Posted on 06/25/2017 11:00:44 AM PDT by Rusty0604
California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Los Angeles) has blamed the collapse of the state legislature’s effort to socialize the state’s $389.5 billion in healthcare spending on the U.S. Senate Republicans’ restructure of Obamacare, which threatens to “reallocate” over a third of California’s $82 billion of Medicaid funding to other states.
Rendon stated that SB 562 will not go to a floor vote by both houses of the legislature, because it was flawed by not addressing “financing, delivery of care, cost controls, or the realities of needed action by the Trump Administration and voters to make SB 562 a genuine piece of legislation.” But he emphasized that the Republicans’ Obamacare restructuring proposal is an existential threat to the Democrats’ dream of socializing a fifth of California’s GDP.
The Republican Senate’s restructuring of Obamacare does allow federal Medicaid funding to be “block granted” to each state, so California could develop its own socialized medicine benefit program. But the Senate’s restructuring coverts Medicaid funding from an unlimited number of enrollees, to a “per capita cap” funding amount based on the state’s population. Given that California currently has 12.4 percent of the nation’s population and 19.6 percent of the nation’s Medicaid funding, the Senate Obamacare restructuring proposal would “reallocate” 7.6 percent of national Medicaid funding on a per capita basis to the other states.
That means that California would lose 37 percent of its $82.0 billion in Medicaid funding to the other states. That amounts to a California being at risk of losing $30.3 billion in federal funding.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Fair is fair.
how many are illegal aliens?
just wait, the communists will sue over this too.
California needs to break itself up into three parts.
They also may want to start deportations of all the illegals who are sucking up the limited taxpayer resources of the state.
Looks like the sanctuary is about to get considerably more expensive.
A lot. They don’t ask their status nor ask them to prove they qualify for any benefits.
Oh...I’m sure Leonardo and Meryl would be happy to fork over some of their millions to pick up the slack.
Elections have consequences.
One of the downsides though is the parasites may head to other states for their bennies.
This crap has got to stop. Non citizens squeezing citizens out is killing us.
CUT OFF ILLEGALS ON MEDICAID WHO WORK UNDER THE TABLE FOR CASH!
WIN, WIN!
Excellent cut in Medicaid. These communists democrat idiots need a lesson in how communism fails. California has become a real shi! land of fools.
1.4 M IN SOUTHERN KALI ALONE!
According to the article, 34.5% of the 39.1 residents are on MediCal. That’s a lot of money.
The health marketplace needs a pretty significant restructuring, and beyond, we REALLY need fixing the colleges that are supposed to be training the next generation of doctors and instead are churning out nitch specialists and an army of physician assistants and medical technicians.
If illegals contribute so much to our economy, California ought to be the wealthiest gov’t in the world (actually 2nd behind Mexico).
Rendon is being a disingenuous Dim, as expected. He wants to take over a $390 billion California health care system, and complains that cutting a mere $30 billion of outside money will prevent that. How was he expecting to cover the huge increases in spending after socializing medicine if he lets a little 8% cut stop him?
He’s happy someone else gave him an excuse to quit what obviously would have been a disaster.
I read that during peak times, California produces so much solar energy that the power lines can’t handle the load, so California does sell it off. But it is of little benefit to the consumers in California.
The healthcare workers in CA are all unionized with great pay and benefits, as are all the social workers that shuffle paperwork for the MediCal recipients. The doctors and recipients get whatever is left over.
Do I hear 2/3s?
Medicaid should “NEVER” be an allocation based on any state’s GDP.
Am I suggesting that California is not now or ever was getting a share of Medicaid spending that was NOT larger than it should have been?
No.
What first needs to be adjusted is to go back to the Medicaid spending levels, state by state BEFORE Obamacare forced all states into a Medicaid expansion that made all states benefit levels more equal with what had been just the most liberal states. That should be first set as a base.
Second, the funding method then (before Obamacare) and now commits federal dollars to the states, giving each state 50% of what THAT STATE IS SPENDING PER MEDICAID RECIPIENT. The higher a state’s costs AND THE HIGHER MEDICAID BENEFITS IT PROVIDES, then the higher Medicaid expense per recipient it has and the more federal money per recipient it gets.
Third, that funding method needs to be revised so that what the federal funding amount is, to any state, is never more than 50% of the national median Medicaid expense per Medicaid recipients. States that want to adopt more generous Medicaid programs, and/or who do not work to get their state health care spending costs down as much as national median rates, should not be rewarded with what in fact is subsidies from states with less generous and less costly Medicaid expenses.
Then, lastly, whatever adjustments need to be applied to the pre-Obamacare Medicaid spending, need to bring it forward on with the spending formula I just described, which is to use national median Medicaid spending figures as a ceiling above which states are on their own to fund.
That also matches Medicaid spending to Medicaid spending regardless of a state’s GDP. Why give a larger Medicaid “block grant” to a state based only on a state GDP of 10% of the nation’s GDP, while its Medicaid spending is only 5% of all Medicaid spending. That seems no more fair than NOT penalizing states like California that spend more per recipient than the national median.
Funding for Medicaid should bear some relationship to Medicaid spending, but it should reward lean entitlements to it, not greater, and lower costs, not greater, so it should use a benchmark-ceiling, like a national Medium above which states are on their own.
390 billion dollars??? There’s only 33 million or so Californians! What does that work out to? Dammit, if I only had an abacus or something.
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.