Gap Insurance

Do you live in a state that opted not to expand medicaid? Turns out if you have earnings below the Federal Poverty Line - you may not qualify for Obamacare Subsidies.

 

Sorry, can't help you. I live in a blue I mean sane state.

 

Blame your ideologically motivated governor.

Report: States Opting Out Of Medicaid Expansion Will Lose Billions



Newscom
Dylan Scott – December 5, 2013, 12:01 AM EST7920

States not expanding Medicaid under Obamacare will be collectively lose more than $35 billion in federal funds in 2022 alone, according to a new report from the Commonwealth Fund.
Texas ($9.2 billion), Florida ($5 billion), Georgia ($2.9 billion), Virginia ($2.8 billion) and North Carolina ($2.6 billion) will be the biggest losers, according to the organization, which supports Obamacare. The study's projections of the budget impact nearly a decade out relied on estimates of Medicaid expansion eligibility and spending in 2022 from the Urban Institute to reach its conclusion.
The report covered 20 states, all with Republican governors and/or state legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid under the health care reform law after the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in June. It did not include several states (such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire) where expansion is not yet finalized, but state officials are working toward it.
“In states that elect not to expand Medicaid, millions of their most vulnerable residents will be unable to gain health insurance,” Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal said in a statement. “Those same states will be forgoing billions in federal funds while paying for other areas to provide expanded coverage. In light of these facts, it seems likely that non-expanding states will face increasing pressure over time to reconsider their decisions.”
Under Obamacare, the federal government covers 100 percent of the costs for the first three years and never less than 90 percent after that.
The Commonwealth Fund further explained the study's methodology as follows:

Federal funds that pay for state Medicaid programs are raised through federal general revenue collection—taxes paid by residents in all states—whether or not they participate in the program. Therefore, taxpayers in states not participating in the Medicaid expansion will bear a share of the overall cost, without benefitting from the program. Glied and Ma estimated the net loss of federal funds to states that do not expand Medicaid by using projected federal Medicaid spending in each state and calculating the federal Medicaid-related taxes paid by each state.​

 

Federal funds = tax payer dollars

So, in reality, these states will save the taxpayers $35 billion!!!!

 

Hey, I have an idea.... Why don't all the red state succeed and save the Federal Government the problem of supporting y'all's sorry asses altogether?

 

As opposed to the bankrupt/near bankrupt blue states? How are the finances in IL these days anyway?

 

Fine. How come you didn't mention California? It does cost quite a bit supporting all those red states though.

 

What about California?

 

They seem to be doing OK once they kicked all the Righties out of government.

 

The red states in the South certainly didn't want to be part of the Union, but were forced to belong anyway. Of course, the North destroyed the South's livelihood and economy, but you're still bitching. When you think about it, it's just another way of redistributing the wealth. I love it! I say take from Illinois and give it to the needy folks in Georgia. Sherman's march to the sea has to be repaid somehow.

 

"Of course, the North destroyed the South's livelihood and economy, but you're still bitching." I think you mean slavery. Sorry about that. The North had this crazy idea that people should not be property. What could the North have been thinking?

 

This is a hilarious post, even by the high standards set by the resident GOP comedians. Brimming with buncombe and baloney, it's worth a closer look:

1. After a lawful election, the South decided they didn't like the results, and started a war. They were content to be part of the United States before that, and ratified the Constitution. They reneged on their commitment and shat on the Constitution. Yet they're held up as some sort of heroes by many supposedly Constitution-revering idealists on the right. A truly ludicrous example of hypocrisy.

2. I repeat; the South started the war. The consequences of their actions fall on their own heads, not on the North, who were the ones defending the Constitution and themselves against those who had attacked. The South's livelihood and economy would not have suffered to any great extent if they hadn't started the war: Lincoln had been very clear that he was not planning on ending slavery. The South knew that, but objected to the idea that they might not be able to spread slavery into the west, willy-nilly.

3. In 2010, Illinois got back $0.71 for every dollar collected in Federal tax. Georgia got back $1.09, so your dream has come true. I'm not going to call you a "Socialist!!1!" though. (source)

See 2 above. The South paid for their own perfidy. They took up arms and attacked their fellow citizens. There's a saying about that, I think. Something about "living by the sword."

 

If you didn't catch Jon Stewart's take on the apologists for the Confederacy, his take is hilarious.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-24-2014/denunciation-proclamation

 

Is it worth the trouble to use some sort of proxy to see it? I'm in the UK, and Comedy Central doesn't want us to see most of their videos, including this one. I'm not sure what they're hiding.

 

Gotta call bullshit on you on that one. There were plenty of Northerners who believed in slavery. So, "what could the North have been thinking?" Well, slavery of course.

 

Apparently not enough of them to support the South's murderous approach to slavery.

 

I didn't say they didn't "renege on their commitment", did I? No, of course I didn't. Well, certainly they didn't like the results so they started a war. When did I say they didn't? I didn't even mention this "hero-worship" thing you are talking about. Boy, talk about going off an a tangent... geesh!

I repeat; yes I know that.

I don't believe anyone is disputing the South started the war. Certainly the consequences of their actions fall on their own head. However, the North came up with a little strategy call "Reconstruction" in order to rebuild the South's economy and infrastructure. I love it that the Northern (blue) states are still giving back to the Southern (red) states in the form of (as I will call it) redistribution of wealth.

Hooray! But, that's not enough. I'm happy that Georgia is getting back so much for all it lost. If the North was determined to keep the South in the Union and was willing to do whatever it took (including razing entire cities to the ground) as opposed to letting the South secede, then they should pay the price of the destruction they caused. Doesn't it seem like a better idea to simply have let the South secede and become its own country? No war, no killing, no destruction, no Reconstruction, no blue states giving money to red states (and vice versa), etc.? Ah well, that's a debate that's been raging for 150 years...

So many lives and so much destruction could have been spared had Lincoln allowed the South to separate. Arguably, even his own assassination may not have happened. Unfortunately, history has proven again and again that violence seems to be the only answer for some people. The North and the South are both guilty and there were atrocities on both sides.

 

Yet some still champion the fight to keep others downtrodden. The poorest and most needy in the red states get no health care, yet the American Taliban still attempt to repeal it.

 

Define "health care".

 

No, you said the South was "forced to belong." This is of course incorrect: they joined the United States completely voluntarily. On the other hand, they were prevented from violently destroying the country of which they were and are an integral part. They chose to use force, and it was met with force. I'm curious what you think the government was supposed to do when the South attacked.

As for hero worship, I wonder why you even brought this topic into the discussion, if you don't hold at least some regard for the Confederacy. In my experience, people who sympathise with the Confederacy are rarely luke-warm about it. Perhaps you're an exception--somebody who sympathises with the South but thinks that they don't deserve any sort of respect.

This "tangent" is of your own creation; I'm merely responding to what you've written.

It's sounding more and more like you support socialism.

The South sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. They caused the destruction which resulted from their treasonous attack upon their fellow citizens. Trying to blame the results of the war on the North is completely transparent and absurd revisionism.

Despite your protests to the contrary, your scenario above ignores the fact that the South started the war. They did so without any attempt to secede through peaceful means. The war happened because they started it, and it's ridiculous to suggest that the government of the United States should have ignored the attacks of the South and simply surrender. What completely asinine codswallop you write.

This is shameless drivel. No country is going to allow attacks on its citizens and soil to go unanswered, let alone surrender merely because some butthurt Beauregards decide to start shooting at people when they decide they can't abide with the results of a lawful, democratic election. You're indulging in some rather fatuous fantasy here. I doubt that any self-respecting Lost Causers would buy into such baloney.