• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Romney's lean, mean Medicaid plans for nursing home residents

lpast

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
13,663
Reaction score
4,633
Location
Fla
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The more I get into what romney is about the less I like him...


As the presidential campaign unfolds, the differences in approaches to Medicare by President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney have taken center stage. But what is getting far less scrutiny: Romney's plans for Medicaid. He would convert the health care program for the poor, disabled and elderly into a block grant to the states and sharply reduce funding over time. Middle-class Americans should be especially wary, since it's Medicaid, not Medicare, that covers nursing home care for aged and infirm parents and grandparents. Without Medicaid's safety net, it isn't clear what those Americans would do, and Romney doesn't have any good answers


Romney's lean, mean Medicaid plans for nursing home residents - Tampa Bay Times
 
:lol: so "let the states run the program" = "no more nursing home care" :roll:
 
:lol: so "let the states run the program" = "no more nursing home care" :roll:

Yep, especially in states like Texas with right wing nuts in charge.
 
Yep, especially in states like Texas with right wing nuts in charge.

:roll: then that's a state problem. But it's a ludicrous charge. It's like saying that the IPAB could use it's authority to deny healthcare to all heart attack recipients, and so we can run against Obama for wanting to kill off heart patients.
 
one has to liquidate the entire estate and surrender it to the health care industry before Medicaid will do anything. nursing home care in a low cost of living state runs 5k a month. and I know many people who have lost their good jobs and health insurance to outsourcing whose kids would have no health care without Medicaid. choking the program to death through block grants is a non-starter. it's simply too vital of a safety net for those in genuine need.
 
:roll: then that's a state problem. But it's a ludicrous charge. It's like saying that the IPAB could use it's authority to deny healthcare to all heart attack recipients, and so we can run against Obama for wanting to kill off heart patients.

Not it is everyone's problem.

Just admit that this is about a GOP power grab pure and simple. Screw democracy.. the GOP and the right wants a right wing dictatorship and the only way they can do that is by pushing as much to the states as possible.. because in the states the right can and has gerrymandered districts so much that they will be sitting on power for decades to come... /wave Texas. That way the right can push their radical right wing religious wingnut agenda on the majority.
 
Not it is everyone's problem.

Just admit that this is about a GOP power grab pure and simple. Screw democracy.. the GOP and the right wants a right wing dictatorship and the only way they can do that is by pushing as much to the states as possible.. because in the states the right can and has gerrymandered districts so much that they will be sitting on power for decades to come... /wave Texas. That way the right can push their radical right wing religious wingnut agenda on the majority.

Another example of people with an agenda who want anyone's problem to be everyone's problem. So Romney wants to send money back to the states that should not have been collected in the first place for this issue and he wants to transition it back to the people with responsibility--the state.

As for your rant about motives, I don't see it in this case. This same money would be going back to every state regardless of any current political leaning to best come up with a solution that may be better than the current system. If a state comes up with a better system, then every state is free to change to that system--just as every citizen is free to move to that state.

Since you don't trust the individual states to provide support to their citizens your solution is to mandate one solution on every state and any change for your solution is automatically intended to kill old people (on this issue) or small cute dogs, etc. Lighten up, Francis.
 
Not it is everyone's problem.

Just admit that this is about a GOP power grab pure and simple. Screw democracy.. the GOP and the right wants a right wing dictatorship and the only way they can do that is by pushing as much to the states as possible.. because in the states the right can and has gerrymandered districts so much that they will be sitting on power for decades to come... /wave Texas. That way the right can push their radical right wing religious wingnut agenda on the majority.


Let me see if I have your argument correct...

In a brutal power grab, Mitt Romney wants to give up power.......






yeah, I'm thinking the incoherence of that argument pretty much demonstrates how far of a reach this is.
 
Let me see if I have your argument correct...

In a brutal power grab, Mitt Romney wants to give up power.......






yeah, I'm thinking the incoherence of that argument pretty much demonstrates how far of a reach this is.

Yes Romney wants to give up power to his own party back in the states.. because he knows, just as the top of the GOP knows, they will have a harder time getting the White House. So to maintain a powerbase the GOP wants things done in states.. the same states that fought the end of segregation, slavery and so on.. The same states where GOP members have attempted to ban books, to promote anti-science agendas and worse.

Not that this move will help him get power any time soon. If anything he needs the older population to vote for him in droves, and yet he is barely beating Obama on this front as it is. Saying that he will cut or move help to the elderly is... not good politics in an election year.
 
Last edited:
Another example of people with an agenda who want anyone's problem to be everyone's problem. So Romney wants to send money back to the states that should not have been collected in the first place for this issue and he wants to transition it back to the people with responsibility--the state.

As for your rant about motives, I don't see it in this case. This same money would be going back to every state regardless of any current political leaning to best come up with a solution that may be better than the current system. If a state comes up with a better system, then every state is free to change to that system--just as every citizen is free to move to that state.

Since you don't trust the individual states to provide support to their citizens your solution is to mandate one solution on every state and any change for your solution is automatically intended to kill old people (on this issue) or small cute dogs, etc. Lighten up, Francis.

Problem is states rarely come up with better systems! Segregation.. a state invention pretty much after the Federal government took away their slaves. How did that go?

And many states, especially red states, cant live without the federal government and its money transfers.
 
Problem is states rarely come up with better systems! Segregation.. a state invention pretty much after the Federal government took away their slaves. How did that go?

And many states, especially red states, cant live without the federal government and its money transfers.

Really, segregation is your example to counter sending money back to the states for block grants for a specific purpose that they are responsible for anyway? Alert, this is 2012 and perhaps you have been out of the country for a while. In case you didn't notice, there are a lot of your so called blue states too. Maybe the states should raise their taxes to provide the services that they are required to provide or choose to provide their citizens instead of having money taken from me and my neighbors to pay for another federal bureaucracy. A wise man once said, all politics is local. Why do you disagree with that? Oh right, segregation and other bad things in the past.
 
Isn't interesting how 150 years can bring about a 180 degree change in a party's stance? In the 1860s it was the Democrats who bemoaned the trampling of states' rights in their campaign to preserve slavery. The newly formed Republican Party had no problem trampling all over them during the Civil War. Now, because they know their regressive views will never gain nationwide acceptance, the GOP takes up the states' rights banner in an effort to at least enforce their social Darwinism in localities where Neanderthals still dominate. Not really hard to believe when you understand that today's greed above all else perversion of the Republican Party would call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist and claim the Emancipation Proclamation was an illegal seizure of property.
 
Only a liberal could think envision that the concept of reigning in our federal government...the concept of reducing the size, control and spending of our federal government...is, in reality, "giving up power".

Perhaps that's at the core of the liberal mindset?? More power??
 
Only a liberal could envision that the concept of reigning in our federal government...the concept of reducing the size, control and spending of our federal government...is, in reality, "giving up power".

Perhaps that's at the core of the liberal mindset?? More power??
 
Making Medicaid a state issue doesn't make logistical sense to me. What's to stop people from moving from state to state depending on whether they feel like paying into such a system vs. when they need to benefit from it?
 
Making Medicaid a state issue doesn't make logistical sense to me. What's to stop people from moving from state to state depending on whether they feel like paying into such a system vs. when they need to benefit from it?

Nothing. Nothing prevents people from moving to Florida to avoid paying state tax or going to another state because their unemployment insurance has a higher payout. Isn't freedom of movement a great thing?

Medicaid is a state issue because the states administer Medicaid now as part of the joint federal-state program and I think that all Romney is trying to do is to give the states more flexibility with the same funds.
 
Nothing. Nothing prevents people from moving to Florida to avoid paying state tax or going to another state because their unemployment insurance has a higher payout. Isn't freedom of movement a great thing?
I agree, it is. But if a program is designed to be a kind of retirement savings account and is funded primarily through people paying into the system while they are able and working, it doesn't seem fair or practical to have a system where somebody can live in a state that doesn't have such a system, or as big of a system (and therefore avoid contributing), then move to a different state with a great program expecting benefits as soon as they retire or need help. That would seem to punish states and people in them who want to provide such a system. Which eventually might spell the end of the programs or diminish the freedom of movement discussed above.
 
Another example of people with an agenda who want anyone's problem to be everyone's problem.

Yeah, that's not a bad definition of insurance.
 
Another example of people with an agenda who want anyone's problem to be everyone's problem. So Romney wants to send money back to the states that should not have been collected in the first place for this issue and he wants to transition it back to the people with responsibility--the state.

As for your rant about motives, I don't see it in this case. This same money would be going back to every state regardless of any current political leaning to best come up with a solution that may be better than the current system. If a state comes up with a better system, then every state is free to change to that system--just as every citizen is free to move to that state.

Since you don't trust the individual states to provide support to their citizens your solution is to mandate one solution on every state and any change for your solution is automatically intended to kill old people (on this issue) or small cute dogs, etc. Lighten up, Francis.

Let's look at your idea of people being free to move to another state if they choose shall we? Most if not all the people who require Medicaid have a limited income. If these people decided to 'move' to another state as you say then they would have to first have around $4000 in the bank to be ABLE to move because that is roughly the minimum it would take to get a house or apt get utilities turned on and such. THEN, if they did not already have a job lined up which they most likely wouldn't then they would need at least another $3000 to live on for a month or 2 until they found a job IF they COULD find one. IF not then within 3-4 months they would be right back where they were in the previous state. BUT if they had the 5-7K it would take to move on then they wouldnt have had to move in the first place because then they would have had the money to buy insurance to begin with. So your premise of they can move if they choose is rather flimsey and not well thought out. And to top it all off they would basiclly be being forced to move away from their homes and family just to get equal medical care. Would YOU like to be forced to move from all your friends, family, and everything you have ever known to get equal treatment? Just food for thought.
 
Yeah, that's not a bad definition of insurance.

Actually it is a snarky definition of insurance. Insurance is about risk mitigation, not making everyone deal with your issue. Insurance is purchased to mitigate the risk of something bad happening. Insurance companies write policies in a given area to pool the risk of everyone that wants to mitigate a certain risk and by doing so, they feel that they can make enough money between the amount collected and the amount distributed as a result of claims to satisfy their shareholders. To ensure that they have enough money on hand to pay out claims, they are licensed by the state and subject to their rules.
 
Isn't interesting how 150 years can bring about a 180 degree change in a party's stance? In the 1860s it was the Democrats who bemoaned the trampling of states' rights in their campaign to preserve slavery. The newly formed Republican Party had no problem trampling all over them during the Civil War. Now, because they know their regressive views will never gain nationwide acceptance, the GOP takes up the states' rights banner in an effort to at least enforce their social Darwinism in localities where Neanderthals still dominate. Not really hard to believe when you understand that today's greed above all else perversion of the Republican Party would call Teddy Roosevelt a socialist and claim the Emancipation Proclamation was an illegal seizure of property.

Me and my husband were talking about that this morning. Looking back and seeing the changes to the different parties is an interesting study. I think Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he could see what the Republican Party has become.
 
Let's look at your idea of people being free to move to another state if they choose shall we? Most if not all the people who require Medicaid have a limited income. If these people decided to 'move' to another state as you say then they would have to first have around $4000 in the bank to be ABLE to move because that is roughly the minimum it would take to get a house or apt get utilities turned on and such. THEN, if they did not already have a job lined up which they most likely wouldn't then they would need at least another $3000 to live on for a month or 2 until they found a job IF they COULD find one. IF not then within 3-4 months they would be right back where they were in the previous state. BUT if they had the 5-7K it would take to move on then they wouldnt have had to move in the first place because then they would have had the money to buy insurance to begin with. So your premise of they can move if they choose is rather flimsey and not well thought out. And to top it all off they would basiclly be being forced to move away from their homes and family just to get equal medical care. Would YOU like to be forced to move from all your friends, family, and everything you have ever known to get equal treatment? Just food for thought.

Why would you want to live in a state where everyone hates you and wants to see you dead? Isn't that the implication of your question? Obviously moving is an extreme example based on the assumption that the service would be inferior. Why do you assume that the service would be inferior? Who says that it is that good now? There is no reason that it couldn't also be better since it would be better tailored to the citizens of the state. Delaware's needs are quite different from Wyoming.
 
Me and my husband were talking about that this morning. Looking back and seeing the changes to the different parties is an interesting study. I think Lincoln would roll over in his grave if he could see what the Republican Party has become.

So would Andrew Jackson. Next point.
 
The only reason the right wants medicaid moved to the state level is it has the best chance to die at the state level. The right WANTS to get rid of medicaid all together.
 
Why would you want to live in a state where everyone hates you and wants to see you dead? Isn't that the implication of your question? Obviously moving is an extreme example based on the assumption that the service would be inferior. Why do you assume that the service would be inferior? Who says that it is that good now? There is no reason that it couldn't also be better since it would be better tailored to the citizens of the state. Delaware's needs are quite different from Wyoming.

Huh? I never said anything about inferior service or people hating you. I didn't even imply it. I was making note of the cost that it would take to move to another state to participate in another states medical program would be prohibitive for people who currently require medicaid and if they COULD afford to move then there would be no reason to because they wouldn't BE on medicaid. I made no mention of any current systems quality. As far as each state tailoring their healthcare system according to its need is all well and good but According to the standard GOP rant now and what I was refering to in my post, THe GOP (and you) said if the states had control of their own helthcare systems and someone didn't like it then they could move. Again thats all well and good but MY earlier post was simply to describe WHY people who require medicaid COULDN'T move. It wasn't in anyway a determination of the quality of any one states current or future program.
 
Back
Top Bottom