People Will Die Otherwise - All States Should Have Opted Into Medicaid

[dairygirl4u2c]

all states should have opted into medicaid expansion

it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying.

obamacare included a medicaid expansion for people with low income.
(people with more than little income are part of the normal obamacare insurance exchange program, that may or may not include subsidies.

the main reason the states should have opted into the expansion, is because so many people will die if they don't. an estimated 17,000 people will die because they opted out of the expansion.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/01/30/opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-the-health-and-financial-impacts/

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/1798749_10152251580706275_1272396348119556963_n.jpg

also, getting medicaid to one's state is a financial boon to that state. it causes funds to flow to the state. it's in the states interest to take the money. even if there were some strings attached, or a co pay with teh state, overall it is more beneficial cause it's basically free money, at least with respect to the state.

also, government run insurance is known to be more cost effective than other programs anyways... usually. the USA spends 17% of its GDP on

healthcare

, and has worse results than other developed countires. the other countires spend 10% on health care and get better results. most of those countires have govenment health care. (some have tightly regulatd private markets, but this is getting into another debate)

also, the states can work with the federal government to create their own program. it's not like they are without options.

while there may be principled reasons to be against the expansion, none are sufficient to overcome the above points. even if you quibble with some of the points, the fact that 17000 people will die otherwise is sufficient reason to take the expansion. if you have quelms with the system, work to reform it. in the mean time, take what you got.

the polticians knew it would make them look bad to take the expansion, so they went against it.

it basically amounts to politics alone being the reason people are dying.

[Perigrina]

Seeing as you admitted that a couple of your recent polls were trolling, I am no longer inclined to participate in your polls.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this debate isn't trolling though. it's actually a very important issue.

 

(one might wonder if you just dont want to tackle the issue)

 

whatever the case, that's a shame

[KnightofChrist]

Woman in class-action lawsuit against Xerox dies

 

By JENNIFER ROBISON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Time ran out for Linda Rolain.

The Las Vegas woman died Monday, less than two weeks after her family went public with details about Nevada Health Link insurance exchange enrollment troubles that kept her from treatment in January for an aggressive brain tumor.

 

Rolain was one of about 150 Nevadans suing Nevada Health Link contractor Xerox for enrollment mix-ups that left them without the health insurance they paid for.

 

Rolain is the first to die of complications from an illness said to have gone untreated for lack of coverage. But observers close to her case say she may not be the last.

 

“We are worried that this is the first of many Nevadans who have life-threatening issues that may end up in such tragic circumstances. We urge all Nevadans to verify that their insurance is active and in place in light of the many problems that hundreds, if not thousands, of Nevadans have gone through,” Rolain’s law firm, Callister, Immerman and Associates, said in a statement.

 

Local insurance broker Pat Casale, who in May began to help Rolain with her enrollment issues, said he wouldn’t be surprised if there were at least another 100 Nevadans facing both coverage problems and “urgent and emergent” health care needs.

 

“I know a few that I have right now (are) in serious need of care — people who have actually paid premiums and have not received care,” Casale said.

 

Rolain’s husband, Robert, said the couple began trying to sign up in November, well ahead of the Dec. 15 deadline for January coverage. After wrestling with repeated sign-up problems, the Rolains bought a plan that took effect in March. But they said Xerox staffers miscommunicated the policy’s effective date, so they didn’t know until May that they had coverage.

 

Linda Rolain was first diagnosed with a brain tumor in early 2014, after a seizure in late 2013. Robert Rolain said in a June 19 news conference at the downtown Las Vegas offices of Callister, Immerman and Associates that his wife’s care was delayed for months because of their insurance troubles.

 

Robert Rolain alleges his wife’s tumor went from treatable in winter to fatal in spring as the couple fought for coverage.

 

Linda Rolain was admitted to hospice care in early June. A Xerox spokesman said in a statement that the company would not “be able to comment on this tragic development.” A spokesman for Nevada Health Link was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached for comment.

 

Casale blamed the coverage mishap on Xerox’s “ineptitude” and “inability to get paperwork and to process things through to” the Rolains’ insurer, Nevada Health CO-OP.

 

“This poor lady was told in January that she needed immediate attention,” Casale said. “Her doctor said if she had begun treatment in March, he might been able to give her quality of care, and she might have lived longer. She had no chance because of the delay.

 

“Ms. Rolain should have had coverage in January. (The Rolains) did everything they could to facilitate the acquisition of a health plan,” Casale added. “She suffered and she died all because of the negligence of a vendor who should not even be in the industry.”

 

The Silver State Health Insurance Exchange signed a $72 million contract with Xerox in 2012 to build Nevada Health Link. But software glitches kept legions of consumers from enrolling in plans when the health link opened on Oct. 1. The exchange enrolled just a third of the 118,000 sign-ups it targeted in its first year.

The exchange’s board decided in May to replace Xerox as the health link’s contractor. The exchange will borrow federal eligibility and enrollment functions in November while it looks for a permanent replacement system for 2015’s enrollment session.

 

Callister, Immerman and Associates filed its class action lawsuit on April 1 after Las Vegan Larry Basich ran up $407,000 in uncovered medical bills despite paying several months’ worth of premiums through Nevada Health Link.

 

Attorney Matthew Callister said on June 19 that he would seek faster legal action for gravely ill patients, including Linda Rolain.

 

“Some of our clients are so ill that if their needs are not addressed now, it is a matter of life and death,” Callister said.

 

Edited July 3, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

this debate isn't trolling though. it's actually a very important issue.

 

Yeah right.

[dairygirl4u2c]

im not sure what the point is of that article that knight cited

 

(well, even at my best, there may have been a slight degree of trolling, given the poll wording, and the alarming title. but those are all factual statements, the poll, and the title, and better draw attention to the issues

[Anastasia13]

this debate isn't trolling though. it's actually a very important issue.

 

(one might wonder if you just dont want to tackle the issue)

 

whatever the case, that's a shame

In an effort to keep morals and lessons of old tales relevant to today's youth, publishers are no longer printing The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Instead, they are writing an updated version to be released this summer titled The Girl Who Cried Troll. See your local debate distributor for copies.

[Anastasia13]

I believe all states were required to have a system in place for those who made too little to qualify for insurance assistance. Because of the number of people signing up all at once, I would venture to say that the rapid transition to our new system was part of the problem for some people. I still need to read more of the article you posted, but in a state that did accept medicaid expansion, it still took a while for some low-income people to get benefits.

 

I don't mean to be callous, but according to a local organization spoke with, our federal government has the most debt incurred under a presidential administration ever, and the second highest was the president just prior to him. Economics recognizes limited resources. Medical care is an economic resource. I would love to see better healthcare, but how? Make me a proposal.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm not aware that the states have to have alternative systems if they opt out. i could be wrong.

 

here is a guy who basically agreed with me, and in that reputable opinion piece i see no mention of alterantives. and i dont see it on a basic google search.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/when-states-opt-out-of-expanding-medicaid-people-get-shafted/259513/

looking at medical care as a limited resource that must be partitioned is the wrong approach.

and not just for moral reasons.

 

single payer is known to be better. cheaper, and better results that cover everyone. a highly undisputed, well established fact is that the USA pay eighteen percent GDP and gets worse results than those who pay ten percent and get better results, industrialized countries.

some of those countries are tightly regualted private insurance, most are single payer. so really, it's a question of whether it's better to continue modifying the current private structure obama created, or go single payer. as a practical matter, given the cultural and politicl and other practical restraints, it's going ot be sticking with what we got under obama. and going with reforming it to be like those places who do it theough private insurance, but cheaper

 

there are some disputes about why that's the case, that it's cheaper there, but that's all. it's still established.

 

a big reason it's cheaper is because insurance is a middle man who serves no purpose but to make money and add a layer of adminstration. there are a lot of redundancies there. medicare, basically single payer, pays only five percent on adminstration. private insurance pays thirty percent on administration and profit.

 

there's been some questinoable studies that say single pay isn't cheaper than private insurance, but usually it's said to be cheaper. those nay sayers are few and far between.

[Anastasia13]

i'm not aware that the states have to have alternative systems if they opt out. i could be wrong.

 

here is a guy who basically agreed with me, and in that reputable opinion piece i see no mention of alterantives. and i dont see it on a basic google search.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/when-states-opt-out-of-expanding-medicaid-people-get-shafted/259513/

looking at medical care as a limited resource that must be partitioned is the wrong approach.

and not just for moral reasons.

 

Government financing is limited. How would you make the federal government be able to afford to support more states having Medicaid? Would you cut other expenses or would you raise taxes?

[dairygirl4u2c]

my point is that if we did it right, which is a big if, we would not have to worry about finding a way to pay for it. it would pay for itself within the current tax and spending structures we have in place.

 

i do think we should get into balancing the budget, and acting fiscally responsible, but that is for a different reason. i guess if they don't do it right, we would have to find a way to apy for it.

 

the way i would do it, is by cutting spending and raising taxes.  most experts agree there's really no other way of doing it.

 

we are historically well below what we normally are in terms of a taxes overall. focus, the rich can definitely pay more, cause every year they get proportionally richer and richer. it's more than just a vague commentary, it's more like instead of one percent owning five percent of wealth, it's one percent owning ten, fifteen, etc etc percent of wealth. i would cut loop holes. like i would probably try to increase capital gains, given they are lower than traditional and common taxes. this would prevent people like bill gates from paying less than his secretary does as a percentage of what they earn. i would enact tariffs for people trying to do things in other counties to get out of any cut loop holes. this is all to avoid the 'race to the bottom' economic concept.

while not politically popular, i'd probably increase taxes on anyone above, say, 75000. at least above 150000. when you are getting to that point, it's less about wage labor, and more about some advantage you got (limited number of doctors, by monopoly of the government), and wealth building upon itself phenomenons.

 

i would cut things that are not essential to a natural existence, like head start.

-i would cut race to the top and most educational programs by the federal government. i view most educational programs as as unnecessary, given the market will take care of itself in filling jobs. most people in college shoudn't be there. i would cut most grants to major four year universities, and keep people below a certain grade point and major from attending, until or if they can prove they're able to go to a higher level university or until they pick a better program. science, engineering, maybe health care are what's needed. business is mostly about things that can take care of themselves. i would put some saved money into block grants to states to use for poor schools, and the rest of the money i'd put into paying our debt.

-i would cut majorly into any housing programs like section 8, and any other housing by the federal government. i would use some saved money as block grants to give to states so they can focus on housing in poor areas.
-i'm sure i could find more things to cut.

 

would reform entitelments. i would reform social security, so that it's long term fiscally solvent, mostly by cutting the cap on percentage of income they tax, it would hit the rich more. i would keep that balanced, with increases in retirement age, maybe decreases in benefits, not for the poor, maybe the middle, and at least for those who are rich. basically a means test. i would means test medicare, to prevent people like bill gates getting it, which to my understanding he can currently get.

i would cut military spending to a lower level and then keep it adjusted to inflation. i think it may be possible to go back to prebush era, and adjust to inflation. we are at some of the lowest levels of military spending in GDP historically either way.

i'm sure i could go on and on.

Edited July 3, 2014 by dairygirl4u2c