Governor Perry's Refusing of 100 Billion in Fed Funds (ACA)

[Eva Damita]

I'm sure you've heard of how Gov. Perry refuses to accept the over 100 billion dollars in federal funds to implement the affordable care act. In the state of Texas, we pay the highest in all America in covering those without health care and our premiums are skyrocketing (mom pays 500 a month!). I feel this is not simply a 'Democrat' or 'Republican' issue - its more of what is right and helping others. Getting into politics can be risky, but I'd just like to know opinions on the issue - if you stand behind Perry , tell why, and if not, also share why and some points.

There are millions of working Texans without health care...what other ways could we solve this problem and increasing premiums without accepting these federal funds (100 billion)?

Thanks for sharing, I volunteer Saturdays, so I'll chime in later this evening. No debates needed, just seeking comments and opinions, and most importantly, enlightenment from those who are for and against his refusal, knowledge is power!

Third Coast Born and Texas Raised!!

E.D

[oldbutstillgoing]

Get all the facts. The federal money runs out in a few years. After that, the state has to fully fund the program. By refusing the money now, the state gets off the hook for far more libiality it can not afford later.

[smoothnsilky]

Cheers to Gov. Perry!

[Eva Damita]

Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

Get all the facts. The federal money runs out in a few years. After that, the state has to fully fund the program. By refusing the money now, the state gets off the hook for far more libiality it can not afford later.

Hence the thread ... I wanted to have ECCIE members like you , share some of the facts. Thanks for your contribution.

[Bestman200600]

Obama only pays for 2 or 3 years, then the state has to pay the rest forever.

[Eva Damita]

AHHHH...I see, so then essentially the plan backfires

[BirdDawg]

...or, It forces states to do a better job of providing health care. You could look at it as giving the states 3 years to get their health care together.

On the other hand, with all the companies like Walmart and Whole foods going to a full staff of part-timers to avoid helping their employees with health care, we're probably screwed anyway...

Now, if anyone can figure out how to get TX, MS and many more backward ass states to do better funding education the next generations might be better off.

[pyramider]

Yeah right, the states will actually use the three years to put together and implement a program.

I thinck you will see governors from both parties rejecting Obama's plan.

[Luvyduvy]

Originally Posted by BirdDawg

...or, It forces states to do a better job of providing health care. You could look at it as giving the states 3 years to get their health care together.

On the other hand, with all the companies like Walmart and Whole foods going to a full staff of part-timers to avoid helping their employees with health care, we're probably screwed anyway...

Now, if anyone can figure out how to get TX, MS and many more backward ass states to do better funding education the next generations might be better off.

You are assuming ObamaCare is the answer and states have 3 years to get it right.

I subscribe to several business RSS feeds - right after the election - and to this day, dozens of companies post daily of layoffs - at first, due to increased health care costs because of OC. Then a couple of those larger companies met with some oddly timed regulatory investigation - and since no company SAYS due to health care costs increasing, but they keep posting job closings.

OC is a 2700 page document that NOBODY who voted on it, read it... leaving the understanding of it to their staff. What a joke... do you know, your health care provider will have access to ALL of your financial records and accounts and can TAKE money from you at their discretion.

[add197531]

How does the government give anyone any money. We are 17 TRILLION in debt. Its exactly like you overdrafting your checking account 170,000.00 the day you are born. We can borrow the money fromn China or some where else. What happens when you cant borrow any more money. IT IS NOT FREE or affordable.

[wellendowed1911]

ok - for those attacking the ACA act tell me what's the alternative? The ACA has some good and bad- don't know why the DEMS and GOP can't keep the good- and take out or amend the bad. Everyone is talking about the cost of the ACA, but look at the cost prior ACA- when someone was sick and went to the ER and had no health insurance- who do you think ate that cost?????
I am not saying ACA was the perfect plan- but the number of insured in this country is ridiculous- Gov Perry has a tough decision- there's good and bad if he takes or doesn't take the money but keep in mind people- a lot of people think the uninsured in Texas or America are the homeless, sick etc- but in reality you have many hard working Texans who have jobs but simply can't afford healthcare.
It's amazing how people are quick to point out how much the ACA will cost, but won't whisper a word on how much the U.S spends on Defense. The U.S spends 700 billion on Defense- China is #2 and spends 150 billion and they actually have a bigger military in terms of manpower. In fact the U.S spends more on defense than the next 12 countries combined and that includes China, Russia, U.K, France, Germany Canada and etc- yet no one wants to think about drastically cutting defense spending- heck the cold war is over- can someone justify why the U.S spends nearly 5 times as much on defense than the #2 Country(China) or why the U.S spends more on defense than the next 12 countries combined?

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by add197531

How does the government give anyone any money. We are 17 TRILLION in debt. Its exactly like you overdrafting your checking account 170,000.00 the day you are born. We can borrow the money fromn China or some where else. What happens when you cant borrow any more money. IT IS NOT FREE or affordable.

You obviously don't understand macro-economics or a fiat monetary system. It is nothing like over drafting your checking account. Most of that money that we "owe" is owed to ourselves and about 1/3rd that isn't owed to ourselves is owed in dollars which we create (most aren't even printed, it is just ones and zeros on a computer at the Fed).

First off, in a fiat monetary system (which Richard Nixon put us on in the first place) if the government doesn't "print" money for the private sector to use, then there is no money. Government spends $1 so private sector has $1 to use and then $.30 is paid in taxes (which are then mostly spent with the private sector). Where the heck did you think the money came from in the first place, a money tree? How do you think the accounting is done for a sovereign currency creator? Oh, you don't know and didn't think about it because you though it was just like your checkbook. It isn't. Period.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

Get all the facts. The federal money runs out in a few years. After that, the state has to fully fund the program. By refusing the money now, the state gets off the hook for far more libiality it can not afford later.

Eva, Old is right about one thing. Get all the facts. The people around here who answer posts like this generally don't know them, are too lazy to look them up, use terrible sources that make up facts to fit an agenda or just make them up themselves. There are some notable exceptions to that, but you have to be careful. Just go look at the AARP site or some other 3rd party that is reputable to find out. The ACA requires states to expand Medicare to cover many more Texans with basic health care. In return the Federal Government covers something like 90 to 100% for several years and then the portion covered by the Federal Government drops back gradually after 10 years to the standard ratio which (if I remember right) was around 70%. The state doesn't pay for all of Medicare now and would never get stuck doing that in the future.

Texas already has the highest percentage of uninsured citizens of any state in the US, and a new study by the US Department of Health and Human Services shows that Texas has the worst healthcare of any state.

Perry's response to this problem? In a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Perry said he will not implement an health insurance exchange (which is allowed under the law and OK, but stupid). Also, he will not expand Medicaid to cover families earning below 133% of the Federal poverty level.


That leaves an estimated 1.5 million Texans eligible for expanded Medicaid coverage without healthcare and leaving an estimated $13 billion in Federal funds to be distributed to other states.) Perry wrote, "I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government."
Instead, he will keep doing what Texas has always done: Refuse to create an affordable health care system, and turn county hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms (the very most expensive way to deliver care) into the first and last line of medical care for many citizens. Unfortunately, as is well documented, that is pretty much the most expensive and ineffective way to provide health care. As the Federal study shows, Texas is classified as "weak" in its preventative care provision. It also costs a lot more. Implementing Medicaid expansion would cost $6 billion a year, but the comptroller's office calculate Texas hospitals currently lay out $10.2 billion in uncompensated care. By rejecting the Medicaid expansion, Perry seemingly will cost the tax payers more. Not so conservative after all.

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Eva, Old is right about one thing. Get all the facts. The people around here who answer posts like this generally don't know them, are too lazy to look them up, use terrible sources that make up facts to fit an agenda or just make them up themselves. There are some notable exceptions to that, but you have to be careful. Just go look at the AARP site or some other 3rd party that is reputable to find out. The ACA requires states to expand Medicare to cover many more Texans with basic health care. In return the Federal Government covers something like 90 to 100% for several years and then the portion covered by the Federal Government drops back gradually after 10 years to the standard ratio which (if I remember right) was around 70%. The state doesn't pay for all of Medicare now and would never get stuck doing that in the future.

Texas already has the highest percentage of uninsured citizens of any state in the US, and a new study by the US Department of Health and Human Services shows that Texas has the worst healthcare of any state.

Perry's response to this problem? In a letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Perry said he will not implement an health insurance exchange (which is allowed under the law and OK, but stupid). Also, he will not expand Medicaid to cover families earning below 133% of the Federal poverty level.


That leaves an estimated 1.5 million Texans eligible for expanded Medicaid coverage without healthcare and leaving an estimated $13 billion in Federal funds to be distributed to other states.) Perry wrote, "I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government."
Instead, he will keep doing what Texas has always done: Refuse to create an affordable health care system, and turn county hospitals, clinics and emergency rooms (the very most expensive way to deliver care) into the first and last line of medical care for many citizens. Unfortunately, as is well documented, that is pretty much the most expensive and ineffective way to provide health care. As the Federal study shows, Texas is classified as "weak" in its preventative care provision. It also costs a lot more. Implementing Medicaid expansion would cost $6 billion a year, but the comptroller's office calculate Texas hospitals currently lay out $10.2 billion in uncompensated care. By rejecting the Medicaid expansion, Perry seemingly will cost the tax payers more. Not so conservative after all.

Austtxjr thanks so much for providing that info- I like the fact that you mentioned in the current status quo Texas has 10.2 Billion dollars that doesn't get paid because of the care for the uninsured- once again those who are against ACA what is the the alternative? As I stated before I don't think ACA is perfect- but it's a start- for those who think we should repeal the ACA tell me who should be paying for the 10.2 billions dollars that the uninsured leaves behind?

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The ACA has some good and bad- don't know why the DEMS and GOP can't keep the good- and take out or amend the bad.

It was a Republican plan to begin with in the 1990's when Dems wanted to go to a single payer system under Clinton with Hillary pushing healtcare (remember that?) and the Republicans, Pharma and big healthcare blocked it. Romney implemented almost exactly the same thing in Massachusetts which is where they got most of ACA.

Plain FACT - Republicans created the plan and were for it before they were against it (like so many other things with them lately).

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I am not saying ACA was the perfect plan- but the number of uninsured in this country is ridiculous-

It's not, but it is a start and if we are sensible we will amend it and make it better based on data as it gets implemented. Companies need healthy workers and we pay twice as much for health-care as the next civilized nation who has high quality health-care and we are about 35th on the list in quality of health-care. Yes, if you have great insurance or lots of money you can get great health-care in the U.S. but otherwise, not always so much.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

It's amazing how people are quick to point out how much the ACA will cost, but won't whisper a word on how much the U.S spends on Defense. The U.S spends 700 billion on Defense- China is #2 and spends 150 billion and they actually have a bigger military in terms of manpower. In fact the U.S spends more on defense than the next 12 countries combined and that includes China, Russia, U.K, France, Germany Canada and etc- yet no one wants to think about drastically cutting defense spending- heck the cold war is over- can someone justify why the U.S spends nearly 5 times as much on defense than the #2 Country(China) or why the U.S spends more on defense than the next 12 countries combined?

Agreed. There is full documentation for the last year quantified, 2008, that we spent $296 Billion on DoD cost overruns for weapons systems. That was about 47% of the entire DoD budget of $536 Billion that year. Not on soldiers salaries, not on housing, bases, bullets, veterans benefits or soldier's health-care. It went to big defense contractors to pay for cost overruns on weapons systems. Basically, corporate welfare and malfeasance. Eisenhower (another Republican) warned us of this in his farewell speech.

BTW, that $296 Billion alone is close to $6000 per person for the 50 Million US citizens who are uninsured for health-care. That is far more than enough to buy them very good insurance since they are all under 65 and mostly in pretty good health, not to mention that if you put them on Medicare, it is the most cost effective preventive health-care insurance in the country.