What We Don’t Know About the Future of Medicaid

  • Share
  • Read Later
Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., with Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, talk about the Democrats and Republican tax proposals during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday, July 24, 2012.

Health-care wonks and political spinmeisters eagerly awaited a new government analysis Tuesday of how the Supreme Court‘s ruling on the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion will affect the law. But the Congressional Budget Office’s report doesn’t provide much clarity.

By definition, CBO number-crunching is an attempt to predict an uncertain future. Yet Tuesday’s report was particularly murky. That’s because implementation of the Affordable Care Act is not in the hands of one entity. The law was deliberately written to cede much of this responsibility to the states. With the Medicaid expansion now optional, states could react in all sorts of ways. Predicting how governors and legislatures might act in a tough political environment, let alone years into the future, is an impossible task.

But CBO (and the Joint Committee on Taxation) took a shot. Here’s how they describe the challenge:

…CBO and JCT’s estimates reflect an assessment of the probabilities of difference outcomes (without any explicit prediction of which states make which choices) and are, in their judgment, in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes. Future legal or administrative actions will certainly affect those outcomes; CBO and JCT’s assessment in this analysis should not be viewed as representing a single definitive interpretation of how the ACA should or will be implemented in light of the Court’s decision.

With that enormous caveat in mind, here’s the CBO’s best guess for how the newly optional Medicaid program will affect the ACA.

The parts of the law that pertain to expanding health insurance coverage will cost $84 billion less over the next 10 years than if the Medicaid expansion, which was to extend insurance coverage to 16 million Americans, has been compulsory for every state. Some states will expand their Medicaid programs as the ACA originally intended; some will expand their Medicaid programs less; others will expand their programs later than the initial timetable of 2014; and some states will forgo an expansion and maintain their current Medicaid programs. According to the CBO, this means about 6 million fewer Americans will be able to get health insurance through Medicaid. About half of these people will instead get federal subsidies to buy private insurance, which is more expensive than Medicaid. But the other half will remain uninsured, offsetting the extra cost and saving the government money in the end. In other words, it will cost less to do less.

The 3 million Americans who will now stay uninsured because of the new Medicaid-opt out will be among the poorest Americans–mostly poor non-parents and poor parents who live in states that already have extremely limited Medicaid eligibility rules.

Whether this will all play out as the CBO predicts is, as the authors note, total guesswork. Although some governors, like Republicans Rick Perry of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida, have vowed not to expand their Medicaid programs, political circumstances could change. They could be voted out of office or buckle under pressure from special interest groups, like hospitals, that favor the Medicaid expansion. Likewise, the federal government could write or rewrite Medicaid regulations to offer states more flexibility in implementing such programs, which could cause fewer people to be left out of the system. And states that opt in to the Medicaid expansion could decide to opt out later.

So there’s no shortage of uncertainty built into the Affordable Care Act. As I wrote recently, part of this is by design. Flexible policy that can serve different populations and economic conditions is generally better policy. But uncertainty carries some risk as well–most consequentially, in this case, for poor Americans who still don’t know if they’ll be able to get new insurance coverage under the ACA.

39 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
James
James

my buddy's

ex-wife earned $18893 the previous month. she works on the laptop and

moved in a $475700 home. All she did was get fortunate and put to use

the advice given on this link

http://www.LazyCash49.com

James
James

my friend's

ex-wife makes $85 an hour on the internet. She has been fired for nine

months but last month her payment was $20004 just working on the

internet for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.LazyCash49.com 

James
James

my

co-worker's aunt makes $75/hour on the computer. She has been unemployed

for six months but last month her pay check was $16776 just working on

the computer for a few hours. Read more here

http://www.LazyCash49.com

James
James

just as

Herbert responded I didnt know that people able to profit $7555 in 4

weeks on the computer. have you read this web link

http://www.LazyCash49.com

gysgt213
gysgt213

The liberals at Harvard did some shoddy study that shows when states put poor people on Medicaid it has the 

disastrous effect of letting them not die.  Just thought you should know how your tax dollars are being wasted.

.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07... 

James
James

just as Adam

replied I can't believe that a mom able to make $7096 in a few weeks on

the internet. have you seen this web page

http://www.LazyCash49.com

3xfire3
3xfire3

Announcing the “Shiny Object Award Program”.

 

I’m announcing the creation of a TIME Journalist Award Program.

There will be a Gold, Silver and Bronze Award given on a regular basis to the TIME Journalists who achieves the highest score on writing of “Shiny Object Stories”.

 

Shiny Object Stories are stories that, rather than talk about the important issues related to the Presidential election, choose to write about subjects of minor importance. These stories are designed to take the pressure off President Obama on the big issues such as Jobs, the economy and his record and to aid him in his re-election campaign.

peacock2828
peacock2828

Are you saying that everything on Swampland has to be about the economy?  This is an article about Medicaid, which is fairly important.  Is it what voters care about the most?  Probably not.  But that doesn't mean it's a "Shiny Object Story."

Stuart Zechman
Stuart Zechman

It is true that there are far too numerous Shiny Object Stories that take the place of real, issues-detailing reportage, whether they help or hurt one candidate (or party) or another.

fhmadvocat
fhmadvocat

Is it necessary to post this on EVERY topic we have today?  Wasn't two enough?

MrObvious
MrObvious

Announcing the goofy copy and paste Award program.

I’m announcing the creation of a rightie copy and paste Award Program.There will be a Doh, WTF and yawn Award given on a regular basis to the righties who achieves the highest score on copying and pasting stuff over and over. goofy copy and pastes, rather than talk about the important issues related to the Presidential election, choose to copy and paste images, nonsensical graphs and youtube videos out of context. These copy and pastes are designed to mean something and take the pressure of the lack of anything Romneyhave to say about anything. It's usually followed with Obama and the liberals did it first; which explains why righties can say anything - for or against and even in sequential posts.

HughGRection12
HughGRection12

Are you effing kidding me?  Minor importance?  Must be the Fox news diminished intelligence effect that is infecting you.

bobell
bobell

Misspelled here too.  (He also posted it to MMR.)

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

Sigh. Late to the party because of a bunch of problems today and I missed all the posts with the stupid spelling. Everyone I have seen is the corrected version. I did note that Alex pointed it out in the MMR one, probably menaing that 3x will now make a much greater effort to sneer and say stupid things about Alex's posts.

deconstructiva
deconstructiva

Is there an award for multiple-copy / paste trollery? He and paulie must be fighting for that.

d1032
d1032

Without a shadow of a doubt a report such as this only tends to confuse anyone who has the tenacity to read thru the entire report - then when one finishes one can interpret the "conclusions", as suggested in any number of ways.

It is ludicrous for anyone, in business or government, to attempt to project out 5-10-15 years on ANYTHING - there are far too many variables which are unforseen that will appear which will impact the projection both negatively and positively - besides the CBO must also factor into (which it is not supposed to do) their assumptions the 'political climate' of the near present.

What we do have before us are two very pertinent examples of how the CBO, Congress and the President can err in their projections to the nation when they aspire to accomplish a major program.

1. Social Security - it was a viable idea when FDR proposed it in '34 and was more than solvent up to 1965 when LBJ and Congress decided to take the money from the 'Social Security Trust Fund' and place it into the general operating budget - add to that the average age of people receiving SS increased and thru the politics of 're-election', in order to secure more votes, more people were placed on the SS rolls including people who had never paid into the Trust Fund - the politicians just could not leave it alone and thus we are now in the dilemma of a 'bankrupt' mandatory government retirement system - had it been allowed to function as it was originally constructed it could probably been self-sustaining but no, the political process of Washington has destroyed it.

2. Medicare - during the election for the presidency beginning in '64, Barry Goldwater (the Repub candidate) stated that if this bill were passed it would bankrupt the nation - he further stated that the figures that the sponsors were projecting were not realistic and that the costs would far exceed those numbers - he has been proven correct and since there is only a limited amount of space here I will not print out all of those figures - all one must do is Google 'Original Medicare Legislation', view the estimate for each of the succeeding projected years and then view the ACTUAL cost to the government (taxpayer).

My point is simply this - the government has never, and I mean never, projected accurately the cost of any legislation that they pass - they ALWAYS 'under-project to make it alluring and then never advise the nation on the ACTUAL cost for the projected year.

Medicare has suffered the same fate as SS - when it was proposed there was no 'Medicaid' anticipated nor imagined - both programs have been extended to people who have never paid into the Medicare deduction from one's earnings thus the paying taxpayer has seen his/her cost percentage raise almost on an annual basis.

This 'new affordable care act' will not be affordable in any definition of the word - it will ultimately cost the nation a great deal more than anyone can project and within a very few years the nation will be deluged with the same cries of insovlvency we are now having to endure with Medicare.

The bill was passed with not one of the Congress people having time to read it in its entirety even up to the point where Speaker Pelosi had the gall to state: "we are going to have read it to see what is in it" - it already has been bastardized beyond normal reasoning exempting many large corporations, etc from the constraints of the law with additional exemptions for others that quite possibly will never be exposed.

Perhaps the main point of my post is that the government is not the solution, it is the problem - we have allowed it to grow into a monster with the same fate as many large corporate entities, 'too big to fail' and the taxpayer is burdened with the responsibility of having to 'bail it out'.

We can only do that by replacing the entire governing bodies, that is, the legislative branch and the executive branch and install people with common sense with rational reasoning - that will be a painful process but the Founding Fathers didn't say it would be easy.

From Thomas Jefferson: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

From Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850): "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

We are, and have been, allowing our government to destroy us, piece by piece for the past 60 years regardless of party affiliation - if it is allowed to continue at this rapid pace we will very soon become nothing more than another third world nation subject to the whims of some other entity of the world.

We were not founded for that reason.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

Some how you skipped over the Bush-Cheney tax cuts, which were suppose to sunset in 10 years for some reason or another...

P.S. Stop lying about Social Security.

~

d1032
d1032

And just how am I lying about social security?

FYI just in case you have not researched it as it was proposed by FDR straight from his legislation.

FDR (Terms of Office - March 4, 1933 to April 12, 1945)

1. That participation in the Program would be COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.  (How's that working for you now.)

2. That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1400 of their annual incomes into the Program. (How's that working).

3. That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year. (How's that working for you now.)

4. That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program and NO OTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. (How's that working for you now.)

5. That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. (How's that working for us now.)

Had the politicians left it as FDR intended it to be quite possibly the only adjustment that would have needed to be made was the contribution relative to annual incomes - the public would have accepted that without question.

Voluntary participation is long gone - during LBJ's term, with a Democrat House and Senate legislation was passed to place the funds into the General Operating Budget and spent  - annunity payments are now taxable thanks to Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled House and Senate.

AND, only those who PARTICIPATED would receive annuity payments - not true today - thousands are receiving payments having never put a dime into the program.

One does not have to lie about how the Social Security system has been raped by politicians but for some it is difficult to face facts and the truth.

And it was never meant as the sole income for retired people - FDR stated emphatically that it was to SUPPLEMENT the savings one has accumulated thru their own endeavor.

One of the great problems of today is that there aren't many people alive who can recall with accurracy how this legislation was enacted - politicians have so distorted and basteredized the original intent that people don't question the validity of their statements.

It was intended as a good program in a time of dire need but it has been completely ruined by politicians for the past 50 years sorry to say.

fhmadvocat
fhmadvocat

Listen Gramps,

If you are so upset about the Ponzi scheme of the government taking money from one person and giving it to someone else, you can start by giving back all the Social Security you have been getting for at least the past 15 years (if you are 80 as you claimed), in addition, you can pay for all the medical treatment you received from Medicare back to the government.  Since you are 80 years old, my guess you have received a lot of medical care in the past 15 years.

Since I have been working and paying Social Security taxes for more than 15 years, and paying Medicare taxes for more than 15 years, you have been living off my dole.

And please don't tell me you paid into the Social Security system.  You got back what you paid in within 10 years so every after that time is just gravy.  You and I both know that the money is not really put in a trust, it is paid out now.

Stuart Zechman
Stuart Zechman

d1032:

You write

"...just how am I lying about social security?"

Well, according to the Social Security Administration, you're either lying or a fool.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/Int... 

From "MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY," available at the SSA's website for any casually interested person to observe:

Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system.

One Common Form of the Myths:

"Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised:

1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary; 

2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first 1,400 of their annual incomes into the program; 

3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year; 

4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.;

5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income."

Well, well, well.

So, "as it was proposed by FDR straight from his legislation," was it? Doesn't this sort of obvious, elementary failure of yours ever embarrass you into doing actual research?

For the record:

CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS

Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary

Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes.

In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory.

There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered.

Can you possibly be more wrong? Isn't it time to admit that you may have a problem assembling basic facts about important subjects?

Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first 1,400 of their annual incomes into the program

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first 3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first 3,000. The figure was never 1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

(The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Humiliating, isn't it, d1032? Don't you want to help out the poor sap who forwarded this rightist dreck to you, and tell him/her what a terrible mistake it was to pass on this sort of bunk?

Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year

There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII.

(The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.)

Shameful. Just shameful. Don't you regret having almost wildly misinformed your fellow citizens, d1032? Don't you want to apologize to the rest of us, at this point?

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations["Had the politicians left it as FDR intended it", "during LBJ's term, with a Democrat House and Senate legislation was passed...", "thanks to Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled House and Senate"] .

However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."

Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.

You know, "One does not have to lie about how the Social Security system," in order to be deeply, profoundly confused about its history, and how it actually functions. One does have to be relatively gullible, though, to fall for such an easily disprovable shovel-full of rightist quackery.

Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program.

(The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.)

In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

For God's sake, don't you even know that Ronald Reagan signed these changes into law? You remember, right, the famous "compromise" that effectively put enough money into the system for the next 30 years to cover the baby boomers?

No? Not ringing any bells upstairs for you?

I feel sorry for you, buddy. You're being taken for a long ride by some amoral folks who don't mind how shabbily you're getting treated, who are fine exploiting your gullible willingness to accept any partisan shots against Democrats, who are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of your pride and intellect.

Do us all a favor, d1032, and really try to get your facts straight before putting chain email nonsense out there, and we'll do our best to take your claims seriously in the future --provided you actually supply links to the sources of your quotes.

Try to think of this as a "teachable moment," and save yourself from such a severe, total debunking in the future, OK?

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Am I wrong to think that KP missed something important?

If states like mine (i.e., GOTP ideologues for governors) refuse to implement health exchanges, the state will set it up for those states.  Whether that will force those states to expand Medicaid remains to be seen.

Lurch is up for re-election in '14, which is right around the time the exchange will likely be set up by the feds.  Hopefully he will be voted out and the next governor will set up Medicaid properly with federal $ paying for 90% of it.

d1032
d1032

And where does the federal government get to money  to do this? You, the taxpayer - the feds don't a percent of anything - they simply take your tax money, deduct the cost of operating their bureaucratic deparment(s) which probably uses up 50% of the tax money and 'returns?' the remainder back to the state.

Its called a Ponzi Scheme - Madoff went to prison for the same thing.

bobell
bobell

Medicare's running along at a cost of administration of about 4-5 percent of benefits.  Not exactly 50.  I wrote a longer post full of detail, but disqus ate it.  You can find a whole bunch of info on google by searching: medicare "cost of administration"

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

From where'd R2D2 pull those "ten administrative departments"? 

'May not wanna know....

bobell
bobell

Okay, we each know where the other stands. I could carry on with the usual predictable responses, but why bother?

I do want to congratulate you on your creative arithmetic, however.  Were you aware of the obvoius fallacy when you posted it, or is it only now dawning on you?

d1032
d1032

My reference to 50% was not directed totally at Medicare administration but the total bureaucratic monstrosity that is now the federal government.

But lets use your 4-5% for administration of benefits for Medicare - simply put into place 9 more 'administrative departments' at 4-5% and whamo what does one have - 10 departments (bureaus) times 4-5% = 40-50%.

The government doesn't 'make or earn money', they TAKE our money and only return a very small portion - it is called a Ponzi scheme and in the private sector one goes to prison - in government it allows the politicians(givers/takers/thieves) to get re-elected since they can claim to 'give out more free stuff' which "ain't really free at all."

Of course it is for all those who pay no taxes which has now reached 47% of the population of this nation.

What occurs when the percentages are reversed and the 'payers' are 35-45% and the 'takers' are 65-55%?

bobell
bobell

I decided to run a bit of a factcheck on that 50 percent figure, so I checked an article posted by the Society of Actuaries.  The article is, if anything, critical of the way the administrative costs of Medicare are calculated, and it was written in 2006, but it does directly address the question of how much it costs to run Medicare.  Interpolating just a bit from the table on page 2, the administrative costs of Medicare as a percentage of benefits paid appears to have been on the order of 4 percent in 2006, and it was expected to drop below 2 percent over the next few years.  Okay, okay, there may be some fudging in there, but even so d1032 missed by a factor of ten or so.

Here's the link,  It's quite long, but I hope it works.  If not, it's the third result I got searching google for medicare "cost of administration"

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...

bobell
bobell

Thank you, Kate, for that concise and -- as best I can tell -- fully accurate summary.  With all the BS surrounding ACA, commentary such as yours is a pleasant surprise and much appreciated.  (Anyone interested in more of the same should check out Jon Cohn at the New Republic.)

Underlying all this, of course, is the sad truth that ACA was the best legislation the Demos could get through Congress.  No public option, no mandate with any teeth, and certainly no Medicare for all (remember the abortive attempt to let over-55ers opt into Medicare?)  Until the country moves back to the left (and I'm skeptical that I will live to see that), we're stuck with this jerry-built law.  Still, we did get expanded coverage, reduced cost, and millions freed from insolvency.  It could be a lot worse.  Someday, with luck, it will be a lot better.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Uninsured sick folk clogging up emergency rooms should go down as well.

doddeb
doddeb

Apparently not so much in those states that won't accept the expansion?

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

I was thinking overall as a nation, but point taken.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

We don't know that, bobell.

The Obama Administration made no attempt to get a public option.  Their demand that health care reform receive bipartisan votes in Congress insured that that it would be friendly to the for-profit industries involved.

This was no doubt their intention. Don't make the mistake of thinking this Administration is anything but a group of right-wing, corporatist cynics.

~

allthingsinaname
allthingsinaname

We don't know because the GOP has held medicaid as political fodder. 

d1032
d1032

Dumb statement - just for your edification NOTHING proposed in the House has even been brought up or considered by Harry Reid in the Senate nor has the Senate proposed a passed a budget in the past 3 and 1/2 years.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with what has come from the House Reid will not even allow it out of committee and he has done the same for any legislation the Republican members of the Senate has proposed.

It may not be palateable to some but the Dems with a one vote majority in the Senate have been the impediment to passing legislation either "good or bad."

bobell
bobell

I think that refusing to pass bad legislation is a good thing.  How about you?

BTW, they don't need a majority in the Senate for most purposes.  I'm sure they've paid very careful attention to the minority's use of the filibuster in the current Congress.

bobell
bobell

Of course good legislation is what I like and bad is what I don't like.  What better guideline could I possibly follow?

As for the filibuster, it's been around for a very long time, but the Republican use of it goes far, far beyond any prior use.  It used to be thought of as a last-ditch maneuver.  Now it's a device for requiring a supermajority to get anything passed in the Senate.

In general, if it ain't gonna pass, Reid doesn't bring it to the floor.  With the filibuster, he knows what he can get through and what he can't.  Oh, sure, sometimes he brings things up so he can get the Republicans to kill them on the record.  But Congress is already a colossal waster of time, and I see nothing to be gained to give them more reasons to do nothing useful.

d1032
d1032

Depends on your definition of 'bad legislation'  - I take it that legislation that you agree with is 'good' legislation and that legislation contrary to your interpretation is 'bad legislation.'

And also FYI if 'dingy Harry' doesn't allow legislative proposals to come out of committee for floor discussion (regardless of party affiliation of the originator) one will never know whether it is good or bad legislation.

And as if the Dems never utilized the filibuster process?

allthingsinaname
allthingsinaname

Did you bother to read? Do you or don't you agree? Simply put the GOP wants to cut Medicaid, and that is why we do not know about it's future.

For your edification NOTHING the GOP led House has proposed is worth being discussed let alone voted on. I know all about your 30 or 3000 job bills, but really quality should trump quantity.

Although some governors, like Republicans Rick Perry of Texas and Rick

Scott of Florida, have vowed not to expand their Medicaid programs,

political circumstances could change. They could be voted out of office

or buckle under pressure from special interest groups, like hospitals,

that favor the Medicaid expansion. Likewise, the federal government

could write or rewrite Medicaid regulations to offer states more

flexibility in implementing such programs, which could cause fewer

people to be left out of the system. And states that opt in to the

Medicaid expansion could decide to opt out later.

 

d1032
d1032

1. What does anyone truly know about ANY bill that came before the House (Dem or Repub) since none of those bills ever showed up on-line to be seen and discussed 48 hours prior to a vote?

2. And the 'shovel ready jobs' that were 'ready' when the $850 stimulus bill was passed were never really 'ready.'

3. The point of my post was, as you suggested, that circumstances change and only the political rationale at that time will dictate what will follow and it usually results in an expansion of an ill devised plan to begin with.

4. And if the AHCA is viable and beneficial to the public why would any state(s) wish to opt out?

5. Its fine to be a member of a party but doing so without questioning the validity of what that party is all about is foolishness - no one group is infallible.

And just for your personal information due to the fact that you have me 'pegged' as a 'rightwing nut' I have been a registered Democrat longer than you have been alive and I will state that without fear of contradiction.  (I'm 80 - perhaps not intelligent as you may be but I have accurred a great deal of wisdom from having lived that long and viewed the trend of our nation's move towards 'governmental dependency' increasing decade after decade.)

Also FYI: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

Frederic Bastiat, French Economist (1801-1850)

You see, they had this figured out 200+ years ago and nobody today is paying the least bit of attention to their "wisdom."