I don't know who to believe. The only thing they seem to differ on is healthcare. The major difference being that Vance doesn't think Medicaid expansion is the adoption of the ACA. Anyone have insight as to who is the right guy?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know who to believe. The only thing they seem to differ on is healthcare. The major difference being that Vance doesn't think Medicaid expansion is the adoption of the ACA. Anyone have insight as to who is the right guy?
Glad everyone is as well informed as I am. Oh well, thanks to the few that at least read my question.
I know it's irresponsible, but I stopped watching the national news about a year ago when we didn't have cable. I've been MUCH happier since then. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
Vote for Neil Reiser.
I read this question before going to bed. I woke up a short while ago and wondered who had answered it and how they had answered it. I could go on for hours about our current health care system and changes that are needed, but here's my "abbreviated" answer.
Medicaid is a joint federal/state funded health program for primarily low income individuals/families - those at or below 135% of the Federal Poverty Level. There are currently more people on Medicaid than on Medicare and the growth in both programs is continuing. The Medicaid program is administered by each state through mostly federal funding. However, some of the costs of Medicaid are state responsibility.
Expansion of Medicaid will more than likely necessitate additional reductions in state funding for education and other needed services such as roads, bridges, and law enforcement. Another alternative to limit Medicaid growth in spending is to further reduce reimbursement to health care providers. More and more providers will then opt not to accept Medicaid patients. This defeats the purpose of Medicaid which is to provide a health care safety net to those who can't afford to have health insurance or to get medical care.
Medicaid is fully taxpayer supported at no cost to the enrollee - other than any income taxes he/she pays. Medicare is also taxpayer supported but some of the funding comes from payroll taxes on individuals (on wages and self employment) and premiums paid by enrollees. Medicare enrollees are, for the most part, over age 65 or disabled adults. Also, people with kidney disease that requires dialysis or transplant can enroll in Medicare. Income or assets is not a factor for Medicare entitlement.
FYI - Nationwide over 40% of all births are paid by Medicaid. In Louisiana, this percentage is significantly higher - about 70% now.
To answer your question - Medicaid expansion is a part of the ACA but Medicaid could also be expanded by the states before the ACA. So who's right? I would have to hear their positions and arguments to know.
Soapbox - The health care system in the U.S. is the best in the world with the latest in technology and with easy access to many different procedures and pharmaceuticals. However, the health of Americans is probably among the worst of any nation and getting worse, so health care costs are spiraling out of control. We treat diseases/illnesses that, in many cases, are self-inflicted (smoking, poor diet, lack of exercise, obesity, etc.). Also, the current reimbursement structure to providers of services tends to increase the quantity of service rendered (seeing more patients, ordering more tests, etc.), rather than improving the quality of service rendered. IMO, a reworking of our health care system is needed. Reform is needed, but I'm not convinced that the ACA is the answer.
*Bobby JindalOriginally Posted by dawg80
Maverick I held my nose and hit the Reiser button. Both are good men. Neither is a true politician. IMO...
Reiser, like Alexander, will have the connections back home and vote for our (conservatives) best interest rather than simply towing the Jindal line.
McCallister is not well informed (see his Medicaid comments) He has been very successful in business, but I'm afraid he doesn't understand things outside his area of expertise.
I wish one of them had jumped on the Tea Party wagon. They got bad advice in not doing that. This will be a VERY low turnout and those who would have been offended by the Tea Party platform won't be voting anyway.
Thanks for the feedback this morning.
As broke as we are, it would be stupid to further cut funding to fund expansion. If that is Mac's plan he will make enemies faster than adopting ACA. Heard rumors about Riser and Alexander being in kahoots. Bad messages from both sides, IMO. I just don't know.
Neil will stand up to the Administration. He has John Fleming's endorsement, which, to me, is very important...Dr. Fleming is a strong conservative. The fact that Jamie Mayo and the dems, along with Clyde Holloway, and the Duck Dynasty guys threw their support behind McAllister would be enough reason for me to vote for RISER.
I disagree that poor diet, lack of exercise, and obesity are necessarily matter of fact self-inflicted. That's completely wrong.
But I understand and mostly agree with your broader point.
That's a wagon worth staying away off.
Certainly not all people with poor diet, lack of exercise, and obesity are that way due to their own poor lifestyle choices. However, many people do have illnesses that would be considered as self-inflicted due to those issues. My statement was never intended to be matter of fact. My point is that there should be emphasis by primary caregivers (doctors, nurses, NP's, etc.) to educate people about the consequences of lifestyle choices.
You may think that everyone should know not to make poor lifestyle choices but, unfortunately, that is far from the case. Look at the number of people who choose to start smoking. I'm not aware of anyone who disputes the health hazards of smoking anymore, yet many young people each day make the decision to start smoking.
The cost of health care will be unsustainable for my children and grandchildren if we continue the way we are going. We need to do better as a society on prevention of disease/illness.
The problem I see is that primary caregivers have been forced by the current provider reimbursement system to focus more on volume than spending time educating patients. All my friends in medical fields tell me this. I don't know the answer to the problem, I just see that as a problem that should be addressed.
There are many health issues where some would curtail personal freedom and try to legislate compliance. For example, should motorcycle riders be required to wear a helmet? There are many other examples from seat belts to marijuana use where government has stepped in with legislation for the "good of society." Where do you draw the line curtailing personal freedom for the "good of society"? We all have our own opinion as to where the line should be. It's the same way with any health care legislation. It's difficult to reach a consensus to address some real issues about our current system.
The only wagon to avoid is the one mislabeled Democratic.
Only for cowards. We've lost this thing anyway. Time to wake folks up like Ronny did. Otherwise go ahead and vote for Landrieu and the other socialists.
Riser = Jindal - just say NO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
