Meant to share this sad piece from The New York Times earlier in the week:
A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.
Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years.
Those excluded will be stranded without insurance, stuck between people with slightly higher incomes who will qualify for federal subsidies on the new health exchanges that went live this week, and those who are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in its current form, which has income ceilings as low as $11 a day in some states….
Yep, they’re talking about us, as one of the states who have refused Medicaid expansion.
Doug will point out we’re one of the slight majority of states (26) that have insanely refused to participate.
But even if we were one of 49 states, we’d still be profoundly wrong.
Related Posts
My sister-in-law is one of those who makes too little to qualify for subsidies. She works as a house mother in a rehab facility run by a religious group. Her job is a six-days-a-week, 24-hour proposition. She’s not a leech or a parasite or lazy. She is not disabled nor does she have any children, so she does not qualify for Medicaid under SC’s current rules. She has already had one bout with cancer, and is just in her 40s.
SC’s rejection of Medicare is unconscionable. And why did they reject it? Because of an irrational fear that someone might abuse a program meant to help people like her. Despicable.
“SC’s rejection of Medicare is unconscionable.” – Norm Ivey
Exactly when did the SC legislature vote to reject ‘Medicare’, Norm?
If someone has less than $2,000, qualifies for an Obama phone and gets food stamps they should not need a subsidy. In SC there are reportedly 176,000 folks in this categaory. Guess what? They are still covered by Medicaid for free, of course. If someone has more than $2,000 saved up, they must exhaust it first to become eligible.
Wait until an uneducated bureaucrat peers into our bank accounts to see what we have:
“Can the government use civil forfeiture to take your money when you have done nothing wrong—and then pocket the proceeds? The IRS thinks so.” – http://ij.org/miforf
What a disaster!
Medicaid. I misspoke. SC’s rejection of the Medicaid expansion is unconscionable.
In SC, if a person has no dependents and no disabilities, they do not qualify for Medicaid, regardless of their income. If you know otherwise, please point me in the right direction to find that information. She’s been through the application process and has been rejected.
My sister-in-law does not have an Obama-phone (my wife and I pay for her phone), and does not receive food stamps. And she still does not qualify for subsidies.
There are real, hard-working people that are impacted by these decisions.
Norm, after my original reply I found a news article underscoring what you were saying, thousands in SC share your sister-in-law’s situation.
Apparently, most state legislatures have rejected medicaid expansions on the grounds that like many of today’s federal programs, funding would be limited to only the first few (four?) years (except in exempted states like (Sen Landreiu’s Louisianna) In the words of a spokesperson for NC yesterday on PBS, the state (NC) wants to be careful about retirees it attracts.
According to the brief news article, the thousands in your sister-in-law’s situation (uninsureds unqualified for Obamacare) can receive their health care through something called The South Carolina Primary Health Care Association (SCPHCA). It named Regenesis, as an example. While 30% of Regensis’s current patients are uninsured, largely migrant farmworkers.
Regenesis, the example, does not serve the midlands, however. And, contrary to what its name may imply, The South Carolina Primary Health Care Association (SCPHCA) does not seem to, either. However, Regenesis is considered part of a more widespread association, SC Community Health Clinics, which lists contact info for the following locations:
Eau Claire Cooperative Health Centers
Richland Community Health Care Assoc.
Lexington Medical Ctr (Batesburg)
Lexington Medical Ctr (Swansea)
https://www.scdhhs.gov/internet/pdf/CHCs%20by%20County%20Listing.pdf
Ostensibly, if Sen Landrieu (and others) had not gotten their exemptions, they would not have voted for AFA (Obamacare). What coverage did your sister-in-law have before Obamacare?
Socialism always adopts favoritism under the guise of leveling the playing field for everyone. The hidden feature of Obamacare is the availability of ample organ transplants (no waiting) for politicians, and their favored citizens.
As I said, what a disaster!
You mean, a Reaganphone?
Actually, the genesis of Obama’s phone giveaways began in 1996 under a law signed by then President Bill Clinton. Whatever Bush may have later signed appears plausible. Contrary to what the politically appointed acting FCC commissioner had said, Reagan had nothing to do with cell phone subsidies. What originated with Reagan were little user fees Obama (Clinton) expanded to support his giveaways.
Under Reagan such fees were solely for landline subsidies of people in remote areas not yet served by landlines in order to assure availability of 9-11 emergency calls.
Even today, if a customer stops paying the provider for landline service, the phone is still capable, AT&T tells me, of making 9-11 emergency calls (the actual Reagan deal). The funding source is still on our phone bills, and the continuation of service applies to residents keeping a disused phone (land the reason lines are generally not removed).
The careful wording of story told by the acting FCC commissioner was suspicious to me
for absence of details and vague association with Reagan.
But civil forfeiture is a real thing. A very bad thing.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman
Kathryn, that civil forfeiture article is just sickening.
Norm, maybe your sister-in-law can ask Boeing to help out. Our lawmakers had no problem shoveling millions of dollars their way.