korakine.bsky.social
largely a lurker
14 posts
217 followers
405 following
Regular Contributor
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
I believe they're referring to a proposal that only adults with children under 7 be exempt from the work requirement. Though, I had only heard that for SNAP rather than MA.
comment in response to
post
There's a ton wrapped up in this part. Half or more of the dollars cut could come from these changes. www.kff.org/policy-watch...
comment in response to
post
This seems like real nickle and dimey stuff. When it comes to the big bills, hospitals help people apply for Medicaid before they even leave.
I suppose it could screw over people that get a surprise bill a while later, though.
comment in response to
post
The federal government doesn't pay for coverage for undocumented people, other than for emergencies. This is about penalizing states that pay entirely out of their own state budgets to cover them. Stopping that wouldn't actually save the federal government any money.
comment in response to
post
Only if they actually hire more staff to handle the means testing. And why do that if the objective is to cut costs? If there's not enough staff to update people's cases when they try to report their work hours, and their coverage lapses as a result, hey, that's more cost savings!
comment in response to
post
Typically these things have an exemption for people that are in school full time. But we'd have to see the details in what passes.
comment in response to
post
And let's not forget that work requirements don't cause employment. From the article:
comment in response to
post
Cutting federal #Medicaid expansion $ by imposing a per capita cap or cutting the current 90% matching rate would shift massive costs to states for the expansion. That alone would risk most or all states ending expansion over time because they couldn't dramatically increase their own spending.
comment in response to
post
Tear down and rebuild a system that has been in place for 60 years and handles trillions of dollars in transactions that millions depend on? Lead by a guy known for creating havoc and who never delivers as promised. What could go wrong?
comment in response to
post
Yes, but they're talking about "expanding" the work requirements. If they're going to cut something like $200 billion+ from the SNAP program, it's going to have to come from somewhere.
comment in response to
post
Apparently the $880B is
a) Over 10 years and
b) From programs overseen by the Energy and Commerce Committee. Most of that expected to come from Medicaid, but some might come from other things.
comment in response to
post
Per KFF:
comment in response to
post
So, the republicans figure many will use the options available to them to cut Medicaid eligibility in their states, such as backing out of the Medicaid expansion. Congress can then pretend they aren't responsible for the cuts, will say each state is just doing what they think best for themselves.
comment in response to
post
A lot of the Medicaid section, like "Equalize Medicaid Payments" and "Lower FMAP Floor," is about shifting costs from the federal government to state governments. The states - especially the poorer and more rural ones - won't be able to afford that.