Curiouser and curiouser TPM logic.

[bendog]

So, democrats don't want kids with cancer to get experimental drugs via the NIH ... or they'd open up the NIH which the gop shut down to defund obamacare. Perhaps a logical disconnect there, but it may just be that the TPM suddenly realized "the govt isn't a total waste." So, give it a pass.

So, let's assume that it would be best for the NIH kids to get cancer drugs. I think we can all agree there. But, there's a story on yahoo today about a kid in Mississippi with spina bifida who, because she's gotten better with medical care paid via medicaid, is no longer sick enough to get medicaid, but her parents don't have healthcare insurance .... without Obamacare. So, how does one distinguish that the taxpayers SHOULD provide HC for the NIH kids but SHOULD NOT provide HC for the kid with spina bifida? This makes no sense, at least morally.

But, let's assume the TPM are not being disingenous in bellieving that Obamacare, and providing the kid with spina bifida insurance, will bankrupt the country, and at the same time let's suspend suspicion over their possible motives for default and debt ceiling. But let's accept, for the sake of discussion, WE CAN AFFORD TO TREAT ONE KID BUT NOT THE OTHER. LIKE SOLOMAN, WE MUST CHOOSE. Who would most likely benefit the most from medical treatment: a kid getting experimental cancer drugs ... because nothing else has stopped the cancer, or the kid with spina bifida?

Yes, we've gone down the rabbit hole with Alice.

 

[Katzndogz]

According to democrats, no one gets any care.

 

[bendog]

Really, that's the best you have? Seriously, is that your final answer? Surely, pick a lifeline.

 

[Michelle420]

So, democrats don't want kids with cancer to get experimental drugs via the NIH ... or they'd open up the NIH which the gop shut down to defund obamacare. Perhaps a logical disconnect there, but it may just be that the TPM suddenly realized "the govt isn't a total waste." So, give it a pass.

So, let's assume that it would be best for the NIH kids to get cancer drugs. I think we can all agree there. But, there's a story on yahoo today about a kid in Mississippi with spina bifida who, because she's gotten better with medical care paid via medicaid, is no longer sick enough to get medicaid, but her parents don't have healthcare insurance .... without Obamacare. So, how does one distinguish that the taxpayers SHOULD provide HC for the NIH kids but SHOULD NOT provide HC for the kid with spina bifida? This makes no sense, at least morally.

But, let's assume the TPM are not being disingenous in bellieving that Obamacare, and providing the kid with spina bifida insurance, will bankrupt the country, and at the same time let's suspend suspicion over their possible motives for default and debt ceiling. But let's accept, for the sake of discussion, WE CAN AFFORD TO TREAT ONE KID BUT NOT THE OTHER. LIKE SOLOMAN, WE MUST CHOOSE. Who would most likely benefit the most from medical treatment: a kid getting experimental cancer drugs ... because nothing else has stopped the cancer, or the kid with spina bifida?

Yes, we've gone down the rabbit hole with Alice.

Can you link the article?

Medicaid goes by income not by whether a person is sick or not.

 

[bendog]

[ Can you link the article?

Medicaid goes by income not by whether a person is sick or not.

I'll look for it. I live here. But, actually, medicaid will pick up kids with disabilites even if their parent's income is too much to normally qualifiy. Plus, there's SCHIPS. Honestly, I thought about it, but choose not to look too deeply, because I used to work with kids like this, and it was just too depressing. Still, back in the day when I did it, I don't think I'd have much trouble getting a kid with spina bifida on medicaid. I might have had to go to an administrative hearing, but there was always a way.

Still, it illustrated the curious illogick (-: of the TPM. I gotta get some paying work done. (-:

here you go. I can't find the yahoo link, but apparantly they went with a chi tribune story. It's the same individual.
Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion - chicagotribune.com
Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion - chicagotribune.com

 

[Michelle420]

[ Can you link the article?

Medicaid goes by income not by whether a person is sick or not.

I'll look for it. I live here. But, actually, medicaid will pick up kids with disabilites even if their parent's income is too much to normally qualifiy. Plus, there's SCHIPS. Honestly, I thought about it, but choose not to look too deeply, because I used to work with kids like this, and it was just too depressing. Still, back in the day when I did it, I don't think I'd have much trouble getting a kid with spina bifida on medicaid. I might have had to go to an administrative hearing, but there was always a way.

Still, it illustrated the curious illogick (-: of the TPM. I gotta get some paying work done. (-:

here you go. I can't find the yahoo link, but apparantly they went with a chi tribune story. It's the same individual.
Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion - chicagotribune.com
Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion - chicagotribune.com

Thanks, I have to go to school right now but it's a short day, I will read it when I get back.

I am curious to see if obamacare has changed medicaid rules.

 

[Sallow]

So, democrats don't want kids with cancer to get experimental drugs via the NIH ... or they'd open up the NIH which the gop shut down to defund obamacare. Perhaps a logical disconnect there, but it may just be that the TPM suddenly realized "the govt isn't a total waste." So, give it a pass.

So, let's assume that it would be best for the NIH kids to get cancer drugs. I think we can all agree there. But, there's a story on yahoo today about a kid in Mississippi with spina bifida who, because she's gotten better with medical care paid via medicaid, is no longer sick enough to get medicaid, but her parents don't have healthcare insurance .... without Obamacare. So, how does one distinguish that the taxpayers SHOULD provide HC for the NIH kids but SHOULD NOT provide HC for the kid with spina bifida? This makes no sense, at least morally.

But, let's assume the TPM are not being disingenous in bellieving that Obamacare, and providing the kid with spina bifida insurance, will bankrupt the country, and at the same time let's suspend suspicion over their possible motives for default and debt ceiling. But let's accept, for the sake of discussion, WE CAN AFFORD TO TREAT ONE KID BUT NOT THE OTHER. LIKE SOLOMAN, WE MUST CHOOSE. Who would most likely benefit the most from medical treatment: a kid getting experimental cancer drugs ... because nothing else has stopped the cancer, or the kid with spina bifida?

Yes, we've gone down the rabbit hole with Alice.

That was a good move on the part of the GOP because it spotlighted the FACT they defunded the NIH.

Republican Budget Cuts at Heart of Medical Research: Albert Hunt - Bloomberg

NIH Funding

There is no more telling illustration than the National Institutes of Health, the center of U.S. medical research and the largest such institution in world. House Republicans want to cut NIH funding for the current year by more than $1 billion, to $29.5 billion. Obama proposes a small increase in NIH funding.

There's no shame in their game..man.

 

[Michelle420]

[ Can you link the article?

Medicaid goes by income not by whether a person is sick or not.

I'll look for it. I live here. But, actually, medicaid will pick up kids with disabilites even if their parent's income is too much to normally qualifiy. Plus, there's SCHIPS. Honestly, I thought about it, but choose not to look too deeply, because I used to work with kids like this, and it was just too depressing. Still, back in the day when I did it, I don't think I'd have much trouble getting a kid with spina bifida on medicaid. I might have had to go to an administrative hearing, but there was always a way.

Still, it illustrated the curious illogick (-: of the TPM. I gotta get some paying work done. (-:

here you go. I can't find the yahoo link, but apparantly they went with a chi tribune story. It's the same individual.
Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion - chicagotribune.com
Mississippi blues: The cost of rejecting Medicaid expansion - chicagotribune.com

Thanks, I have to go to school right now but it's a short day, I will read it when I get back.

I am curious to see if obamacare has changed medicaid rules.

That is likely the case for William and Leslie Johnson of Jackson County, since the state decided not to expand the Medicaid program for the poor under President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act

In rejecting the Medicaid expansion, Republican Governor Phil Bryant is turning down an estimated $426 million in federal funds for next year. He has argued that the administrative costs borne by the state would be too high. A report by the Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning estimated the cost of Medicaid expansion for the state at $8.5 million in 2014, rising to $159 million in 2025 as more people enroll in the program and federal subsidies step down from 100 percent initially to 90 percent.

Looks like it was a State decision.