Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: States can opt out of Medicaid expansion, citizens must buy x, and that's a progressive victory? [View all]jeff47
(26,549 posts)71. No, they can't.
A state can fail to set up an exchange. If they do so, the feds set up their exchange for them.
my family would not qualify for any exchange or subsidy.
That's only true if you're covered by employer-based insurance, and that premium sounds like you may not be covered by your employer. If you are not covered by a plan from your employer, you "qualify" for the exchanges.
So, where is this affordable insurance of which you speak?
Well, the exchanges won't exist until 2014, since Congress wanted to reduce the short-term cost of the bill. So it's a tad premature to expect the exchanges to lower cost.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
States can opt out of Medicaid expansion, citizens must buy x, and that's a progressive victory? [View all]
usregimechange
Jun 2012
OP
You don't have to buy X, and it's a victory for those who want affordable coverage or have pre-exist
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#1
Health exchanges, subsidies, no cap, and the ability to pay only premiums vs. bankruptcy.
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#35
The decision is an overall win but it isn't going to stop medical bankruptcies
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#60
http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/FIN-265414/Despite-ACA-OutofPocket-Medical-Costs-Lurk.html
Schema Thing
Jun 2012
#109
Wow, not disputing level of your premiums, but I bet at full phase-in you'll be better off.
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#82
At least I understand what is in the bill, including the fact that denials..
girl gone mad
Jun 2012
#44
lolz. OH NO WE SHOULDN'T HELP MILLIONS BECAUSE WE CAN'T HELP THOUSANDS SO EVERYONE MUST SUFFER!
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#47
so states can also opt-IN to medicaid expansion, making it possible for good states nt
msongs
Jun 2012
#2
Wait until GOP-controlled states' citizens find out what they are saying no to
Trekologer
Jun 2012
#111
Because of this, the insurance that I pay for my 22 daughter quintupled.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2012
#24
That seems awfully high and if you're already paying for a family plan it shouldn't have changed.
HopeHoops
Jun 2012
#105
Congress is going to have to fix the "incentive" for the states to expand Medicaid now.
EFerrari
Jun 2012
#7
If states opt out of Medicaid expansion,it costs them dearly in fed. funds. You don't have to buy X.
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#8
No, today's decision was that the Feds can't dock states for opting out of expanding Medicaid. n/t
EFerrari
Jun 2012
#11
I'm confused about it, now. I THINK I read that the states have to opt out of Medicaid ENTIRELY.
Honeycombe8
Jun 2012
#110
It doesn't cost them. If states opt out they still get the same amount they usually get.
Autumn
Jun 2012
#12
It doesn't cost states anything if they opt out of the Medicaid expansion
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#13
Yes, I realize that if they don't opt in they don't get the additional funding
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#22
Perhaps, you shouldn't use complicated phrases such as "in the long run."
Luminous Animal
Jun 2012
#27
But they won't be saving because their citizens will get sicker & sicker and need more expensive
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#42
Some states only offer Medicaid to the disabled, so unless the disabled roles go up, nothing goes up
Lionessa
Jun 2012
#92
It won't cost them anything in Federal Funds. They will still receive the funds that they
Luminous Animal
Jun 2012
#14
Because these uncovered people won't fall into traditional Medicaid as their health and income fails
jeff47
Jun 2012
#76
The Republicans are now going to be called out on votes that reject medicaid
loyalsister
Jun 2012
#64
They aren't driving up their state budgets if they don't expand Medicaid
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#107
States will continue to get funds for the natural growth that occurs under the current formulations
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#115
Who are these people, these 'deadbeats' you speak of who can 'afford it but refuse to pay for it'?
sabrina 1
Jun 2012
#83
You can't be dropped for preexisting conditions...Insurance companies have to spend
rustydog
Jun 2012
#9
You don't think the decision is a loss for the people that won't get Medicaid under this decision?
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#25
How are you saying a gain is a loss? I agree, not perfect, but it's a WIN for millions.
FarLeftFist
Jun 2012
#45
Prior to the ruling, states had to expand Medicaid or lose all Medicaid funding
SickOfTheOnePct
Jun 2012
#28
Well, you're in the minority. Would you be happier if Roberts threw his vote the other way and
MADem
Jun 2012
#29
When enough people rise up and decide it is an issue that is sufficiently important to merit
MADem
Jun 2012
#61
Right. You are causing your own anger in that you cannot compel someone to agree with you.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jun 2012
#99
I am happy as a clam, couldn't be more thrilled today-- your concern is touching though.
MADem
Jun 2012
#100
States -- even the reddest -- aren't likely to do that. And, look at the legislation and you will
Hoyt
Jun 2012
#52
DU Naysayers Health Insurance Plan: Bake Sales and Car Washes, and a penny jar on the counter. n/y
progressivebydesign
Jun 2012
#58