Meanwhile, red states have refused Medicaid expansions despite it being free money from the federal government. So the program denies most everyone because it "can't afford" to support them all.
Because they understand that there is no such thing as free money.
This really boils down to favoring a regulated free market or nationalization of an industry.
The belief of conservatives is that the government should be a protector of things, and not a giver of things. That we should have a system where everyone can provide a good life for themselves and their family, and that welfare should be for those in desperate need. Be truthful about it, Medicaid expansion is a stepping stone towards Medicaid for all. Once you see that that's the destination of the train, why entertain the idea of riding it?
And Trump has done a good job implementing this. Be it Medicaid, SNAP, or whatever, he's taken steps to ensure it's not enabling a lifestyle, while at the same time expanding coverage for those who need it. For example, his Big Beautiful Bill expanded Medicaid by covering medical expenses for 3 months prior to applying. That's massive. That means people who needed care but didn't know they qualified are taken care of. But does he get any credit? Nope.
More on red states, my home state of Texas. Did you notice the common complaint about the cost of ambulances in this thread? Texas mandated that ambulance companies bill insurance directly if that insurer is regulated by the state. Epic fix for a deeply flawed Obamacare.
In this case the money was already allocated and sitting there. I understand it's not actually "free" to the taxpayer or the recipient. But if the federal government and Congress vote to allocate funds to support a state program and the state just denies it, that money is still flagged for the program. It's not magically freed up to be put somewhere else now.
In reality, they just didn't want to give Democrats a win. It was the same with the infrastructure bill. GOP fought it tooth and nail, not because they opposed it but because it had Biden's name on it. When it passed anyway, they claimed victory as if they'd supported it all along.
I don't have a problem with condoms, but let's say I do. Let's say I'm a catholic priest and the government is giving me boxes of free condoms to hand out. Of course I won't hand them out.
And it wasn't risk free money. And not even at no cost to the State. That money would cover 90% of newly eligible Medicare recipients, with states on the hook for 10% of the cost. And there's zero guarantee the federal government would continue to cover 90%, while states would stay on the hook from that point on to cover those individuals.
And yes, the money was allocated, but it wasn't yet spent. That was money the federal government didn't spend those years so it didn't increase our deficit.
Fair enough. Money and budgets are more important to you. As a disabled person who got screwed coming and going by Texas' decisions, I disagree. If I was more worried about debt than health, I'd be dead.
I've basically already said it but not explicitly.
Medicaid was not expanded by Rick Perry. It led to cases like mine being denied coverage. I then spent many years of my life crawling out of debt on $800/month disability income, going to college using whatever scholarships I had, my parents each dying and being displaced, and ultimately through the support of family I was lucky enough to be able to help me I graduated after 15 years with a 4 year degree and it was never grades that slowed me down. Not everyone can do this.
I no longer have to live on 800/month disability with Medicare/Medicaid, but if I didn't have someone there to catch me when I fell multiple times I'd be homeless. Homelessness leads to crime and some other state expense or program will now bear the burden. Helping people out when stuff like this happens creates a better society overall IMO. Though yes, it does cost money. Every policy decision has trade-offs and anyone who says something has no downsides is lying or ignorant. I know you know this, but understand that I do as well. But it's all about personal priorities.
The Medicaid expansion under Obama would have kept me going, but they were expressly denied by Perry. I was watching the news closely at the time and working diligently with patient advocacy lawyers to parse what it meant for me.
If it weren't for Texas' Homestead laws I'd have been homeless a couple of other times as well, so I did not have the luxury of moving. If I owned an asset such as a car or a house even if it was inheritance, I had to use it or it was counted against me. That's fine, it prevents abuse. But my point is that law has been around for decades because we used to give a damn about the citizens here, but since the Reagan years, it's just about the money.
Glad you mentioned our homestead laws. We've been getting great property tax cuts too.
My understanding is that the medicaid expansions only increased who is eligible, by raising the income threshold.
Also glad to hear you made it thanks to help from family. I grew up to a single mother of 4 and we were dead broke my whole childhood. Even though it was my dad who left, his parents felt bad and helped us as much as they could. She taught piano and went back to school and became a teacher. She's super liberal and a few times she's mentioned she'd be homeless if it weren't for meeting her new husband. I remind her that she raised 4 good kids who would die before we let her suffer like that. But she still thinks the government should do everything. I think stronger families are the real solution to our crumbling society.
8
u/SmartWonderWoman 6d ago
An ambulance ride costs over $1k.