Medicaid: 60% of Americans DON'T support reductions

[alhoon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110525/...hcare_medicaid

"
"Kaiser's survey found that 60 percent of people "would prefer to keep Medicaid as it is, with the federal government guaranteeing coverage and setting minimum standards for benefits and eligibility."
Only 13 percent supported major reductions in Medicaid spending in order to drive down the U.S. deficit, and 30 percent supported minor reductions." "

What is Medicaid? What's the difference from Medicare?

I was led to believe that Medicare is unpopular. How can it be unpopular if Medicaid (assuming it's part of Medicare) is popular?

[lordyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

the cost of it is growing to fast. the status que is not acceptible for the future of that program.

[(s)AINT]

Why do people complain about the cost and the legality of it? It is the governments responsibility to provide its citizens with health care. It is up to the citizens weather to use it or not - but you cannot take it away. It is a fundamental right of all citizens to have health care. Same with social security and other welfare programs.

This isn't the ing 1800's - it is the 2000's.

[alhoon]

Why do people complain about the cost and the legality of it? It is the governments responsibility to provide its citizens with health care. It is up to the citizens weather to use it or not - but you cannot take it away. It is a fundamental right of all citizens to have health care. Same with social security and other welfare programs.

This isn't the ing 1800's - it is the 2000's.

Actually, that's a leftwing argument without any real suggestion in it, other than "WTF? Let the goverment find the money"

[Knight_of_Ni]

Maybe because if no reforms are taken the government will bankrupt itself? Nah, let's just pretend that nothing is happening.

All the debates about social programs reveals one bad thing about democracy. Any politician who suggests major cuts would be commiting political suicide. So until a large portion of the populace recognizes the negatives aspects of being trillions of dollars in debt and is also willing to sacrifice or reduce some programs, there will never be a reform that will be able to effectively cut spending by a significant amount.

[MathiasOfAthens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

the cost of it is growing to fast. the status que is not acceptible for the future of that program.

Why do people complain about the cost and the legality of it? It is the governments responsibility to provide its citizens with health care. It is up to the citizens weather to use it or not - but you cannot take it away. It is a fundamental right of all citizens to have health care. Same with social security and other welfare programs.

This isn't the ing 1800's - it is the 2000's.

Exactly. If its too expensive then ing reform it so it doesnt cost as much but dont cut services to people. And if you dont have enough revenue then get some more. With time inflation causes prices to increase so its only reasonable to assume the costs will increase as well. Plus with people living longer and more retirees.

The drug war and the war on terrorism is unsustainable as well... should we cut those as well?

It is Obama himself that recommended the government get in the way of life saving treatments.

Back on topic:

I doubt 60% of Americans know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is for senior citiznes - medicaid for the poor.

Doctors hate Medicaid. Its reimbursements are paltry, administration is poor, patients are non-compliant lawsuit filing smacktards.

Reason why I am giving you a little leway is because you and your wife operate a clinic if I remember so you guys have first hand experience in this matter but I seriously doubt every patient who is poor is non compliant or files lawsuits.... and our lawsuit happy populace is a consequence of our lawsuit compliant laws.

Judges should be able to decide what is reasonable or not... a woman spilling coffee on her in a drive in McDonalds is not reasonable.

The rest of the accusations prob vary from state to state. What state do you guys live in btw?

[Enemy of the State]

Why do people complain about the cost and the legality of it? It is the governments responsibility to provide its citizens with health care. It is up to the citizens weather to use it or not - but you cannot take it away. It is a fundamental right of all citizens to have health care. Same with social security and other welfare programs.
.

Says who? Who gave us this "right" to healthcare?

[justicar5]

Says who? Who gave us this "right" to healthcare?

Every civilized nation, and some uncivilized ones.

[Enemy of the State]

Every civilized nation, and some uncivilized ones.

That did not answer my post at all. Who gave us this "right" to healthcare? Where does it come from?

[tarvu]

That did not answer my post at all. Who gave us this "right" to healthcare? Where does it come from?

In America alone? I guess it would be FDR and later LBJ (and before them Civil War pensions served the same purpose for many Americans) who gave Americans the right to medicare and social security. It comes from people acknowledging a problem and designing a solution to it.

As to who in America has a right to it, that depends on which specific program you are talking about. Medicare has strict guidelines about who is eligible such as children, the disabled and pregnant mothers who are unable to afford healthcare. Medicare and Social Security are both paid into by recipients while they are working, that gives them a right to the benefits after they retire.

[MathiasOfAthens]

That did not answer my post at all. Who gave us this "right" to healthcare? Where does it come from?

Nobody gave us the right to free press either or a number of other freedoms we have in our constitution.

I agree with Count above... whats the point of civilization if not to provide security for those who live within said civilization.

[Dr. Croccer]

That did not answer my post at all. Who gave us this "right" to healthcare? Where does it come from?

Where does the right to freedom of speech come from? The right to equality for the law? I honestly don't understand why Liberals believe in the notion that only a few rights that their idols declared to be ''natural'' several centuries ago are the only rights to exist, and everything that came afterward shouldn't count as a right.

How about ''no''? No to your barbaric, pedantic nonsense which you people want to enforce on us. 300 years ago the right to equality and freedom were viewed in the same light by reactionaries as the right to healthcare is viewed by Liberals now.

Free press requires the absence of action (banning the press and sending thugs to break down the doors of dissenters). Free healthcare requires action (sending legalized looters to take money from people who want nothing to do with the system to stick in a big pile for the government to hold over the heads of its citizens).

So law enforcement isn't a right either? Seeing as they're paid with tax money as well.

There is a clear difference between positive and negative rights.

No, there isn't, it depends on what your situation is. If you don't ever have to call the police, law enforcement is a ''negative right''. If you managed to live thanks to Medicaid, then healthcare is a ''positive right''. It's absurd and childish to label rights ''positive and negative'' because of what they might cost you.

The state is not civilization.

Civilization is all states and communities together, and most of those regard healthcare a right.

[Matthias]

That did not answer my post at all. Who gave us this "right" to healthcare? Where does it come from?

It comes from the same place as other rights. Out of my ass.

But seriously, our rights did come from ideas of "natural" rights, which really were just kinda pulled out of different ideas of the enlightenment.

I suppose I could ask why does it matter that someone gives us a right and that it comes from some identifiable source, but that might be too much for you.

For me, it's enough that society recognizes a new right that was never recognized in the rather barbaric world of yesteryear for it to now be a right. Indeed, that's what happened in the enlightenment. Society gives us our rights and they come from our understanding of what a fair, just society should be. That seems rather perfect to me actually.

So... your question seems incredibly inane.

[Count of Montesano]

Says who? Who gave us this "right" to healthcare?

What's the point of civilization if it's not to provide a certain level of safety and security for all citizens? Healthcare is especially important since it affects everyone, especially when it comes to things like epidemics.

That's not to say that I would want to see medicaire reformed. The prescription drug bill is way too expensive and really benefits only big Pharma.

[Enemy of the State]

Rights to things are not rights at all, they are privilege. They were given to us by the state, and they can just as easily be taken away.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Free press requires the absence of action (banning the press and sending thugs to break down the doors of dissenters). Free healthcare requires action (sending legalized looters to take money from people who want nothing to do with the system to stick in a big pile for the government to hold over the heads of its citizens).

How can I debate with someone who thinks taxes is legalized thugs breaking down your door and stealing your money. FFS man its not even worth trying to explain it to you.

Reforming our healthcare system could provide coverage to millions with little extra cost to taxpayers. Consolidating offices and building healthcare clinics in major cities as well as restoring the tax rate to the 90s could solve any issue with funding a national healthcare system. We may have to cut from the defense budget as well but thats a no no for neocons and tea partiers.

There is a clear difference between positive and negative rights.

How is healthcare coverage by the state a negative right? What if no new taxes were levied would it still be wrong? Remember the cost for coverage now without Universal HC is high enough so how much higher would it really be?

Obviously I am generalizing and engaging in some hyperbole. Medicaid patients, taken as a group, and compared to other groups - Medicare, privately insured and self pay - are the worst patients in compliance, frequently skip appointments, have less understanding of their health insurance coverage and what they are expected to pay, and are more likely to try to sue/ threaten to sue/ harass their doctors not for any real malpractice, but because they, as a group, are not the brightest of people.

Well that makes a lot of sense... less motivation I suppose for someone to show up to an appointment if they dont have to cover the whole cost.

European States handle this by charging people who dont go to their appointments are arrive late.

Are you able to fine someone on Medicaid if they dont show up or cancel?

Cant expect everyone to understand their healthcare insurance requirements. You make it easier for them by writing up a paper to give to every guest who comes in that looks like a FAQ... might explain things easier to them? I am not trying to tell you how to run your business though... just trying to understand.

Look at it this way - there are not many PhD holders on Medicaid, there are a lot of high school drop outs.

Also pretty logical to assume that is the case since there is prob a minimum wealth requirement to get on Medicaid. And poor people tend to be HS drop-outs, though they can be high school graduates as well who just hit it rough after school ended.

Rights to things are not rights at all, they are privilege. They were given to us by the state, and they can just as easily be taken away.

Same with all the rights in the Bill of Rights then. Anyway if rights can be taken away then so can they be added.

[Admiral Piett]

Americans are hypocritical in most polls. Most Americans will tell you we need to do more to reduce the deficit and complain about wasteful government spending, but when it comes time to make reductions and cuts, Americans suddenly back away and clamor to keep the very things they want cut. At least on the Left anyway. Yes, Medicaid is impractical because its not even entirely federally funded and there is a lot of fraud and waste with it. Honestly, better healthcare legislation could easily replace Medicaid.

[alhoon]

Americans are hypocritical in most polls. Most Americans will tell you we need to do more to reduce the deficit and complain about wasteful government spending, but when it comes time to make reductions and cuts, Americans suddenly back away and clamor to keep the very things they want cut. At least on the Left anyway.

Not Americans, people. Not left wing, people. What you said describes 99% of human beings.

[Admiral Piett]

Not Americans, people. Not left wing, people. What you said describes 99% of human beings.

So far, I haven't seen any polls about the right agreeing with the left on this.

[justicar5]

So far, I haven't seen any polls about the right agreeing with the left on this.

ask them to cut military spending