• 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!

Senate GOP's savage Medicaid cuts even harsher in second decade

Lutherf said:
That makes perfect sense since the ACA massively increased Medicaid. Backing out of that, naturally, would result in the cuts you see.
Click to expand...

Just fyi, that's [Medicaid Expansion] completely different from what is being discussed.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Isn't Medicaid a program managed at the state level
Click to expand...

Yes and no. There are federal guidelines in place through CMS that have to be followed (that doesn't mean states do, however, we have means to pursue enforcement, however expensive and risky for plaintiffs).

However, any pretension that capping and block granting the funds do anything to "handle these needs" or "staying accountable" has no idea what they are talking about. It provides neither the funds necessary for service delivery infrastructure nor are states held accountable. If anything, this encourages states to violate federal law and Supreme Court case law.

Most people don't know this, but Medicaid is the only logistical means to build infrastructure. The private sector often does one of the three following things: 1) piecemeal infrastructure development 2) won't touch it 3) wants the states to tap into Medicaid before it will begin to reciprocate.

Lastly, for all of you folks with pretensions that you think the mental health system is broken in the U.S. you ought to be against these two bills for the simple fact that without Medicaid Waivers (1915i, 1915c), states would be back at square 1 with figuring out how to finance home and community treatment for mental health (and other disability) services. You're not only dealing with a 35% cut in 20 years, you're also dealing with the destruction of Medicaid waivers, which provide services for countless sections of the American public.

Simply put, if you are in favor of this bill, I don't want to read a single one of you start whining about the mental health system in this country. This was partly your doing.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Can you get to your point, Gonzo?

What are you going to do with the elderly, the sick, the infirmed, the disabled, the young dependent, and others that cannot work that you want thrown-off the program?
Click to expand...

I said get new/more/better work.

You said, what if they can't work?

I said, wouldn't they already have been covered?

You said, surley, the expansion covers those we are already talking about.... you know, the infirm that are already covered.

...which at this point necessitates a return to my previous point: get new/more/better work if you are able-bodied. Otherwise, I think Medicaid was already in place for you.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I said get new/more/better work.

You said, what if they can't work?

I said, wouldn't they already have been covered?

You said, surley, the expansion covers those we are already talking about.... you know, the infirm that are already covered.

...which at this point necessitates a return to my previous point: get new/more/better work if you are able-bodied. Otherwise, I think Medicaid was already in place for you.
Click to expand...

The GOP bill takes funds away from Medicaid.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
I said get new/more/better work.

You said, what if they can't work?

I said, wouldn't they already have been covered?

You said, surley, the expansion covers those we are already talking about.... you know, the infirm that are already covered.

...which at this point necessitates a return to my previous point: get new/more/better work if you are able-bodied. Otherwise, I think Medicaid was already in place for you.
Click to expand...
No, that's an invalid assumption.

People lose the ability to work at different times in their life. Also, financial situations change.

So again, what are you going to do with them?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
...which at this point necessitates a return to my previous point: get new/more/better work if you are able-bodied. Otherwise, I think Medicaid was already in place for you.
Click to expand...

A 35% cut involves everyone receiving services, including and perhaps especially the non-able bodied, working or not (including children). That is why they are justified in fearing that they will be shoved into nursing homes and other forms of institutional care (even out-of-state) instead of their community.
 
I'll resume my posting absence. I just thought I would give some information for some of you folks.
 
Parrish said:
You want your local and state taxes to increase? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I am quite content with allowing states and local take control, because the people will hold them ACCOUNTABLE, which is the last thing Progressive want, accountability.
 
Renae said:
I am quite content with allowing states and local take control, because the people will hold them ACCOUNTABLE, which is the last thing Progressive want, accountability.
Click to expand...

You never answered my question.

It's you who isn't accountable for your comment. I'm not surprised.
 
Renae said:
Nope.

There are other mechanisms to handle this, and I don't just mean charity. There are State and Local Governments more equipped to handle these needs while staying accountable to the local populace.
Click to expand...

Renae said:
You don't know where states get funding?
Click to expand...
???

What are the "mechanisms" you state above? How do the states fund them?
 
Chomsky said:
???

What are the "mechanisms" you state above? How do the states fund them?
Click to expand...

Did you get your Spritzer mailer today? How about Radogno resigning after this Saturday ?
 
NIMBY said:
Did you get your Spritzer mailer today? How about Radogno resigning after this Saturday ?
Click to expand...
Whoa!

How about that?

So do the R's appoint an interim Senator?
 
Chomsky said:
???

What are the "mechanisms" you state above? How do the states fund them?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me, if you don't know how states fund things why are you posting instead of learning?
 
Fiddytree said:
A 35% cut involves everyone receiving services, including and perhaps especially the non-able bodied, working or not (including children). That is why they are justified in fearing that they will be shoved into nursing homes and other forms of institutional care (even out-of-state) instead of their community.
Click to expand...
"Shoved into"?

How about, "Kicked out"!

Nursing homes are primarily funded by Medicaid.

This is a disaster in the making, literally tossing grandma off the cliff (unlike the fictitious ACA parody).
 
Renae said:
Nope.

There are other mechanisms to handle this, and I don't just mean charity. There are State and Local Governments more equipped to handle these needs while staying accountable to the local populace.
Click to expand...

Renae said:
Why are you asking me, if you don't know how states fund things why are you posting instead of learning?
Click to expand...
What kind of B.S. answer is this, Renae?

You claimed the states will take-up the slack from the missing fed funding,

So how are they going to fund their additional programs? What do you propose?
 
Chomsky said:
Whoa!

How about that?

So do the R's appoint an interim Senator?
Click to expand...

https://ballotpedia.org/How_vacancies_are_filled_in_state_legislatures

She got sick of Rauner.

Btw, well over 400,000 more voters turned out in the 2016 IL DEM primary than voted for Quinn in 2014.

Opinions vary, but one is that eleven Hispanic wards had over a 30% increase in voting and voted for Sanders because Sanders supported Chuy Garcia over Rahm.

CDs 3 and 4 severely under voted in 2014, Lipinski and Gutierrez, costing Quinn the title. Daily KOS is supporting a progressive primary candidate against Blue-Dog Lipinski .
 
Chomsky said:
No, that's an invalid assumption.

People lose the ability to work at different times in their life. Also, financial situations change.

So again, what are you going to do with them?
Click to expand...

If they lose the ability to work, don't they qualify for SSI, Medicaid, and a host of other programs?
 
Chomsky said:
"Shoved into"?

How about, "Kicked out"!

Nursing homes are primarily funded by Medicaid.

This is a disaster in the making, literally tossing grandma off the cliff (unlike the fictitious ACA parody).
Click to expand...

I'll be reminding GOP Rep. Kinzinger of this, since he visited the ALH my Mom's at a few years ago.

IL averages $4,050 a month, compared to $2,877 nationally. Mom gets SS and USAF pensions plus tri-care-for-life. Get this. She WOULD NOT have qualified for Medicaid without Dad's USAF pension.

She goes through redetermination every year. Each month, she gets $90 allowance and we kick in the rest for personals and such.

There will come a day in this nation when I'm long gone when means and asset testing will be used to determine public monies one receives. IOW, should a multi-millionaire still receive all or part of their public monies?

Btw, should I keep getting 3% compound COLA in a state that's dead broke when the 3% was approved in 1989 based on inflation then, not now. That was big Jim Thompson that signed that one .
 
Chomsky said:
What kind of B.S. answer is this, Renae?

You claimed the states will take-up the slack from the missing fed funding,

So how are they going to fund their additional programs? What do you propose?
Click to expand...

Pritzker's mailer tied Rauner and trump together on trump's BCRAP wealthcare tax cut giveaway.

600,000 IL residents would lose insurance and 5.5 million would lose protections for pre-existing conditions .
 
Chomsky said:
What kind of B.S. answer is this, Renae?

You claimed the states will take-up the slack from the missing fed funding,

So how are they going to fund their additional programs? What do you propose?
Click to expand...

I don't propose anything other than the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no business being in the business of funding, regulation, overseeing or directing Medicare or Medicaid.

The proper path is for there to be a 5 year wind down, to give each state their own path to bringing a solution on line.

I understand why this is not a popular idea, but that's a purely POLITICAL reason and has nothing to do with care or cost.

The reason these programs being run at the federal level is "popular" is because it removes direct responsibility from the Federal elected officials and allows the state and local politicians to say "Not our fault" much in the same way it's really hard to hold your Senator or House member to the fire for the problems. Make it so big it's an amorphous blog voters have no direct target, yet you can use it as a point to run on. "Elect me, and I'll make sure those evil rich pay their fair share so you get quality care!"

If the states have to figure out how to fund such programs, watch out, that means the local State legislators are much more responsible and accountable, this is something no politician wants to take on. However it would make the programs more efficient, because the voters will have a louder voice in decrying either too costly or too ineffective/wasteful programs.

Care to continue your little silly word games?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom