Arkansas, Missouri, But Not Oklahoma?

Dec 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Okie Funk

Oklahoma's bordering neighbors Arkansas and Missouri are planning to expand their Medicaid programs under new guidelines in the Affordable Care Act, making sure thousands more of their residents have health insurance.

Comments
1 - 10 of 10 Comments Last updated Dec 15, 2012

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#1 Dec 11, 2012
Their taxes will have to go up after the first two years to pay for it. Then it will SUPRISE.

Since: Jul 12

Oklahoma City, OK

#2 Dec 12, 2012
Let's Be Ambiguous: The Trilogy.

“Swimming With Ignorant Snarks”

Since: Nov 10

Great White Snark

#3 Dec 13, 2012
au contraire wrote:
Their taxes will have to go up after the first two years to pay for it. Then it will SUPRISE.
The voice of ignorance, misinformation, disinformation and intellectual laziness speaks.....Okies have always been trail blazers and inovators...waaaaaaaaaaaaaa

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#4 Dec 13, 2012
Snark Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
The voice of ignorance, misinformation, disinformation and intellectual laziness speaks.....Okies have always been trail blazers and inovators...waaaaaaaaaaaaaa
If I wanted to hear stupid mindless chatter, I would have pulled the string on my Obammy Mammy Baby Doll.
Chuck Hays

Colcord, OK

#6 Dec 13, 2012
au contraire wrote:
Their taxes will have to go up after the first two years to pay for it. Then it will SUPRISE.
As I understand it, the federal government will pay 100% for the first two years, and 90% each year thereafter.

“Swimming With Ignorant Snarks”

Since: Nov 10

Great White Snark

#7 Dec 13, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>If I wanted to hear stupid mindless chatter, I would have pulled the string on my Obammy Mammy Baby Doll.
What's it like being a racist bigoted moron and not even know it?....you are a credit to your species, whatever that might be.

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9 Dec 13, 2012
Chuck Hays wrote:
<quoted text>
As I understand it, the federal government will pay 100% for the first two years, and 90% each year thereafter.
It is also important to emphasize that the total cost (federal and state) of the Medicaid expansion— which, based on CBO and CMS estimates, will likely be between $400 billion and $500 billion over the first seven years—will be shouldered by taxpayers. Although some state policymakers may think that the Medicaid expansion is a relatively good fiscal deal for their states because the federal government will pick up at least 90 percent of the cost for newly eligible individuals, taxpayers in their states will face higher tax bills as a result, not just for the state costs but for the federal costs as well. Furthermore, the additional federal taxes or borrowing needed to fund this expansion will inevitably dampen economic activity in the states.

Under the new law, beginning with FY 2014 (October 1, 2013), federal DSH funding will be reduced each year. Under the plan, if a state chooses to go with Obamacare, the cost will be controlled through Washington with the states paying more each year.

“Swimming With Ignorant Snarks”

Since: Nov 10

Great White Snark

#10 Dec 13, 2012
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>It is also important to emphasize that the total cost (federal and state) of the Medicaid expansion— which, based on CBO and CMS estimates, will likely be between $400 billion and $500 billion over the first seven years—will be shouldered by taxpayers. Although some state policymakers may think that the Medicaid expansion is a relatively good fiscal deal for their states because the federal government will pick up at least 90 percent of the cost for newly eligible individuals, taxpayers in their states will face higher tax bills as a result, not just for the state costs but for the federal costs as well. Furthermore, the additional federal taxes or borrowing needed to fund this expansion will inevitably dampen economic activity in the states.
Under the new law, beginning with FY 2014 (October 1, 2013), federal DSH funding will be reduced each year. Under the plan, if a state chooses to go with Obamacare, the cost will be controlled through Washington with the states paying more each year.
I didn't see anything about Universal (single payer) healthcare that everyone in the civilized world has but us of course...check how much better treatment for less $ then get back with me...the only reason we don't have Universal healthcare in the US is due to right wing corporate sympathizers and Jesus Freaks.

You won't honestly research anything because you have nothing to stand on.

Since: Jul 12

Oklahoma City, OK

#11 Dec 14, 2012
Snark Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't see anything about Universal (single payer) healthcare that everyone in the civilized world has but us of course...check how much better treatment for less $ then get back with me...the only reason we don't have Universal healthcare in the US is due to right wing corporate sympathizers and Jesus Freaks.
You won't honestly research anything because you have nothing to stand on.
That's not necessarily true. Most hospitals in other countries are government-operated facilities on government funding. Our healthcare system depends on third-part insurance and medical facilitation. The medical facilities here don't compete much, either. Basically, when you need to get to a hospital, you either attend the one your healthcare covers, or you attend the nearest facilities. Because hospitals don't participate in a consumer-based competition like other industries, they can charge premiums for specialized services. These same premiums apply to funding from the government, and they are limited very loosely. As you connect all hospitals and insurance systems related to the medical field in one federalized system, you either have to buy out and employ the clinics and medical facilities, or you have to heavily limit premiums and services in payment increments to the doctors or other staff charging them.

The United States isn't doing either of those. This healthcare plan is frustratingly complex, and still patchy as hell.

Of course, we are ones to enforce it regardless, because – y'know – we don't mind inefficiencies in the taxation process.

If it weren't for all of the die-hard libertards and the down-home conservative outlanders, we could have recreated this healthcare plan in a monetarily logical fashion.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#12 Dec 15, 2012
Missouri Dr's are CRAP !!!!!. I have lived here 3 years and HATE the lack of medical care. I plan on relocating to a better area of the country after New Year. STAY OUT OF MO if you are SICK. South West MO is the PITS. Mercy Drs are QUACKS and ST Johns are not much better.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pizza chain sued over healthcare for gay couples 12 hr Quest 13
Many kids fall through gaps in dental care Wed michael-blum 12
Wash. state residents get more health insurance... Wed Boone 1
Portland Oregon Employee Benefits Consultants n... Wed Boone 1
California: Insurers must cover elective abortions Aug 26 Here Is One 3
Obamacare: New California rates increase only 4.2% Aug 18 Judas Priest 82
It's a jungle out there: Animals in campaign ads Aug 15 Fed Up 3
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Health Insurance People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••