Skip to main content

View Diary: New Arkansas Medicaid waiver tests limits of Obamacare goals (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think all exchanges will be required... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    splashy, GayHillbilly, annan

    ....to carry a national not-for-profit insurance package, so that might help lower costs, though not to medicaid levels.

    (Frankly, I think the not-for-profit may eventually become the de facto public option.)

    "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

    by Bush Bites on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 10:28:29 PM PST

    •  That's what I'm hoping we will see (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crimson Slip, Dabb, GayHillbilly

      A non-profit option which will be run by the Feds.

      It would help the poor in Arkansas get separated from the crappy Arkansas government more, especially since the Tea Party Republicans have taken over.

      They are better off taking their chances with the Feds, hands down!

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Sat Mar 02, 2013 at 10:43:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

        If anyone trusts these extreme radical cheap-labor conservatives running Arkansas right now, then they aren't looking close enough. Senator Jason Rapert (@jasonrapert and @rapertsenate on twitter and Senator Jason Rapert for Arkansas Senate on FB - if you want to give him a shout) is a nasty piece of work. He is "taking back Arkansas for the Lord" and a true snake in the grass. He's said on twitter that they are not doing medicaid expansion but rather medicaid detraction. It would not surprise me if Arkansas does away with the whole thing when the state has to start paying. These are cruel, nasty people. They only care about a fetus and born citizens be damned. Yes, splashy, Arkansans are MUCH better off with the Feds than these fanatics.

        I invite all of you to take a look at Arkansas politics by visiting Mr. Rapert's pages. But he does have fault. He can't take criticism.

        •  But Medicaid aids fetuses too (0+ / 0-)

          by providing health care for low-inocme pregnant women.

          •  They are forced birthers (0+ / 0-)

            They really don't care about the fetuses. It's all about hurting girls/women as much as possible, so they will stay with abusive violent men that will use and abuse them.

            They likes them some abused girls/women, yes they do! Teaches them who's boss!

            Buncha creeps.

            Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

            by splashy on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 12:31:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Why do you think this? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass, ferg, wsexson
      I think all exchanges will be required... (1+ / 0-)
      ....to carry a national not-for-profit insurance package,
      If Not For Profits were the answer, by the way, we wouldn't have a problem.  We've had Not For Profit HMO's in this country for over 60 years.

      Setting that aside, there is no national Not For Profit being set up.  States were given the option of starting up Not For Profits, and some Federal funds were made available for that purpose.

      At the end of last year, those funds were pulled as part of the "fiscal cliff" puppet show.  States that had not yet set up a Not For Profit will now have to go it alone, a proposition few can afford.

      Not For Profit boards, stacked with the husbands of heal industry CEO's and the wives of politicians, are not equipped to solve the same problems as government agencies.

      If they were, we never would have started Medicare.  We would have just created a "national non-profit", as the enemies of the concept of governance would have preferred.

      income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

      by JesseCW on Sun Mar 03, 2013 at 02:15:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Blue Cross was "not for profit" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GayHillbilly, ferg, cocinero, wsexson

      unless you count the salaries of its top managers, the lavish new buildings, the lobbyists, etc. etc.

      "Not for profit" covers a lot of ground and doesn't necessarily mean a lean stripped-down public service organization.

      •  Yes, "not for profit" (0+ / 0-)

        just means that don't need to save a little bit of gravy for share--holders.

        In hundreds of small and midsize cities across the country — from Stamford, Conn., to Marlton, N.J., to Oklahoma City — the American health care market has transformed tax-exempt “nonprofit” hospitals into the towns’ most profitable businesses and largest employers, often presided over by the regions’ most richly compensated executives.  link
    •  Non profits killed in fiscal cliff deal (0+ / 0-)
      When Congress struck a deal to avert the fiscal cliff, it also dealt a quiet blow to President Obama’s health overhaul: The new law killed a multibillion-dollar program meant to boost health insurance competition by funding nonprofit health plans.Wapo

      No courage = No $$$ for Dems

      by MO Blue on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 09:53:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (73)
  • Bernie Sanders (50)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • Culture (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • Climate Change (30)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Republicans (27)
  • Science (27)
  • Media (26)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Law (23)
  • Labor (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (19)
  • International (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site