medicaid costs

[huisache]

In a discussion with a son in NY he asserts that expanding Medicaid in Texas to cover the million or so currently uncovered would cost Texas nothing because the feds pick up all the costs. The way I read the controversy, the feds pick up the medical care costs for a few years and then it goes into a shared cost situation with the state. In the interim Texas would be paying all the administrative costs. Am I wrong?

ANd if I am right, what are the administrative costs?

Is Perry's warning about escalating costs merely tied to anticipated increased medical care costs or is it admin costs as well?

Any help would be appreciated. I hate losing arguments with this son, who works with NY's medical assistance program.

 

[Uninformed]

Depends on who you believe. Read the three links sequentially and see what you think.

The Link


The Link


https://www.mackinac.org/18268

 

[Horn6721]

Huis
I think you are one of the posters who always advises we follow the money on expert opinions" offered .

Based on that research on 2 of the3 links uni offered reveals predictable results.
and I offer pne thought to states wondering if the BO expansion is a good deal
If you like the deal that it seems BO and feds are offering on expansion of Medicaid you can count on them to keep that deal PERIOD

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[huisache]

Sangre: we are on the hook for our share of federal spending but we are not reaping any of the costs back. My questions are directed at the issue of paying for this specific program directly.

Is Texas foregoing enormous billions of us treasury money (from all the states' citizens) in a republican attempt to kill ACA or are there expenses in the acceptance of the "federal" money? Does Texas not pay all the administrative costs of Medicaid in Texas?

Does the federal money pay only for medical expenses or does also pay for the administrative costs, as my son says?

I have a hard time believing that all these Texas medicaid bureaucrats are actually paid by the feds rather than Texas and that would of course include their pensions, etc.

If my son and John Stewart are correct, Prick Perry and cohorts are blowing off coverage for a million or so Texans which would come at no additional cost to Texas.

Can that be true? Should I really be relying for news about Texas on a snarky tv comedian?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Uninformed]

Carefully using negativity about Bush, orangeblood. Huisache is named after a shrub, a thorny acacia. Anyway, huisache, tell me your opinion after reading the 3 links that I provided above.

 

[huisache]

as a wise man said: Depends on who you believe.

In my case, I follow Joan Didion: no matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.

However, none of the sources you put up or any that I have read answers the more immediate question I had: who pays administrative costs for the million or so Texans who would theoretically be covered and how much would that be if the state picks up the bill?

One of our state reps offices in the building and I will ask him and get back with his answer. I know that years ago when there was a big expansion of healthcare for kids, one of my partners was in the legislature and voted against it because he said nobody could tell him what the cost was going to be and he could tell it was going to be huge.

It is sad to report that I am so suspicious of people who want to do good that I lean toward trusting people like Perry sometimes.