.
Cuts should be painful or they are not real cuts at all!
Well, if all you want is for something to “hurt” then the poor are already there and have been for some time, with no hope of that ever changing.
Eligibility for most adults is 30 percent of the poverty level, not 100 percent. In other words, about $7,000 a year. The exceptions are pregnant women, elderly nursing home residents and the disabled. The estimated cost over 10 years for Virignia for the expansion is $137 million for ACA.
#5 The link in my post above states that the present range for Medicaid is 25-100% of the poverty level. Under Obamacare the cut off will be advanced to 133% along with expanding participation.
Federal funds to the state are scheduled to be reduced under Obamacare. There is no guarantee that they will not be reduced further over time and most likely will be.
States presently have some control over Medicaid. Under Obamacare, the feds will essentially have total control.
You cannot expand Medicaid and reduce federal funding without the states having to make up the difference with tax increases. States can’t print money like the fed.
Medicaid under Obamacare is a bad deal for the states, they give up control and suffer the increased costs. That is why so many states are reluctant to go along.
Add to that the fact that docs are dropping out of Medicaid and Medicare because it pays so little. There is no plan to increase the number of docs in the near future, who will treat the increase in patient load? There will be long waits just to see a nurse and near impossible to see a physician.
You can try to put a smilie face on it but it is still a bad deal.