A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Alighieri who wrote (36160)	4/24/2014 11:03:27 AM
From: i-node	of 42652

>> Georgia saw a 1.4 percent increase, which works out to 23,947 new enrollees between the July-September 2013 average and February 2014 numbers. Kansas saw 17,295 more enrollees, or 4.3 percent. The 477,000 who aren't getting insured this year would have cost a lot less. The term "cost" is tossed around so lightly these days it means everything and therefore means nothing. The 477,000 who aren't getting Medicaid this year have a cost of zero for the Medicaid system. At $5,000/year that's 2.4 Billion that isn't going to be spent -- and 5K/each is probably low. One can argue about whether it would have been federal or state dollars, but the "cost" is the same either way. Small states, like mine, yours and the ones in the article, simply cannot afford to add the burden of covering even 10% of the Medicaid cost. These states understand unfunded mandates because we've seen them before and they are never a good thing. This is no exception.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next