Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Medicaid Cuts May Force Retirees Out of Nursing Homes
"The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two."
@LewisBraham- It looks like you may have missed that last clause, which brought the total override to all eight issues. With respect to defining the process as "compromise", I'd have to know the breakdown (Dem/Rep) of the legislature at the time, and what majority was required for the override. It may in fact have been a kosher compromise, but I can't tell from the material discussed so far.
Yet mandates, at their intellectual core, are a fundamentally conservative idea — one designed to preserve the existing system of private insurance provision while making coverage attainable for all Americans.
To make a health insurance market work, two basic options are available: the insurer can either spread the costs of illness across a large number of participants or they can exclude individuals who are likely to get sick and make claims.
The original, nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans of the 1930s and 1940s worked by broadening the insurance pool, as does Medicare today. The pre-Obamacare individual insurance market, by contrast, narrowed the pool by barring people with preexisting conditions and withdrawing coverage from those who got sick.
Mandates are another way to broaden the pool. They bring additional customers to private, for-profit insurance companies. Under the ACA, income-based subsidies (at least in theory) make the policies affordable. But the market works through the private sector.
Given these features, the mandate concept emerged among conservatives. President Nixon proposed the first employer mandate in 1971. Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation (now at Brookings) developed a model for a family mandate in 1989. Butler presented the idea as a market-based way to achieve near-universal coverage while promoting individual responsibility.
>> healthcare will fail just as it will elsewhere, if nothing is done to reform the reform.
and tell us what that should look like, if you have real ideas
OJ, the ER abuse problem, real and imagined, has been ongoing forever, and no one knows what to do about it presently, except tub-thump up screeds about the undeserving and all that. The thing is, the hapless and careless and unresourceful need healthcare too, and there are known-good guidelines for driving them to more-efficient outcomes, but, you know, not always easy to implement and get buy-in. Plus you have to pay for them too.
>> government doesn't place a priority on that. Only on the kickbacks.
oh, please. You work in the public sector? Tell us the drivers of these sentiments of yours. And again, how would you advise doing it all?
@davidrmoran- Your post is a bit confusing, as the middle large paragraph is a response to one of my previous posts, but the other comments evidently are not meant for me?
Actually, my surprise isn't at the misuse of emergency rooms (that's well documented) so much as the fact (?) that insurance or lack thereof seems not to be a factor.
the >> sections are responses to some of the Maurice foolishness,
and the para beginning OJ is to you, yes.
ER treats regardless of insurance, for the most part, though you will be reasonably pressured. I imagine you know all this. Costs doubtless are calculated into the proposal figures. Last time I had to use local ER, including town ambulance, w/ MC plus supp, I had to pay something quite significant, I believe.
A NYPost comically blinkered screed is not gonna cut it here, and you are smart enough, it'is quite clear, not to argue large and generalize from such anyway. "Here is one reason to oppose' etc. lolz.
@Maurice It's hypocritical to mention these kinds of cases when the Republican healthcare plan will throw upwards of 20 million people off the healthcare rolls. Do you not realize how many cases there are of people whose lives depend on Medicaid? In fact, there is a rather famous case of someone on life support in the U.S. who was dependent on Medicaid while Republicans were busy trying to gut the program--Terry Schiavo: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58069-2005Mar22.html As Republican right-to-lifers were decrying the potential of pulling the plug on Terry they were busy trying to cut the financial resources necessary for the plug to even exist. I guess maybe they want the plug to stay in the socket, but they don't want to pay for the electricity. On the plus side, I enjoyed looking at your NYpost article next to the Trending Now on NYPost.com "How Glitter Boobs Became the Summer's Hottest Festival Trend." At least the paper's always been consistent in knowing how to appeal to its readers.
Comments
@LewisBraham- It looks like you may have missed that last clause, which brought the total override to all eight issues. With respect to defining the process as "compromise", I'd have to know the breakdown (Dem/Rep) of the legislature at the time, and what majority was required for the override. It may in fact have been a kosher compromise, but I can't tell from the material discussed so far.
and tell us what that should look like, if you have real ideas
OJ, the ER abuse problem, real and imagined, has been ongoing forever, and no one knows what to do about it presently, except tub-thump up screeds about the undeserving and all that. The thing is, the hapless and careless and unresourceful need healthcare too, and there are known-good guidelines for driving them to more-efficient outcomes, but, you know, not always easy to implement and get buy-in. Plus you have to pay for them too.
>> government doesn't place a priority on that. Only on the kickbacks.
oh, please. You work in the public sector? Tell us the drivers of these sentiments of yours. And again, how would you advise doing it all?
Actually, my surprise isn't at the misuse of emergency rooms (that's well documented) so much as the fact (?) that insurance or lack thereof seems not to be a factor.
and the para beginning OJ is to you, yes.
ER treats regardless of insurance, for the most part, though you will be reasonably pressured. I imagine you know all this.
Costs doubtless are calculated into the proposal figures.
Last time I had to use local ER, including town ambulance, w/ MC plus supp, I had to pay something quite significant, I believe.
Anyway, some fact about this sad case:
http://www.snopes.com/2017/06/30/charlie-gard/
'severe brain damage and progressive muscular weakness, ... cannot move or breathe unaided' etc etc.
Even the US doctor offering experimental said it is without real hope.
What a pity the poor parents were led on so by whoever led them on.
It's hypocritical to mention these kinds of cases when the Republican healthcare plan will throw upwards of 20 million people off the healthcare rolls. Do you not realize how many cases there are of people whose lives depend on Medicaid? In fact, there is a rather famous case of someone on life support in the U.S. who was dependent on Medicaid while Republicans were busy trying to gut the program--Terry Schiavo: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58069-2005Mar22.html
As Republican right-to-lifers were decrying the potential of pulling the plug on Terry they were busy trying to cut the financial resources necessary for the plug to even exist. I guess maybe they want the plug to stay in the socket, but they don't want to pay for the electricity. On the plus side, I enjoyed looking at your NYpost article next to the Trending Now on NYPost.com "How Glitter Boobs Became the Summer's Hottest Festival Trend." At least the paper's always been consistent in knowing how to appeal to its readers.