If Texas Doesn't Expand Medicaid, Two Million Will Be Without Options

[cali]

Abby Rapoport

June 29, 2012


It's no secret there's a health-care crisis in Texas. The state has the biggest uninsured population in the country with around 6.2 million—or a quarter of all residents—lacking insurance. As a Kaiser Health News report highlighted, poor and uninsured Texans must sometimes wait more than 24 hours in emergency rooms, where treatment is most expensive, while more cost-effective health-care options, like preventative care, are out of reach.

The Affordable Care Act was supposed to change all that. It offered new avenues for health-care coverage to people at all income levels by expanding Medicaid. But yesterday's Supreme Court decision made it optional for states to expand their Medicaid coverage. "There's going to be a donut hole in the middle if a state doesn't proceed," says Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the D.C.-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In Texas, if the state chooses not to expand its services, almost two million people may be stuck in limbo—without access to Medicaid, but too poor for the subsidies.

First, a little background about the Court's decision: A key element of the ACA was expanding Medicaid to provide insurance for those making up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line; those who make above that amount can receive subsidies to help pay for their insurance. Prior to the ruling, states had little choice but to expand their programs by January 2014; if they did not, they risked losing all their Medicaid dollars. Now, however, the Court has ruled that states can only lose the extra dollars they would get through expansion, meaning they'll keep the Medicaid dollars they're already getting.

As I wrote earlier, the expansion is a great deal for states. The federal government will pay 100 percent of the costs of the expanded coverage for the first three years, and overall, states will never pay more than 10 percent of the costs for the extra people served. Over the next decade, states will only pay an estimated 2.8 percent more. Meanwhile, they'll see huge savings as more people get insurance and can access preventative care, rather than relying on emergency rooms.

<snip>

http://prospect.org/article/if-texas-doesnt-expand-medicaid-two-million-will-be-without-options

[arely staircase]

1. rick perry can look tough, standing up for states' rights

against the feds and the poor people of color - the more color the better. this crap will keep them in the saddle here in texas another decade or so, then sentence them to minority status for generations.

[FarPoint]

2. Time for Texans to protest.

Storm the Capitol. Don't let the repugs torture and abuse their constituents.

[still_one]

3. If they really care about that they should vote perry out /nt

[Zen Democrat]

4. I think these rogue governors will change their tunes about turning down so many federal dollars

Especially when other states will run the full ACA. These defiant states can't refuse to comply with the law regarding all the statutes of the ACA going into effect for those who can afford to buy insurance, or are getting federal subsidies for their premiums; but the expansion of Medicaid for the poor requires that a state willingly accept the bulk of funding from HHS, which pays at 100% for a couple or 3 years and reduces at a rate of 1% annually til stopping at 90%. What crazy person wouldn't take that deal? How many defiant governors and legislatures will stay in office for long with that self-destructing attitude? I see them ALL caving quickly when Obama is reelected.

[Life Long Dem]

6. +1 nt

[onestepforward]

9. I wished I shared your optimism about the defiant governors and legislatures,

but I don't see that change coming any time soon.

Recently in Texas, Perry and his gang decided to defund Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid Women’s Health Program, even though by doing so, Texas will lose $39 million dollars of federal funding from the program's $40 million dollar annual budget.

Unless stopped by the courts, they are willing to give up 90% federal funding for approximately 130,000 low income women just to stick it to Planned Parenthood.

They have already done it and will do it again.

I'm very concerned for people who live in red states. I'm actually down right frightened about it. Sadly, this insanity has gone well beyond anything I could have ever imagined and I don't think it will end until they overwhelmingly get voted out of office.

[enki23]

5. Now they can prove their willingness to stand by their murderous principles, with nowhere to hide

.

[Xolodno]

7. All smoke and mirrors...

Perry (and other Gov's) will be in full oposition until after the election. Then quietly start implementing it and if questioned will say something along the lines that the law forced them to opt in due to how it was written and its all Obama's fault who set the deck against state rights.

They can go against it for so long before economics catches up to them. That is, the unisured overwhelming the emergency rooms, health care costs skyrocketing in their state due having to take on anyone with pre-existing conditions and not implementing this will not help them job wise. Companies with less than 50 employee's do most of thier business within the state they reside so its not that easy to up an move to a state that doesn't partake of the ACA. And large companies already provide health insurance in order to retain workers, have a positive public persona, etc. So there is not incentive there either.

And if Romney does win and they take the Senate.....Ten bucks says it will be the exact same plan, but spun differently with a few minor changes. The only way they cannot institute some sort of Health Care Reform is to reverse Reagan's EMTALA law (ironic isn't it?).

But then again....today's Republicans are not the Party of Reagan who: Raised Taxes, implemented EMTALA (a health care law), would not get involved in Mid-East wars (he cut and ran in Lebanon), oh and his tax cuts? They had a Keynesian bent. And lets not forget he negotiated with America's enemies (USSR), as Gov of California allowed abortion and although he advocated an anti-abortion admendment in word, did little else to promote it...

...and have to quote Reagan on FDR: "one of history's truly monumental figures," "an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our people through perilous times."....and he voted for him 4 times.

Not saying Reagan was perfect, he did make some grevious mistakes, but he was a product of his time. But I have to wonder, would he be a Republican today given what its become? I seriously doubt it. Funny, when I bring this up with Republicans I know, they essentialy put thier hands over thier ears and yell "LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA LA".

[TheKentuckian]

8. Maybe but your economic blowback is not on their budgets and the expansion will be

Which means the game can be extended at very little political cost and benefit with their zombie hoards by being cruel and wicked.

Governors generally are like Presidents and don't hang around more than eight years and the ones who do more can usually get away with murder. They aren't worried about off budget, systemic costs.

Good news is they may give for a different reason, their money people demand it. They won't often or long tolerate the lost revenues in their states.
Greed is the hope here, not fear.