An article from The Wall Street Journal June 23 reported that some state governors are resisting federal efforts to expand Medicaid for the purpose of making available health care coverage for uninsured persons.
The Journal says, "Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor, is funded through a combination of federal and state tax money. Proposals in the House and Senate would expand the program to cover at least a third of the nation's 46 million uninsured, but states are worried they would get stuck with a big part of the tab."
This is kind of like the expansion of unemployment benefits in President Obama's stimulus plan. There was money for the first year, but after that the states are responsible for the additional cost of the expanded program. That worried some state governors like Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Rick Perry of Texas who argued that they couldn't afford their current unemployment programs, much less expanded ones.
"Several governors, including Democratic Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington and Republican Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, plan to come to Washington this week to discuss health issues with White House and congressional officials. Medicaid is expected to be a primary topic."
"The latest challenge to President Obama's national health-care plan comes from a bi-partisan contingent of governors who oppose an expansion of Medicaid eligibility. White House correspondent Jonathan Weisman reports."
And here's where it sounds like the unemployment benefits plan: "In private meetings, Senate Democrats working on health care have assured the governors that the federal government will assume all the costs for the expansion at first, followed by a transition to shared responsibility. House Democrats are pressing to have the federal government take on the full cost permanently."
Key words here are "at first." In other words, just like the unemployment benefits program.
"The governors say their states aren't likely to ever return to the tax receipts they saw before the recession, much less the higher receipts they would eventually need to cover the cost of expanding Medicaid to people with incomes as high as 150% of the poverty line."
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
States don't have the money. The last round of money came (well, is promised in most cases) with lots of strings. States are right to question the feds on their promises! With states struggling to make budget now... the increase in federal directed increases in expenditures is going to cripple many states!
I wouldn't be smart for states to agree to this, but if they do, guess who's going to foot the bill? The same ones who "benefit" from the extended coverage. There ain't nothin' free in this world. It would be nice if our politicians would quit promising it.
Thanks for posting this
It has absolutely nothing to do with caring about the poor. It has everything to do with how it's going to be paid for. The governors of these states are responsible for budgets and they ask a legitimate question when the inquire as to how they will be able to fund this program. Nothing is free.
What are you talking about? Do you have some study or statistical data / survey that supports the notion that without "this health care reform many more Americans are sure to go bankrupt paying for health care?"
Part of the problem is that members of BOTH parties see that THIS particular reform package is not the best way to go, yet the President is determined to try to ram it through anyway.
But Rita, that article does not make the correlation between the health care reform proposal currently on the table and the prevention of bankruptcy due to health care costs. That is the issue you raised when you said "...without this health care reform many more Americans are sure to go bankrupt paying for health care."
I'm not arguing that there is no need for health care reform, but there are serious concerns on both sides of the political aisle about what President Obama is trying to do with the package he has put forth. He's having a hard time getting Democrats on board, and without them he can forget his proposal.