Push to opt out of Medicaid alarms Texas health providers

[Dave]

>>It's the fiscal thang, pardner.
>>What is the duty of society to children and the elderly?
>>That's a question for Rick Perry.

Push to opt out of Medicaid alarms Texas health providers
By Dave Montgomery | Fort Worth Star-Telegram

AUSTIN — A push from conservative legislators for Texas to opt out of Medicaid is stirring alarm among healthcare providers and nursing homes, which say the potential loss of billions of federal dollars could drastically undercut efforts to provide healthcare for the poor.

The opt-out plan has quickly emerged as another high-profile topic for the 2011 Legislature, pushed by Gov. Rick Perry and a number of conservative lawmakers who believe that Texas can provide health coverage to the indigent more efficiently with a state-run plan free of federal mandates.

"We know how to deliver healthcare to more people in a less expensive way than what the federal government does," Perry said in Dallas last week while promoting his new book, Fed Up! He said states "need to stand up and say, 'We don't want your strings attached. We don't want you down here telling us how to run our business.'"

Perry's message reflects the anti-Washington mood that propelled him to a double-digit re-election victory this month and helped Republicans storm past Democrats to gain nearly two-thirds of the seats in the state House. Several leading conservatives in the Legislature are echoing Perry's idea.

"If we could opt out and design our own program, I've just got to believe we can do a lot more with a lot less," said state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford.

Healthcare advocates, however, are preparing to resist moves to pull out of the state-federal insurance program, which covers 3.1 million indigent beneficiaries, including 2.3 million children. The total cost of Medicaid for fiscal 2011 is $24.7 billion, with the federal government paying $16.6 billion, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says.

"Unless our state leaders can come up with a financing plan to replace the current Medicaid structure that's even better than what we have now, I think it will ultimately end up backfiring and costing more in the long run," said Dr. Susan Bailey, a Fort Worth allergist and president of the Texas Medical Association.

Republican Rep. Mark Shelton, a Fort Worth pediatrician, said: "I think opting out of Medicaid without a viable alternative is not a good idea. We need to make sure . . . the vulnerable people in our society — the poor, children and the elderly — are taken care of."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/1...#ixzz15PJj23Ug

[Riverwind]

What will happen when they (Texas) ends Medicaid and then can't cover the people that would get it?

What can the Feds do or can't do about this?

What will those people do without coverage?

River

[NZ_Master_John]

Good question RiverWind

Pretty simple answer really. The rich "sit on their fat arses and tell other people to make money for them" can get even richer so they can buy lots more expensive medication and live longer and the poor hard working people can work harder for less. Hmmmmmm That sounds a bit like old fashioned southern slavery.

Maybe there is a an answer that has an egalitarian result. Be an unamerican answer tho.

[Slammr]

Having grown up in Texas and having some old high school buddies that forward me "hate Obama" email (similar to what one member kept posting here), I would say the typical Texas feeling is, "Fuck those on Medicaid - just a bunch of Blacks and Mexicans."

How many of us want to live in Rick Perry's America?

[Dave]

It's not going to happen.
It's words for the masses, like the gladiator games of old but with political opponents.

Where's the stuff that Republicans promised over the year? how many years of balanced budget never balanced? How many years of right ot life with nothing changed? How many more guns on the street doing crimes? How many communists defeated?

It's the same as before -- something to get the rabble screaming and angry.
Rick Perry luvs himself sum supporters.

[twaddler]

""If we could opt out and design our own program, I've just got to believe we can do a lot more with a lot less,""

So they want to opt-out yet havn't even designed a replacement program yet? lol.

[Dave]

""If we could opt out and design our own program, I've just got to believe we can do a lot more with a lot less,""

So they want to opt-out yet havn't even designed a replacement program yet? lol.

I'm glad someone else sees the need to plan or should I say "look before you leap."

[moi621]

Some uninsured, poverty level person comes to the emergency room with a broken leg.
They cannot be, turned away! Illegal!
So who pays for it now?
We do! May as well organize it.
Moi
Tech<choke>Hass, there first mistake was not remaining an independent nation.

[Dave]

Some uninsured, poverty level person comes to the emergency room with a broken leg.
They cannot be, turned away! Illegal!
So who pays for it now?
We do! May as well organize it.
Moi
Tech<choke>Hass, there first mistake was not remaining an independent nation.

It is not the emergencies like a broken leg that is creating the problem in the healthcare system. What is causing it is the people without insurance who should be going to a family doctor but instead are going to emergency room because they can't afford to pay for the policies.

[moi621]

It is not the emergencies like a broken leg that is creating the problem in the healthcare system. What is causing it is the people without insurance who should be going to a family doctor but instead are going to emergency room because they can't afford to pay for the policies.

Same question then, Dave. Dear!
Who pays?
The uninsured poor are getting a free ride anyways. Broken leg or flu in the ER
as Dave, Dear wisely points out.
Someone has to pay for these services or health care facilities close down as is happening in poorer areas of Los Angeles.
Unless service can be refused, we should organize the uninsured for payment of services in some manner.
Okay, Dave? Dear.
Moi
Dave's Friend

[Milkman]

The Republican party is thralled with an ideology , that they will put ahead of any practical considerations or even human life as is the case in Texas

[shomemore]

[QUOTE=Dave;165687]>>Healthcare advocates, however, are preparing to resist moves to pull out of the state-federal insurance program, which covers 3.1 million indigent beneficiaries, including 2.3 million children. The total cost of Medicaid for fiscal 2011 is $24.7 billion, with the federal government paying $16.6 billion, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission says.

Do I believe they can cut some of the costs. Yes. Do I believe that they can deliver the same service to the same group of individuals using only the $8.1 billion that Texas currently pays -- hell no. You would have to be an idiot to believe that. The only way to cut 2/3 of the cost of delivering the service is to reduce the number of people receiving services by 2/3, reduce what the system pays for by 2/3, or some combination of the two.

Either way, the State of Texas wins because the poor can't afford to take that big a hit in their budget. So Texas' poorest residents will be forced to move to States where they can get full benefits.

The same story has been going on for years. Some times it is cheaper to pay for a bus ticket to ship undesireables to another State than it is to provide them with basic services.

[butterflyjack]

It seems to me that this is a particularly "un-American" idea..The United States is a country that is comprised of 50 states and a few territories. There is a pool of money that is to be fairly shared amongst them. The idea that the solution to a fiscal problem, is to lay it off on your "brother/sister" Americans because of your take on what is fair, seems inherently unfair/immoral. Does Texas want to secede from the union? Maybe...I agree that these Republicans put their ideology way ahead of the best interests of America..They are of the old school of "get yours first", damn everyone else....Basically Greed..
What do you think? dragonfly

[Riverwind]

I am thinking that the Republicans got religion, meaning that for years they have been the party of big spending and they finally have realized that it does not work.

This country has a problem, we live way beyond our means and don't collect enough in tax to pay for it, add a recession and we have a problem. Let the good times roll is over.

The presidents commission on how to fix the problem had come out with their report or the first part of it, and it has the Republicans pissed, the Democrats pissed and makes me wonder if its not a good idea. Because if they are both against it there might be something to it.

I do know this, that both side must come together and solve this problem or if they think the election we just had was a blood bath wait tell the next one.

My right side the part of me that is a fiscal conservative demands that we live within our means, you don't spend what you don't have, my left side the social liberal side knows that you must take care of the poor, the old, the down and out, those that can't work, and along the way provide health care for all. I think I am in conflict but somehow the two sides must resolve this. If it means raising some taxes for some then there must also be a cut in spending for others. We must all share in this and its not going to be ease for anybody but must be applied to everybody equally.

There are things that can be done to help this process, and that is new infrastructure, high speed trains, wind power, solar power, cars that use alternate fuels. Right now China just built a high speed train costing over a 100 billion and it was done by our debt, yet we are killing projects of 10 billion because it cost to much. About 41cents out of every dollar goes to the national debt, we need to rain in our spending but everybody must pay for it in some way or the other.

On another note Earmarks one of the TEA Party points, the only one I totally agree with may be a thing of the past. I think this is a good thing but to put it in perspective this last year there were about 9000 of them costing about 15 billion, when the budget is in trillions its not a big hit but it is a start.

River

[s_76544jmbjr]

On another note Earmarks one of the TEA Party points, the only one I totally agree with may be a thing of the past. I think this is a good thing but to put it in perspective this last year there were about 9000 of them costing about 15 billion, when the budget is in trillions its not a big hit but it is a start.

River

It is not the amout of the money spent it is the idea behind most of the earmarks. Most of them are bribes to get other congressmen or woment to vote for their bill.