Arguments Against Medicare

The analysis of positive and negative impacts of Medicare that you made, I believe, were comprehensive and interesting to see with your background in health care. I agree Medicare has increased insurance beneficiaries in the elderly population which is a positive influence. This also includes the coverage of those disabled and with ALS and end stage renal disease. The impact that Medicare has made on the families of these particular populations is the greatest impact of all. Medicare as you stated, has its flaws and one of the primary negative impacts I believe there to be is the services that are not covered such as vision and dental. The major of individuals had a payroll deduction while they were able to work and now that the insurance is

Medicaid is a social health care program that covers nearly 60 million Americans, including children, pregnant women, seniors, parents and individuals suffering with disabilities. Medicaid is the biggest source of funding for health related services and medical needs for the people with low income in the United States. This program is funded jointly by the state and federal level governments, but it is the state’s responsibility to manage this program. The Medicaid program is not a required program that states have to use, but all 50 states have implemented this program. With the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and its passing in 2010, the ACA unveiled its plans to expand Medicaid eligibility to nearly all low-income adults as an addition to the other groups that fall into the Medicaid eligibility. The Medicaid program had “many gaps in coverage for adults” because it was only restricted to the low income individuals and other people with needs in their own specific category. In the past, the majority of the states who had adults that did not have children dependent on those parents were not eligible for Medicaid. These low income adults without dependent children would be without medical insurance assistance before the ACA was introduced. Medicaid is now available to all Americans under the age of 65 whose family income is at or below the federal poverty guideline of “133 percent or $14,484 for an individual and $29,726 for a family of four in 2011” (NSCL).

The subject matter of universal health care is important because the current system of health care in America is economically and morally wrong. The United States spends more than double on health care and still millions are left without coverage. During the Progressive Era, AALL (American Association of Labor Legislation) proposed a bill which provided coverage to those making less than $1200 and would be provided services such as physicians, hospitals, and nurse which would be shared between workers, employers, and the state. This system was opposed by the AFL (American Federation of Labor) because it felt this movement would weaken unions. Furthermore, Bill Clinton proposed a system of universal health care which would provide health coverage

The potential opportunity for the state to opt into the Medicaid expansion is the fact that low-income citizens will be insured. The decision of the state to opt into the Medicaid expansion will also impact the state’s budget, and this is the main challenge (Frakt, 2013). The government will cover majority of all the cost even as Medicaid expansion provides coverage for the low-income uninsured citizens. Expansion of the Medicaid is also a broken system that has poor outcomes, not severe federal strings, high inflation and no incentive for the personal responsibility of the citizens who

Medicaid has help many qualified Americans who were historically unable to access health care. At the same time, it has raised questions and controversies as how efficient is the plan overall. Various research studies were conducted and contradicting results were presented. According to Paradise and Garfield (2013), some said that having no coverage at all is better that having a Medicaid coverage. On the other hand, some expressed that Medicaid paved a way to improved health due to increased access to services that provides prevention of diseases, health maintenance, and effective treatment (Paradise & Garfield, 2013). As for me I am in favor of the later, health care access for all. It comes down to equitable distribution of resources

Throughout the early 1980’s and 1990’s the Federal Medicaid program was challenged by rapidly rising Medicaid program costs and an increasing number of uninsured population. One of the primary reasons for the overall increase in healthcare costs is the

In March 2010, one of the most controversial bills in modern history was signed into law by President Barack Obama. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act expanded the 1965 bill passed under President Johnson that created Medicare and Medicaid (“LBJ Presidential Library,” 2015). While the Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare” as it has been dubbed by the media, has many components, the focus here is the expansion of Medicaid. Obamacare sought to expand Medicaid to cover those who earn too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid, but not enough to afford employer-provided health care. These people are said to be in the “coverage gap” (“Obamacare Medicaid expansion,” 2015). While only 32 states have adopted Obamacare, we should advance a policy encouraging the remaining states to expand existing coverage by extending the period of federal government cost-sharing an additional five years. Doing so would give states previously refusing the cost sharing a second chance to opt-in. This expansion would save money for the states from some of the rising cost of healthcare, and fulfill our moral duty to care for uninsured Americans.

As a health policy analyst for the state of Texas which has not elected to expand Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and now has been notified that the state leaders have taking into reconsideration their recent decision during an upcoming session in order that we begin gathering data on the benefits of adapting the Medicaid expansion. As a health policy analyst our goal is to assure data quality, interpret data, and discover new information in the data. Medicaid is a federal and state partnership with shared authority that is a health insurance program for low-income individuals, children, their parents, the people with disabilities and the elderly. Nationally Medicaid covers health care for over 72 million people. Even though participation is optional, all 50 states participate in the Medicaid program. However, Medicaid benefits eligibility varies widely among the states all states must meet federal minimum requirements, but they have options for expanding Medicaid beyond the minimum federal guideline (http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/affordable-care-act-expansion.aspx). In this research we will identify the state of interest which is Texas, compare the state’s decision, determine the alternate approaches to expanding access and provide a recommendation on whether or not the state should opt in to the Medicaid expansion.

Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, the population of people with access to health care insurance has increased by millions. Medicaid expansion has increased access to health care services for millions but the amount of physicians that accept Medicaid as payment has not increased to cover the increase in patients.

Across the United States, it was projected that over 11 million people would be accepted into Medicaid after the expansion of

Medicaid initially established that each state is responsible for designing their medical costs to pay medical care for the poor. Also, Medicaid created as a voluntary program for each state; they have to have the choice to participate. For one thing, because of the rising costs of healthcare, it has been difficult to bring Medicaid recipients into the “mainstream” of United States (U.S.) medical care. Donald R. Barr notes, “between 1975 and 1989, the cost of the Medicaid program increased by an average of 11.9 percent per year before adjusting for inflation” (172). The rising costs of healthcare are necessary for each state to determine if it is beneficial for them to participate in the Medicaid program. As the government level of payment is determined by each state economic condition. For instance, a state with lower per capita income will receive more government funding. A state with higher per capita income receives less reimbursement for program costs. Therefore, on December 31, 2010, many states continued to experience budget cuts. As a result on August 2010, Congress increased reimbursement rates through June 2011.

Medicaid financing has become an increasing issue for most states throughout the years. The Government Accountability Office (2010) reported that forty-seven of the states as well as the District of Columbia had concerns regarding the sustainability of their program. Around 16% of the state budgets go towards Medicaid each year, totaling around $183 billion (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2015). A significant share of vulnerable populations relies on Medicaid for medical coverage. Rocco, Gellad, & Donohue (2015) estimated that of the

People getting taxed on their hard earned money may be going to people who need it or to those who do not. The Healthcare reform law is not a reasonable solution for people who cannot afford or do not have private health insurance.

The arguments for/against ObamaCare health care are extensive. This giant law has so many parts that the average American does not even know what is really in this bill. The main supporters argue the bill is constitutional. They believe it is constitutional on three different "powers" of congress under commerce/interstate activity, the necessary and proper clause and the taxing and general welfare clause.

In Paul Krugman’s article “Zombies against Medicare”, he writes about Medicare turning 50. The thesis of this article is “Ronald Reagan warned that it would destroy American freedom; it didn’t, as far as anyone can tell. What it did do was provide a huge improvement in financial security for seniors and their families, and in many cases it has literally been a lifesaver as well,” (Krugman 1). Medicare has helped many people since it went into effect. His opinion is shared by many people, especially the people that Medicare has helped. The majority of Krugman’s article is about former presidents wanting to end Medicare. He uses very bold statements while writing about other people’s arguments. About Jeb Bush’s argument, he says, “a lame attempt