Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
I've been a vocal advocate for Medicaid expansion, which is why I co-sponsored legislation to incentivize states like Kansas to expand Medicaid by starting the amount the federal government matches state's investment for expansion at 100 percent.
In fact, entitlement spending on programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security make up 54% of federal spending, and spending is projected to double within the next decade. Medicare is growing by 9% annually, and Medicaid by 8% annually.
The health of Americans must no longer be a commodity to be traded, bought, or sold for profit by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. We must promote medical and Medicaid home models to provide comprehensive care for body, mind, and spirit.
The central question is whether Medicare and Medicaid should remain entitlement programs guaranteeing a certain amount of care, as Democrats believe, or become defined contribution programs in which federal spending is capped, as Republicans suggest.
I have survived ALS to continue my work as a musician and composer for 28 years due to the care I receive through insurance and Medicaid. Without these supports, my family can flatout not manage my care, and my life and career will be in serious jeopardy.
My goal is to have a simple lottery to help our people and solve a decades old problem dealing with our general fund, particularly Medicaid. Let us solve this together and allow the people in your district the right to be a part of the process with a vote.
If we were to expand Medicaid, for every uninsured person we would cover, we'd kick more than one person out of private insurance or remove their opportunity to get private insurance. We're going to have too many people in the cart rather than pulling the cart.
I leave Medicare alone. I create a new system for everyone under 65 where they get health care as a right. It's a basic plan. We roll Medicaid into that, but then we allow people to have choices and get private insurance to supplement that basic government plan.
Our fiat currency is under increasing stress with our large and growing trade deficits. We have a federal deficit that is calculated in the trillions when we take into account the net present value of the future Social Security and Medicaid obligations we are creating today.
If he'd been negotiating Obamacare, Lincoln would have made the infamous 'Cornhusker Kickback' deal - $100 million in Medicaid funds for Nebraska to secure a Senator's vote - in a heartbeat, even if the press howled as it did when Barack Obama agreed to it, forcing its cancellation.
The provision of healthcare in America has been a major policy issue for many decades. From the establishment of Medicare & Medicaid to the Affordable Care Act, we have struggled to find a solution for not just providing access to healthcare - but also becoming a healthier population.
As for my state of Mississippi, our governor, Phil Bryant, said the state could not afford the matching funds required to trigger the federal match for Medicaid expansion. We won't do it even though in 2014, the federal government would pay over $50 for every one dollar Mississippi chips in.
The Medicaid program has been on the books for more than 50 years. The Graham-Cassidy bill proposes a dramatic, sweeping change in the way that program would be allocated and administered. And a program which does need reform, but we need careful reform. And I don't think this bill does that.
If you got problems like unemployment, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and there's a guy that's always been there for you and for your family, then you say 'He's a nice guy. I don't know where he came from or how long he's been here, but Charlie Rangel's the man.' That's what I'm relying on.
The only possible role that I can see for reconciliation would be to make modest changes in the major package to improve affordability, to deal with what share of Medicaid expansion the federal government pays, those kinds of issues, which is the traditional role for reconciliation in health care.
While the Left seems obsessed with increasing taxes and spending even more money, conservatives have focused more heavily on the need for spending restraint and entitlement reform - primarily to preserve and protect the future of the Medicare program. Overlooked in all of this is the future of Medicaid.
Advocacy groups like Families U.S.A. imagine that once Medicaid becomes a middle-class entitlement, political pressure from middle-class workers will force politicians to address these problems by funneling more taxpayer dollars into this flawed program. President Barack Obama's health plan follows this logic.
The American people I talk to don't spend every moment thinking, 'How can I tax my neighbor more than they're being taxed?' They say, 'How can I get a good job? How can my kids get good jobs? How can seniors have a confidence in their future when they know that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupt?'
I'm very, very concerned ultimately, as Medicaid costs increase in my state and most states, it's going to reduce funding for state aid to our public schools, to our higher education institution or higher taxes on the middle class that President Obama said he didn't want to do. And that's exactly where he's headed.
It's nonsense. If, in fact, putting one out of four people in the state of Kentucky on Medicaid created 12,000 jobs and $30 billion in economic prosperity, why wouldn't we put every single person in the state of Kentucky on Medicaid? We'd create 48,000 jobs by that logic and $120 billion worth of economic advantage.
The Medicaid money that right-wingers want to snatch away from Planned Parenthood actually goes toward critical preventative care and treatments for the disadvantaged. So if pro-life activists are genuine in wanting to preserve human lives, waging a war against clinics that help low-income men and women isn't the way to go.
The lower income individuals, under any Republican proposal, at least that I have seen, are real losers in the framework because there is not enough subsidy, not enough assistance, for them to realistically participate in the market. Particularly if you halt or rollback the Medicaid expansion, which is for the lowest income workers.
For one thing, Medicaid is an inefficient if not ineffective platform for redistributing income. It doesn't get the dollars to poor people in forms that they can best use. Dollars are laundered through healthcare benefits that people may not need. It also means propping up a lot of healthcare interests rather than individual Americans.
My comprehensive health care plan will lower costs, strengthen Medicaid, and codify protections for people with pre-existing conditions into state law. That will lift up all working families. But our veterans face unique challenges and they deserve a governor who will deliver them specific solutions to expand access and increase options.
Conservatives are telling elected leaders that expansion of Medicaid comes at a moral - or more overtly, a political - price. At what price are they willing to go back on years of proclaiming 'socialized medicine' as the slippery slope to 'rationing of health care,' 'death panels' and other claims far too gruesome to mention in polite company?
I'm the guy that has written at great length about exactly how we should profoundly reform Social Security. If I were afraid of going after entitlements, I wouldn't have done that, I wouldn't have put Medicaid reform in this budget, I wouldn't have called for the reductions in spending, which people will scream about, but I think are necessary.
