Study: Obamacare Expansion Would Dramatically Reduce Numbers Of Uninsured In Conservative States

[kpete]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Study: Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Would Dramatically Reduce Numbers Of Uninsured In Conservative States

BRIAN BEUTLER JULY 6, 2012, 5:52 AM 1404
A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted two years shows that all states would see significant reductions in their uninsured populations because of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, at almost no cost to state budgets. But the effect would be particularly dramatic in southern states with low Medicaid participation — the conservative states most likely to opt out of the expansion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Kaiser study is taking on new significance in showing the stakes involved for uninsured Americans as states now decide whether to accept the Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court’s decision last week in the health care reform case barred the federal government from withdrawing all Medicaid funding from states that refuse the expansion, prompting a number of Republican governors to declare their intentions not to accept it. As TPM previously noted, states with large uninsured populations are among the most hostile to the Affordable Care Act, and the most likely sources of resistance to the law’s now-optional Medicaid expansion.

Most southern states would see their adult uninsured populations drop by about 50 percent because of the expansions — notably higher than many northeastern states that already have either generous Medicaid provisions or, in the case of Massachusetts, an existing universal health care law.

Depending on how aggressively the expansion were implemented, South Carolina would likely see a 56.4 - 76.2 percent reduction in uninsured adults. In Louisiana, the range is 50.7 - 74.8 percent. Even states like Iowa and Wisconsin — states with relatively small uninsured populations but with conservative governors threatening to thwart the ACA — the effect is striking.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obamacare-medicaid-conservative-states-supreme-court.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

[ladjf]

1. Because citizens of the Conservative states are victims of the "reverse Universe Syndrome" they

will promptly do everything possible to work against their own best interests. How can humans be that crazy?

[HIlton Brackett]

4. Crazy?

Not for long and the republican party will be a thing of the past

[ladjf]

5. OK, confused. Better? nt

[targetpractice]

2. And, by extension... more healthy Democratic voters.

Can't let the serfs think government is on their side. No way, no how.

[quakerboy]

13. Not likely

A much more likely result is people out picketing and protesting with "keep Government out of my Affordable Care" signs.

[LynneSin]

3. Of course it would but those dumbass idiots teabaggers...

would rather sacrifice their health so they could keep their guns, gods and prevent gays from having a life.

[Turbineguy]

6. You mean to tell me that

conservative states would get even more government handouts?

[Swede Atlanta]

8. Bingo.....

when I have posted the statistics that "red" states on average receive more from the public trough than "blue" states, i.e. blue states are subsidizing the red states, the freepers heads blow off. They deny it. They claim the statistics are wrong. When I ask them to please present statistics that contradict my facts they of course have none.

I keep telling the few conservatives that I have maintained in my life (infrequent casual friends and relatives) they vote against their own interests and the interests of their families when they vote for Republicans.

They respond that they need to protect the rights of the unborn, make sure they can own as many guns as they want and, even though they know I am gay, be sure those homosexuals don't get any "special" rights.

When I ask them if their standard of living, i.e. relative take-home pay and purchasing power, has improved over the past 25 years they all clear their throats and say well no not really. Then they try to change the subject. When I point out that the 1% have done very well over those 25 years they again try to change the subject.

I ask them if protecting the rights of the unborn, owning as many guns as possible and keeping gays from being treated equally are really more important than ensuring they will be able to put healthy food on the table, pay off their mortgage, provide good healthcare for their families, save for retirement, give more to charity, etc. they say yes. They believe they may have to sacrifice personally so that abortion is made illegal, gays don't get any special rights and Obama doesn't take away their guns.

I conclude with a sigh and realize nothing will change their minds.

[BumRushDaShow]

7. This is how the death panel GOP elected officials control the populace

by stingy parceling out of assistance that just barely allows people to survive and dream of more. One day.... One day.

[Igel]

9. A request for information.

We're told that the ACA would cover 90-100% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion to include eligible folk up to 133% of the poverty level. Usually that's "100% of the cost for the first three years."

I don't recall seeing that the ACA would cover 90-100% of each state's cost for increasing coverage to include all those below 133% of the poverty level.

But some states have Medicaid pegged at something like 30% of the poverty rate, with "full Medicaid coverage" being a lot more than that. Others have funding levels set to include 100% of those eligible for Medicaid. If the ACA covers *all* those newly eligible, then it would be paying 100% of the increase up to the current Federal maximum plus whatever the expansion would be. This seems unfair. It also makes turning down the money short-term silly, even if the politics of reducing the funding level when the Federal government backs off after 3 years are problematic. I assume that the ACA precludes a donut hole in the income levels covered.

But if the ACA only includes funding the expansion from the old 100% of maximum to 133% of the poverty level and not from current funding levels to 133% of the poverty level, then this would constitute a huge budget item for states with currently low Medicaid funding levels. It would make the Texan budget wars of a year ago seem picayune, and funding it would all but impose a state income tax on a population most of whom seems (key word here) to oppose an income tax.

So, does the ACA cover the cost from current levels, whatever they are, to 133% of the poverty level--or just the expansion from 100% of the current maximum Medicaid funding to 133% of the poverty level?

[Sgent]

10. It covers (for three years) the entire cost of expansion

That being said, many states do not have Medicaid available to non-pregnant, non-disabled adults regardless of income level.

[nanabugg]

11. No it won't!!! Because they are opting out of Medicaid expansion.

[Quantess]

12. interesting.