Skip to main content

View Diary: States stand to lose a lot more than Medicaid funding by refusing the expansion (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If all government revenue is "money that belonged (0+ / 0-)

    to the citizens in the first place," and is thus somehow illegitimate, then I guess the government of, by, and for the people would never be allowed to spend a penny. You might as well forget about Democracy in that case, because there can be no nation without some government, and no government without some money. You certainly cannot have a military, or police force, or education system without money. So, I'd suggest pulling your head out of this losing argument.

    ...and, yes, if you READ, it is very clear that states SPEND a lot right now for treating people in the ER who cannot pay but would DIE without treatment. I know many right wingers would rather see dead people in the streets that pay for Medicaid...heck, they probably would not even want to pay to remove the bodies from the street. But, if states didn't have to pay for so much expensive ER care, then, yes, it pretty damn obvious that they would save money over what they currently spend.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 01:46:27 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I did not question the legitimacy.. (0+ / 0-)

      .. of taxation and government spending... nor the need for Medicaid..

      I'm just pointing out the inane-ness of suggesting that more of it results in any sort of net-savings.

      These conversation deserve that level of honesty ..

    •  As in.. (0+ / 0-)
      But, if states didn't have to pay for so much expensive ER care, then, yes, it pretty damn obvious that they would save money over what they currently spend.
      The money they spend now, would spend, will spend, comes from taxpayers.... Any help they get from  the feds comes from the same tax payers..  What difference does it make if it goes from a citizen straight to the state.. or from the same citizen, to the state, via feds ?? There are no savings...
      •  Preventative care is cheaper than ER care. There (0+ / 0-)

        is one form of savings this provides. Second, it cuts down on medical billing and paperwork. Third, the article was talking about saving TO STATES. So, shifting some of these costs to the federal government would be a savings to them, even without the substantial systemic savings of moving people away from catastrophic ER care. Not only would all tax payers benefit from this, but medical insurance premiums are estimated to go down by up $1,200 per year per family if you could eliminate the cost of having to pay for the 17% of the population that is uninsured relying on uncompensated ER care for their health crises.

        Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

        by tekno2600 on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 07:43:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site