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

The Velveteen Ocelot

(130,780 posts)
6. That is not a correct statement. The federal subsidies will not end in three years.
Tue Feb 11, 2014, 12:38 PM
Feb 2014

They will be reduced slightly over time to 90%.

"Specifically, the federal government will, for the first three years (2014-2016), assume 100 percent of the costs of covering those made newly eligible by the health reform law. Federal support will then phase down slightly over the following several years (95 percent in 2017, 94 percent in 2018, and 93 percent in 2019). By 2020 and for all subsequent years, the federal government will pay 90 percent of the costs of covering these individuals."

and:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicaid expansion will add very little to what states would have spent on Medicaid without health reform, while providing health coverage to 17 million more low-income adults and children. In addition, the Medicaid expansion will reduce state and local government costs for uncompensated care and other services they provide to the uninsured, which will offset at least some — and in a number of states, possibly all or more than all — of the modest increase in state Medicaid costs. Expanding Medicaid is thus a very favorable financial deal for states."

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3801

The GOPers' opposition to Medicaid expansion in their states is strictly ideological: They don't want poor people to get help because they think poor people don't deserve help, because they're poor.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Geeze sakabatou Feb 2014 #1
Why? yeoman6987 Feb 2014 #2
That is not a correct statement. The federal subsidies will not end in three years. The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2014 #6
Some is ideological. Igel Feb 2014 #24
Pukers sure have a lot of "brass". SoapBox Feb 2014 #3
Living in this state, I can say that liberalhistorian Feb 2014 #10
Liberalhistorian, yes, you are correct. But like so many places... prairierose Feb 2014 #19
This doesn't surprise me newfie11 Feb 2014 #4
Please Sir or Madam, do not insult my "pugs"... Swede Atlanta Feb 2014 #7
Omg I am so sorry for disparaging their breed. Please tell your Pugs I will never do it again. newfie11 Feb 2014 #21
tyranny (NT) The Wizard Feb 2014 #5
I live in this liberalhistorian Feb 2014 #8
I travel there frequently. progressoid Feb 2014 #17
So much for democracy oldandhappy Feb 2014 #9
"Letting the people decide" political issues CAN be very, very bad; what if they allowed Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #11
Where are you coming from? The legislatures have NOT been doing their jobs, which is why state have lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #14
Yet everytime they speak EC Feb 2014 #12
The state of George McGovern should be ashamed to have these representatives in their legislature lostincalifornia Feb 2014 #13
Well, at least South Dakotans will never know about this, since real news is never reported. nt valerief Feb 2014 #15
So very true. Nt newfie11 Feb 2014 #23
ALL pols in general Old Codger Feb 2014 #16
Republicans only like democracy when they can control it. tanyev Feb 2014 #18
As a registered South Dakota voter, I can say my peers are dumb as rocks. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2014 #20
Evil to the core. nt Cali_Democrat Feb 2014 #22
PROOF that republicans hate democracy tabasco Feb 2014 #25
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Republicans Block South D...»Reply #6