Should the US expand Medicaid to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level

  • Thread starter Thread starter RCIAGraduate
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QwertyGirl said:
I am a VERY middle class income person and I would be delighted to pay more in taxes if it meant equal health care, at high quality, for all.
Click to expand...
Would you be willing to accept Medicaid style medical care, as a result of paying higher taxes, so others could receive equal medical care?
 
Augustinian said:
Medicaid’s primary limitations are that many medical providers just don’t accept it. The payments made are lower that providers are willing to accept, and if they do accept them, they have to accept them as “payment in full”. Being on Medicaid reduces the number of providers willing to accept you as a patient rather dramatically in some jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
They don’t reimburse well, but that doesn’t change what I said.

If the state is going to get engaged, it should be help help with catastrophic coverage only, this is what bankrupts so many.
 
Theo520 said:
If the state is going to get engaged, it should be help help with catastrophic coverage only, this is what bankrupts so many.
Click to expand...
That’s a horse of a different color of course.

When the ACA was passed a few years ago, they decided to make it comprehensive care, instead of catastrophic, which is a lot more involved and intrusive.
 
Even if you walk everywhere, all the services, products and goods you use require the use of the road system to provide them to you. Trucks carry groceries, the mail system delivers your packages and picks up your mail, etc etc. Whether or not you own a car, your existence requires that others use the roads to provide you with what you need.
 
Augustinian said:
That’s a horse of a different color of course.

When the ACA was passed a few years ago, they decided to make it comprehensive care, instead of catastrophic, which is a lot more involved and intrusive.
Click to expand...
Yea, I’m just proposing how the State could/should cost effectively engage to help poorer americans.

It doesn’t matter that reimbursement is low for medicaid, extending it to 400% of poverty level would cost trillions we don’t have in taxes. Providers may be limited, but they exist and they know how to milk the system for all the charges that can be made with a patient.
 
Two things. We were in Canada on vacation and my husband had a ministroke. He had two CT scans within an hour. They follow a strict stroke protocol. In Canada emergencies like strokes heart attacks and cancer are treated right away but elective surgery may have to wait. ER three doctors and two CTs was $3000 probably less than in the US.Because we had not paid into their system and were not residents of Canada we had to pay the bill.
Also if I was not paying for two health insurance policies I would have more money to put in the economy or for taxes to cover my health care.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I’m not sure what this means. I’m simply observing that care is rarely “equal” anywhere, no matter what the intention is.
Click to expand...
Put yourself in the position of someone who needs care and can’t get it because they can’t afford it. How good the care may be doesn’t really matter then and that attitude comes across to me as as long as I get the care I need I don’t care about anyone else.

I accept that things are rarely equal but I feel that everyone has a right to healthcare and cases should be given priority based on urgency, not ability to afford.
 
Honestly, I think some people are or have been or maybe even know someone in a desperate situation such as someone who was unable to get care or someone with crippling debt and thus they’d like to see at least a baseline of coverage, emergency rooms save lives (and perhaps waive costs) but they aren’t made to treat chronic conditions or other certain medical needs.
 
Today, some get Lexus healthcare. Some receieve Toyota Avalon, Camry, Corolla care. Some get used car care. Some get no care

Those with employer-based health insurance coverage tend to have access to a broad range of Drs and may have to pay some portion in the form of a decductable or co-pay.

Would you be willing to continue paying for but now foregoing Lexus-level care in favor of everyone having Toyota Corolla care?
 
boldlygo said:
but your access to medical care would plummet…you’d wait months or years for simple procedures…need an MRI? Either wait in a looong line or come to the States at your own expense…
Click to expand...
That is a fallacy.
 
The reports I’ve seen say the opposite. Wait times can be very long in the Dominions of Canada.

Although my real question, is how long does it wait to get the qualified surgeon of your choice? Not all licensed physicians are equally qualified, and the truth is, I am particularly about whom I would want to slice me up like a pumpkin. These times are to get “any” orthopaedic surgeon, not one that you are satisfied with.

 
Toyota Corolla care? More like 10-year-old Ford Malibu care. The VA is a long way from the quality of a Toyota.
 
Last edited:
RCIAGraduate said:
But what about our neighbors in need? Perhaps some charitable funds can help pay for some doctors visits and maybe even some more free clinics, but what about big-ticket items like chemotherapy, dialysis and daily medications? Do you think most people would be better off in a free market and that state and local governments as well as charities and foundations can help with those in need? Granted, if we did go towards a minimized federal government, we could see restructuring of tax codes as states and localities decide to step up and as a smaller state encourages more charitable giving and volunteerism (ideally), but even if it were to play out that way, the transition would be… quite an adjustment.
Click to expand...
Look at the Catholic Answers home page.

Catholic Answers sponsors include “cost share” plans which are outstanding.

AND they are non-government approaches.

https://www.healthsharemail.com/optin21638250


There are many of these plans.

 
Last edited:
Here is the problem:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries

Yet with this, we rank #36 in healthcare according to the WHO, and rank #31 in life expectancy, for those who do not trust anybody outside of 'Murica.

You would have to be blind to say that the US system is better than socialized medicine. It is not better by any measurable criteria. On the other hand, the evidence for socialized medicine is not conclusive, other than to say that it is not a factor.

I am a pro-life Catholic, so I voted “yes”. Here is why.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eniors-than-poor-ones/?utm_term=.ac1bfcc42174

This discrepancy is a pro-life issue. Social status should not, in theory, grant people right to more life. I know this is not completely avoidable, but we are not becoming more moral in this area, but less moral, allowing the wealthy more right to live, and the poor less. Obamacare was a travesty, but only because if tried to address only insurance costs, not the healthcare system.

I believe it is time to socialize some or all of medicine. One market solution would be to socialize medical research. This can be done by removing patent protections for medically necessary equipment, drugs and procedures. Then compensating, that is buying out, medical research facilities by those affected and employing those people. Finally, that research that is done can be given immunity from prosecution, ending the medical lawsuit lottery that has driven our healthcare system down.
 
Last edited:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
 
boldlygo said:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

So do you have evidence to show the fault in this? If there is, I am sure we would all be open to it. If not, don’t shoot the messenger, or allow patriotism to cloud the faults of this country.
 
Last edited:
FYI - Socializing medicine, or medical research, is not socialism, anymore that have a federal postal system is socialism. It is a decision that it is a cheaper way to go than spending taxes to help the poor to the extent they need to be helped, again, for pro-life people, to bring them to a reasonable standard of health.

The OP had one solution. I am merely offering another. Or, those who are not pro-life can ignore this gap, and let people die earlier who are poor.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top