Posted on 03/04/2013 6:32:39 PM PST by neverdem
Reuters reports a hitch in Governor Rick Scott’s plans to expand Medicaid coverage, as directed by the ObamaCare plan he once vowed to oppose:
On the eve of convening of the 2013 session, the House Select Committee on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rejected the expansion. A Senate counterpart committee postponed consideration of the issue, which is sure to be one of the biggest controversies of the session.
Scott, a Republican who bitterly fought President Barack Obama’s national healthcare plan as a candidate and in his first two years as governor, stunned conservative supporters on February 20 when he endorsed a three-year expansion of Medicaid, provided the federal government picks up the full cost for the first three years as promised.
“There’s definitely a fight between the governor and the (state) legislature over this. The Republicans in the legislature are much more fiscally conservative than his actions have shown him to be,” said Susan MacManus, a Tampa-based political scientist at the University of South Florida.
Republican legislative leaders have been openly hostile toward the plan, emphasizing that state lawmakers will make the final decision in drawing up a budget for next fiscal year.
The conservative James Madison institute released a statement partly quoted by Reuters, but reproduced here in full:
The House made the right decision today to not draft a committee bill expanding Medicaid under PPACA provisions. Many Members expressed valid concerns that this could hurt the people that it is aimed at helping. State leaders should focus on providing more access to quality care — expanding a program that is inefficient in this effort is not a way to do that.
Additionally, in our recent poll of 600 registered Florida voters more than 63 percent said they are wary that the federal government would keep the funding level promises made, and clearly many House Members share this worry. If history is any indicator, costs of such programs are often underestimated and there has been examples of the federal government going back on their promise before. These issues cannot be ignored.
Well, those issues shouldn’t be ignored, but a lot of people seem intent on doing so, with eyes firmly fixed on that pot of federal subsidy gold. In a previous policy brief on Medicaid expansion, the James Madison Institute expressed skepticism that promises of 100 percent federal funding for three years, followed by 90 percent indefinitely, will stand the test of time: “Of course, all of these projections are based on the assumption that the federal government — currently plagued by record deficits and alarm over the growing national debt — will keep its pledges with regard to matching funds.”
Fueling this skepticism is the Institute’s description of Medicaid programs across the nation as “plagued by bureaucracy, ballooning expenditures, poor access, and low quality care.” And that could lead to a pointedly counter-productive outcome:
As Medicaid costs explode, regulators and legislators at- tempt to restrict costs by reimbursing providers less and less. Low reimbursements severely impede the access of Medicaid beneficiaries to timely and appropriate high quality care. Some studies even suggest that Medicaid patients receive worse care than the uninsured.
A costly expansion of means-tested eligibility for Medicaid will not rectify the deeply-rooted problems with the program. In fact expanding the program will not only expand these problems and impact more people, but it will likely put more strain on the system and could very possibly worsen the already grave access problems and poor quality care that Medicaid patients encounter.
That sounds like a much more likely outcome than the government that can’t stand a 2.3 percent spending cut happily ladling out billions of dollars to cover cost overruns, long into a future where mandatory entitlement spending and debt service will soon consume the entire current budget baseline.
Dodged a bullet ping
Thanks for the ping Neverdem
Our Gov Scott had better get a grip and understand it was conservatives which put him there and stop this nonsense of trying to be a Crist, Bush and giving all teachers a raise when we have no mponey to appease them or this medicaid crap.
Infact get rid of medicaid and it might stop the likes of the likes of those people which moved to our neighborhood last year, rent a place, who are from NY, claim food stamps, welfare, EBT, Medicaid and anything else they can rake in because they don;t like working and have kids who they do not like paying for.
Yes My kids know of them and how they boast about how they get freebies since moving here.
great news, but is this a done deal?
We all want to help low income and disabled people get good medical care.
But expanding Medicaid without assurance it would be fully paid for would be doing them a disservice - as well as FL taxpayers who would on the hook if the promised federal funding failed to materialize.
Its convenient that there’ll be 100% federal funding while Obama is in office. In three years time, his successor can revoke the 90% commitment or Congress can cancel it. This is no time to embrace the Federal Siren promise Medicaid has an assured future.
The FL House wisely remembered the old lesson that life doesn’t come with guarantees. Not even a Medicaid expansion offer.
“pink slip Rick” takes on a whole new meaning
We have a lot of retired/medicare citizens here in Florida.
Much as I detest the ponzi scheme the feds set up, I detest even more changing the rules for the elderly people least able to adapt.
Medicaid recipients will not get their “free entitlements” by cutting the Medicare benefits of those who worked their entire lives and paid in advance for their old age healthcare.
Rule #1: Don’t open your mouth until you’ve got the votes!!!
Excellent.
The medicaid / welfare / moocher crowd doesn’t vote Republican anyway.
NOt one reason in the world to like floriduh Govenor scott.
Proud of my legislature though.
thought the same actually.
Do Medicaid recipients get a longer grace period before their “earned income” tax refunds for monies not paid are devoured by mandatory minimum insurance payments?
What program pays for illegal aliens to be given expensive medical care, like kidney dialysis, while our own citizens are denied disability when they lose limbs from accident or diseases?
No, we don't ALL “want to help low income and disabled people get good medical care”, when we who pay taxes and insurance premiums can't afford to pay for marginal medical care for our selves and our families.
Free dangerous hormone pills for an elective “birth controll” method, but NO free insulin for mandatory and life maintaining common drug.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.