Front Page
NMJ Search
International
Islamofascism
Government & Politics
National & Local
Progressivism
Culture Wars
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google




The Florida Senate panel’s decision to eschew the traditional Medicaid expansion and propose a privatized version instead speaks to what George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum told me about privatizing the Medicaid expansion: “Every state is going to be eying this.”
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Florida Senate Panel Rejects Medicaid Expansion
The Washington Post
It was a huge coup for the Obama administration when they won Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s endorsement of the Medicaid expansion. In his state alone, the Obamacare program could cover 1.3 million people.

But the governor wasn’t the only endorsement they had to secure: The Republican-controlled Florida legislature would also need to sign off on the expansion. And as of Monday afternoon, they don’t appear inclined to move forward: Committees in the Florida House and Senate have rejected the Medicaid expansion as proposed by Gov. Scott.

That last bit is important: As the Sun Sentinel’s Kathleen Haughney reports, the Senate has also put forward an alternate plan for the Medicaid expansion. Legislators there proposed using Medicaid expansion dollars to buy private insurance for the same population.

The plan looks similar to what legislators in Arkansas are pursuing: Using an obscure provision of the Social Security Act to spend Medicaid funds on private insurance plans. Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe brought the plan to the Obama administration last month and, to the surprise of many, got a preliminary sign off to move forward.

Whether the Florida plan moves forward as well remains to be seen. Health policy experts say that, in order for such a plan to work, insurers taking on Medicaid patients would need to hew to the program’s strict restrictions on cost-sharing, not charging them anymore than they would pay in the public program.

If anything, the Florida Senate panel’s decision—to eschew the traditional Medicaid expansion and propose a privatized version instead—speaks to what George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum told me about privatizing the Medicaid expansion last week: “Every state is going to be eying this.”

It’s not hard to see why. There’s still a huge level of opposition to the Medicaid expansion at the state level. Private insurance tends to offer easier access to doctors. States could, essentially, kill two birds with one stone: Eschew expanding an unpopular public program while likely bringing a more robust benefit to their citizens. This all, by the way, happens with the federal government footing the bill.

That could become an expensive and challenging endeavor for the Obama administration. For one thing, federal regulation requires that private insurance bought with Medicaid dollars must be of “comparable” value. As it stands, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that private plans cost $3,000 more than enrollment in the Medicaid program.

READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 03/11/2013

Editor's Note: Privatizing Medicaid...Sounds very Bush-esque...AND it was signed-off on by the Obama Administration? Do the Progressives know this is happening??...


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal.  The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project's goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2013    Content Copyright © Individual authors
A Division of BasicsProject.org
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server