Medicaid Expansion In Texas Essay

Critically analyze the implications of the state’s decision to opt out of Medicaid expansion on the citizens of the state.

These programs in state level would cater health service on basic levels to rural areas and also the urban areas. However, There must be the same rules and regulations for health care services across the state as well as the country and the access to minority groups to health care services must be fast and continuous in rate. The positives of state flexibility in health care certainly outweigh the negative in that some states have more growth than other states, therefore in these situations, the levels of health care may differ. As population and development grows in a state, the health care industry must grow, thus increasing the need for new technology. "Due to the needs of vulnerable populations and the requirements necessary to make health insurance coverage for them viable, these programs are quite different from standard private health insurance plans (Teitelbaum & Wilensky, 2013)." Private state insurance health care plans have the flexibility of choosing what groups they want to cover and what type coverage they will pay for. Medicaids concern for the needy is ethical and moral, illness or injury doesn't

This is an area where public opinion and public policy match in that they both heavily favor regressive taxation (Brown et al., 2014). Tausanovitch and Warshaw (2013) have developed a means of understanding political preference in comparison with public opinion and public policy to determine whether a government is best serving the desires of its people. This type of tool would be very useful for the state of Texas to use to determine whether the government is serving the desires of its constituents. But, just because public opinion and public policy line up doesn’t mean that the interests of citizens are best served because some groups may still be left out and those groups may have more needs than others. Texas’ current operational stance of “pay-as-you-go” makes for a very tight budget where the government cannot always afford to spend money on things the citizens of Texas may need. For instance, Texas operates its roads with the same “pay-as-you-go” mentality by opting for toll roads (Brown et al., 2014). Toll roads receive some government funding through state issued bonds and the collection of tolls after completion. This system is hardly fair for the citizens who do not use the toll roads but still must subsidize them through taxpayer dollars when the toll revenue does not meet the projected earnings. There are also many more citizens in Texas who live below the poverty line, 18.4% for Texas in comparison to 15.1% for the entire United States (Brown et al., 2014). With a larger proportion of citizens in poverty the burden to the state becomes greater, especially when funding remains low (Insert citation). Texas is just hurting its citizens by not being able to provide as much support and assistance to them as possible. Texas was given the opportunity, along with every other state in the union, to expand its offering of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. A sample of public opinion was obtained

On July 12, 2012 Texas Governor Rick Perry nullified the Obamacare law in Texas. Going along with 26 other states decisions, Texas has refused in growing or expanding Medicaid with Perry stating that he would not bankrupt his state in direct contradiction to the constitution. Rick Perry had already stated his detest with Obamacare when he compared it with the titanic (Clabough, Raven 2012). Now the government was trying to make the states inforce and expand Medicaid, so of course Rick was not going to accept it. However, was it a really bad idea to refuse Obamacare or the best idea?

Rick Perry told Fox news on July 8th, 2012 that Texas wouldn’t be a part of “socializing healthcare,’’ and the only solution to fixing Texas healthcare is to have the Federal Government block grant the state funding to fix the healthcare options instead of giving a ‘’one size fits all, cookie cutter’’ solution (News, 2012). Even state Medicaid Chief, Billy Millwee supports Perry. In an interview to The Texas Tribune he calls Medicaid,

Any decision naturally means there must be at least two options from which to choose. The decisions made concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are certainly no exception. Certainly politics enters into the mix, as does associated costs, availability of medical care, quality of care and numerous other factors. While the idea medical care for all seems quite simple on the surface, the devil is in the details. My father, Dudley Plaisance, worked in healthcare for many years, even co-founding a company whose role was to find sources of funding for patients without resources to pay medical

In 2009 there were 50.7 million people, 16.7% of the population, without health insurance. Americans all over the country are working and yet they still can’t afford to pay the high cost of health insurance for themselves and their families. Under the Affordable Care Act of 2010, which was signed by Obama on March 23, 2010, thirty two million Americans who were previously not eligible for Medicaid may now have the opportunity to be covered. If this act is passed in North Carolina then it will be expanded to cover nearly all of the 1.5 million North Carolinians who are without health insurance. If more Americans are covered under the Medicaid that they need then

One of the main components that had given the Affordable Care Act issues with the uninsured rate in the United States is the growth of the Medicaid program. The Affordable Care Act granted all 50 states billions of dollars in federal financial aid to increase their Medicaid program to insure people who made up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Starting at the beginning of 2016, the federal government reduced its federal aid, covering less than 10 percent of what was promised, which ended up putting more of the responsibility of insuring Medicaid qualified Americans on the states. This caused a fallout of state governors being against ObamaCare, resulting with having 21 states declining any federal funding or expands their

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

The state of Texas has pulled its Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, leaving poor residents with few options for affordable healthcare. Medicaid, a program focused on helping low-income families and individuals receive healthcare, has always been jointly operated by the state and the federal government. But to who this program would be eligible for is entirely up to the state. More conservative states, like Texas for example, strictly reserve Medicaid for only the most severe cases of poverty-stricken families, leaving a large portion of low-income residents uninsured. The Affordable Care Act, a federally mandated reform of Medicaid introduced by President Obama, would provide healthcare for many American citizens in need. Despite being

In a traditionalist state, such as Texas, the financial toll that Medicaid would have on its taxpayers was on the frontlines. The Texas legislature was worried about whether or not its taxpayers would face a tax increase to cover the increased cost of those covered by Medicaid. These taxpayers would inadvertently pay for the hospital bills of those who are uninsured in Texas through an average $1,800 rise in the cost of their premiums (Rapoport, 2012). In support of expanding Medicaid, Texas would receive federal funds in order to ease the cost that accompany the expansion. Since Texas decided not to expand Medicaid, Texas “would be leaving billions and billions of federal dollars on the table” according to Anne Dunkelberg (Rapoport, 2012). Not only does this monetary incentive give Texas an extra push to participate towards expanding Medicaid but it would also help the residents of the state to get insured. Texas legislators understood that this monetary incentive would not fully cover the cost of the newly enrolled Medicaid recipients. In the end, they would have to rework the annual budget and increase taxes in order to cover these extra recipients.

Since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, there has been a continuous debate about the effects it will have on the United States economy. Many people argue that expanding insurance coverage for all people will create crippling cost burdens for the economy and taxpayers. While others believe that the ACA will in fact give the economy a much-needed boost. In 2006 as a measure to improve overall healthcare, the state of Massachusetts implemented the Health Care Insurance Reform Act. This paper looks at the positive and negative effects of the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act (MHRA). Using a literature review of public health studies ranging from 2009-2012, I argue that there are both positive and negative effects of the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform. While the Massachusetts Reform increased health insurance coverage for all citizens and decreased the number of uninsured citizens accessing emergency rooms, it also did very little to decrease already existing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities among minorities and whites in the state of Massachusetts. Understanding the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act may help in the goal of trying to achieve near-universal healthcare. This paper provides an understanding of the missing pieces in the Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Act and constitutes a starting place from which to understand the Affordable Care Act.

Ironically, Texas has the highest number of uninsured citizens in the nation, 6.2 million to be exact. The majority of these citizens are children. According to Goodwyn (2013), “by Texas refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion, which is part of the ACA, the state will leave on the table an estimated 100 billion dollars over the next decade. It is sad to know many citizens in this state will be denied health care by those who already have the best insurance and will never have to worry about being uninsured. In addition, the Texas politicians fail to recognize the need for health care for neither its most vulnerable citizens nor the burden on the Emergency room as well as the rise in healthcare premiums for citizens who maintain health insurance. Landers (2013) reports, “whether they have a good income or a lower one, Texas lag behind much of the nation in access to and quality health care.” States who fail to expand Medicaid will see their funds distributed to states on board with expanding Medicaid.

If Texas expands Medicaid coverage, the largest number of newly eligible Texas would be adults without children. Currently, these individuals are not covered under Medicaid. In addition, parents who have incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL), up from 12% previously. With a 90% federal reimbursement rate going forward, for every $10 of health care services obtained under the program, the State pays $1 and the federal funds pay the other $9. It is estimated that the State would contribute about 15.6 billion, while the federal