Arizona Passes Medicaid Expansion, Giving Jan Brewer A Victory For Obamacare

[ProSense]

Arizona Passes Medicaid Expansion, Giving Jan Brewer A Victory For Obamacare

The Arizona Senate passed legislation Thursday to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act after fierce pressure tactics by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer against her own party.

The Arizona House passed the budget measure with the Medicaid expansion earlier Thursday. The bill now goes to the desk of Brewer, who has championed it. It's expected to cover 300,000 new Arizonans and funded predominantly by the federal government.

"I am grateful to the Arizona lawmakers who have acted with courage and conviction by completing the people’s business," Brewer said in a statement. "But I also know this in my heart: The great majority of Arizonans stand with us. Our citizens have -- time and again -- voted to extend cost-effective care to the working poor."

Republicans initially rejected the expansion. But they let it come up after Brewer made good on threats to veto all bills until the GOP-led legislature adopted the Obamacare-based expansion. She even threatened to oust Republican leaders if they blocked the measure.

- more -

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/arizona-passes-medicaid-expansion-giving-jan-brewer-victory

Arizona decided not to be last this time.

<...>

Medicaid got a chilly reception when it launched in January 1966. It was up to the states to decide whether to participate and only six initially signed up: Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Twenty-seven followed suit later that year. Across the country, governors weighed the boon of new federal dollars — Washington would foot half of Medicaid’s bill — against the drawback of putting state money into a new program.

Nascent Medicaid programs quickly faced threats: Republican legislators in the New York introduced a bill in 1967 calling for the state to “live within its means” and repeal its Medicaid program.

<...>

Over time, however, the lure of federal dollars proved strong enough to win over resistant states. Eleven joined the program in 1967. Another wave of eight, largely Southern states came on board in 1970. Arizona proved the last holdout, not joining Medicaid until 1982.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/09/six-governors-say-they-will-opt-out-of-medicaid-how-long-will-they-hold-out/

The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929

[Wait Wut]

1. I'm just, just...

...I don't know. There is no word to describe my feeling about this.

I abhor this woman. To say that I wouldn't spit on her if she were on fire is being kind. I'd consider fanning the flames (not really, but...).

Someone that knows math got to her. I want to meet that person and give them a big kiss.

First, I need some aspirin.

[freshwest]

2. RWNJ websites were going insane over this last night. She may not get re-elected, but did good.

Look at her body language and face. It appears Obama convinced her.

[DesertRat]

3. She's not eligible to run again.

[freshwest]

5. So, after she finally supports something good, another RWNJ will take her place? Maybe Sheriff Joe?

[DesertRat]

9. bite your tongue!

[Cha]

4. Wow, ProSense.. a headline I never thought I'd read..

a few months ago.. or was it a year ago?

Interesting.. thanks..

Medicaid got a chilly reception when it launched in January 1966. It was up to the states to decide whether to participate and only six initially signed up: Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Twenty-seven followed suit later that year. Across the country, governors weighed the boon of new federal dollars — Washington would foot half of Medicaid’s bill — against the drawback of putting state money into a new program.

[ProSense]

6. Yup, and to coincide with this,

AP did a hit piece.

This AP Article Is Everything That’s Wrong With Sensationalistic Obamacare Stories

By Igor Volsky

Employers will struggle to comply with the new health care mandates, drop insurance coverage, increase costs, and lay off workers! Low-income employees will be subject to sky high premiums, a health care mandate they can’t afford, or go uninsured altogether!

Those are just some of the wild-eyed claims buzzing around the Affordable Care Act and its implementation. Consider this lede from Friday’s Associated Press: “It’s called the Affordable Care Act, but President Barack Obama’s health care law may turn out to be unaffordable for many low-wage workers, including employees at big chain restaurants, retail stores and hotels.” The article argues that several “wrinkles” in the law could hurt the very Americans it intended to help:

Because of a wrinkle in the law, companies can meet their legal obligations by offering policies that would be too expensive for many low-wage workers. For the employee, it’s like a mirage — attractive but out of reach.

The company can get off the hook, say corporate consultants and policy experts, but the employee could still face a federal requirement to get health insurance.

Many are expected to remain uninsured, possibly risking fines. That’s due to another provision: the law says workers with an offer of “affordable” workplace coverage aren’t entitled to new tax credits for private insurance, which could be a better deal for those on the lower rungs of the middle class.

Some supporters of the law are disappointed. It smacks of today’s Catch-22 insurance rules.

Sounds troubling.

But skip down to the end of the piece and you’ll find a curious quote from Neil Trautwein of the National Retail Federation, which represents the very employers the AP claims are going to take advantage of the health law’s impurities to increase health care costs for low-income workers while avoiding its penalties.

He appears to disagree entirely with the AP’s premise, telling the wire service that there is no “grand scheme to avoid responsibility.” ThinkProgress spoke with Trautwein, who stressed that “it is manifestly not in [employers'] interest to try to choose a benefit level that is beyond their employees’ means. No good comes of it.”

“There is the opportunity, and I’d argue the incentive, for employers to make sure that more of their employees can afford the coverage they offer,” he added, pointing to a provision of the law that requires large employers that don’t provide adequate insurance coverage (the policy has to cover at least 60 percent of health care costs) to pay a fee of $2,000 per employee after the first thirty workers. Businesses would also be assessed a penalty if they offer unaffordable coverage that forces employees to spend more than 9.5 percent of income on insurance. In that case, the employee can apply for government subsidized coverage in the exchanges and the employer pays another fine.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/14/2158711/this-ap-article-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-sensationalistic-obamacare-stories/

[Cha]

7. Thank you for that, ProSense.. Sounds like

AP is doing what mediawhores do best. Building up and covering up gopropaganda and tearing down anything from a Democratic President.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

8. And we need it here. ( I am in AZ)

But so many are not happy. You hear it all over how people want to stop it.

But when you are in line at the food pantry, people are thankful it passed. Many have been without healthcare for so long. Many with very serious conditions.

[Logical]

10. This is great news! n-t