Medicaid, Head Start, health centers say they're locked out of federal funding website

[Say it aint so]

Could that not be tighting up the requirements to save money?

And/or just plain ol funding cuts.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You expressed some of the challenges of living in a rural area. Prayers seemed appropriate.
Many rural communities are dying. Kids grow up and leave for lack of jobs.
Broadband is essential. Telecommuting, which Trump.just banned for federal employees, can make rural living doable. Online services and shopping save long expensive trips to town.
I lived in a rural area once, a university town of 10,000 in a tiny state. Coming from the suburbs of NYC made it difficult, but the university town had everything I needed. Interesting people from all over the world. Culture. Community.
But I also had friends with a pig farm and learned a lot about rural life. I remember playing at a funeral where the deceased had spent her final days canning for her funeral banquet so she could nourish her friends in death as she had in life. Cried with a choir director whose husband died in a tractor accident.
Then of course there were the magnificent eccentrics. A hypnotist who believed she was abducted by a UFO and returned. Rural life can be very broadening.

The next county over is where we go to REALLY shop. The only grocery store at this point in the county is basically a glorfied convenience store ( since it changed hands several months ago) Before that it was pretty decent wise, but heck at this point if you want to shop like really shop for any food in any real amounts it is cheaper to drive the 30 minutes to town.

By the same token I would HATE city life even though I cannot drive so no public transit means I have to depend on others to drive me, but then again I like the fresh air and at this point I can neither get to public transit anyway, access it without a wheelchair lift or be alone all day long anyway ( trough I can be alone for several hours, but there is NO way I could live alone.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Of course that would save money, but at what cost? Medicaid is supposed to provide access to health care for poorer citizens. Cutting them off will save money, but lose lives and badly damage quality of life for those denied needed care.

depends I said tightening the requirements not dropping it completely plus as someone on medicaid really it is not worth a whole heck of a lot in GA quite a few places do not take it. They take longer to cover things ( have more red tape and quite frankly I do not blaim doctors for not taking it. Although, admittedly medicaid is secondary for me ( to the much better medicare so the difference they pay is 20%.

 

[dogs4thewin]

And/or just plain ol funding cuts.

maybe but by tightening the requirements less money would go out.

 

[Say it aint so]

maybe but by tightening the requirements less money would go out.

Or maybe cutting funding less money would go out. Like lowering federal matching funds.

 

[DaisyDay]

depends I said tightening the requirements not dropping it completely plus as someone on medicaid really it is not worth a whole heck of a lot in GA quite a few places do not take it. They take longer to cover things ( have more red tape and quite frankly I do not blaim doctors for not taking it. Although, admittedly medicaid is secondary for me ( to the much better medicare so the difference they pay is 20%.

So making it worse for people seems a bad solution, even if it does save money. Let's go with Medicare for All!

To Pay for Trump Tax Cuts, House GOP Floats Plan to Slash Benefits for the Poor and Working Class

A menu of options being circulated by congressional Republicans also includes new tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy.

www.propublica.org

To pay for new tax cuts, the House Republicans’ proposal floats a series of potential overhauls of government programs. One major focus is possible cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for people with low incomes that is administered by the states. Medicaid expansion was a key tenet of the Affordable Care Act, passed under President Barack Obama. Many Republican governors initially chose not to take advantage of the new federal subsidies to expand the program. In the intervening years, several states reversed course, and the program has expanded the number of people enrolled in Medicaid by more than 20 million, as of last year.


The deep cuts to the program floated in the document include slashing reimbursements to the states. States would need to “raise new revenues or reduce Medicaid spending by eliminating coverage for some people, covering fewer services, and (or) cutting rates paid to physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes,” according to an analysis by KFF, a health policy organization.


Trump has been inconsistent in his position on Medicaid over the years. He sought to slash the program in his first term. But he has also made statements about protecting it over the years.​

.

 

[Say it aint so]

So making it worse for people seems a bad solution, even if it does save money. Let's go with Medicare for All!

To Pay for Trump Tax Cuts, House GOP Floats Plan to Slash Benefits for the Poor and Working Class

A menu of options being circulated by congressional Republicans also includes new tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy.

www.propublica.org

To pay for new tax cuts, the House Republicans’ proposal floats a series of potential overhauls of government programs. One major focus is possible cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for people with low incomes that is administered by the states. Medicaid expansion was a key tenet of the Affordable Care Act, passed under President Barack Obama. Many Republican governors initially chose not to take advantage of the new federal subsidies to expand the program. In the intervening years, several states reversed course, and the program has expanded the number of people enrolled in Medicaid by more than 20 million, as of last year.​

​

​

The deep cuts to the program floated in the document include slashing reimbursements to the states. States would need to “raise new revenues or reduce Medicaid spending by eliminating coverage for some people, covering fewer services, and (or) cutting rates paid to physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes,” according to an analysis by KFF, a health policy organization.​

​

​

Trump has been inconsistent in his position on Medicaid over the years. He sought to slash the program in his first term. But he has also made statements about protecting it over the years.​

.

I wouldn't worry about the ACA. Trump has plans, heck he has had them since 2016, for better and cheaper health insurance for all America.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So making it worse for people seems a bad solution, even if it does save money. Let's go with Medicare for All!

To Pay for Trump Tax Cuts, House GOP Floats Plan to Slash Benefits for the Poor and Working Class

A menu of options being circulated by congressional Republicans also includes new tax cuts for corporations and the ultrawealthy.

www.propublica.org

To pay for new tax cuts, the House Republicans’ proposal floats a series of potential overhauls of government programs. One major focus is possible cuts to Medicaid, the health care program for people with low incomes that is administered by the states. Medicaid expansion was a key tenet of the Affordable Care Act, passed under President Barack Obama. Many Republican governors initially chose not to take advantage of the new federal subsidies to expand the program. In the intervening years, several states reversed course, and the program has expanded the number of people enrolled in Medicaid by more than 20 million, as of last year.​

​

​

The deep cuts to the program floated in the document include slashing reimbursements to the states. States would need to “raise new revenues or reduce Medicaid spending by eliminating coverage for some people, covering fewer services, and (or) cutting rates paid to physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes,” according to an analysis by KFF, a health policy organization.​

​

​

Trump has been inconsistent in his position on Medicaid over the years. He sought to slash the program in his first term. But he has also made statements about protecting it over the years.​

.

Why on Earth would people want medicare for all when the government does not manage things well pays peanuts ( at times) and makes it not worth taking their programs ( Medicare is better than medicaid; still the government has shown to not be the best at managing ( why do you think it is that people buy insurance to cover the remainer of bills.

I know I have dealt with medicare, medicaid and private insurance guess which one has given me the least problems the private, same applied to the private hospital ( as opposed to the safety net hospital in town ) Medicare again, is better than medicaid still though the government is not known for good mangement.

 

[Say it aint so]

Why on Earth would people want medicare for all when the government does not manage things well pays peanuts ( at times) and makes it not worth taking their programs ( Medicare is better than medicaid; still the government has shown to not be the best at managing ( why do you think it is that people buy insurance to cover te remainer of bills.

I know I have dealt with medicare, medicaid and private insurance guess which one has given me the least problems the private, same applied to the private hospital ( as opposed to the safety net hospital in town ) Medicare again, is better than medicaid still though the government is not known for good mangement.

I am not advocating medicare for all, but what is the alternative? Private insurance for all?

 

[dogs4thewin]

I am not advocating medicare for all, but what is the alternative? Private insurance for all?

a mix like we have. Doctors have the right to decide which insurance to take as different Some insurance is better than others.

 

[Say it aint so]

a mix like we have. Doctors have the right to decide which insurance to take as different Some insurance is better than others.

Yes. But going back to your previous post. Government administers medicare far better than private healthcare. Not only is the administration cost ten times lower than private industry, it doesn't work under the guise of "deny first" because profits come first. You just won't find the dissatisfaction from those on medicare, as juxtaposed to their experiences with outright private insurance.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes. But going back to your previous post. Government administers medicare far better than private healthcare. Not only is the administration cost ten times lower than private industry, it doesn't work under the guise of "deny first" because profits come first. You just won't find the dissatisfaction from those on medicare, as juxtaposed to their experiences with outright private insurance.

Yet people buy private insurance to cover what Medicare does not and some private hospitals are better than some public hospitals people should have that choice.

 

[Say it aint so]

Yet people buy private insurance to cover what Medicare does not and some private hospitals are better than some public hospitals people should have that choice.

Still ran better and a heck of a lot cheaper because they don't have the expensive overhead. Still cheaper because it uses the same large pool of people for cheaper private insurance as the ACA was meant to do. To me, there should be a public option ran by the government that works the same way as those discounted rates because of the size of potential customers.

 

[Fantine]

I wouldn't worry about the ACA. Trump has plans, heck he has had them since 2016, for better and cheaper health insurance for all America.

Medicare and the VA have miniscule overhead compared to insurance companies' 20%. So government Healthcare would save a lot there.
Your taxes might go up, but you'd have no premiums, I say who cares?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Medicare and the VA have miniscule overhead compared to insurance companies' 20%. So government Healthcare would save a lot there.
Your taxes might go up, but you'd have no premiums, I say who cares?

Depends on whether a person would whether have premiums or higher taxes,

 

[DaisyDay]

Depends on whether a person would whether have premiums or higher taxes,

It also depends on whether people would rather get access to health care or have their claims arbitrarily denied. I don't get the obsession with low taxes and a crummy quality of life. I'd rather have progressive taxes and decent services.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It also depends on whether people would rather get access to health care or have their claims arbitrarily denied. I don't get the obsession with low taxes and a crummy quality of life. I'd rather have progressive taxes and decent services.

While I do not agree with denied claims all that is saying is we wil not pay for it not you cannot have it. There is a difference there are doctors who wil do just about anything sometimes needed or not. An insurance company can only deny payment they cannot deny service.

 

[Pommer]

While I do not agree with denied claims all that is saying is we wil not pay for it not you cannot have it.

Anybody can have any medical procedures if they pony up the money themselves? Who knew!?

There is a difference there are doctors who wil do just about anything sometimes needed or not. An insurance company can only deny payment they cannot deny service.

Effectively the same for people on Medicaid, though.

 

[comana]

Depends on whether a person would whether have premiums or higher taxes,

Why don’t we put that to a vote and find out?

 

[comana]

Yet people buy private insurance to cover what Medicare does not and some private hospitals are better than some public hospitals people should have that choice.

They are more likely to have that choice when they don’t have to deal with the nonsense of insurance networks.