Claire McCaskill Lectures Missouri On Misguided Prop C Vote: “People Don’t Realize Ho

[CrusaderFrank]

Thank Green, I have to tell my Mom and Dad that Medicare was Privatized. That sure is great news. Very Informative!

Where do I find out more about this Privatization?

Presumably your parents already know they can take advantage of Part C. If not, just send them to the website.

Oh? Nevermind.

I thought you said that Medicare was Privatized.

 

[Sarah G]

I heard Ed Rendell the other day exclaiming that the reason Americans aren't behind Obamacare is because they "just don't understand".

Translated: They're too ******* stupid.

People are behind healthcare reform. You will find that out if your party tries to repeal it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Oh? Nevermind.

I thought you said that Medicare was Privatized.

No, I said they already did what you suggested, which is not the full privatization of Medicare.

"We'll partially privatize it so that people have an incentive to shop for providers and providers actually have to compete for customers instead of just filling out US Government forms."​

Reading that now, it seems plausible to me you're not clear on what Medicare is, which might be a source of confusion here. Medicare is a payer, it doesn't exist on the provider side. Providers who want to participate take patients receiving coverage through Medicare and submit claims ("filling out US Government forms") to Medicare, which reimburses on a fee-for-service basis. It works exactly like any provider-payer interaction and is noteworthy only because the payer here is public (well, and they base reimbursements on DRG groups). You can't "privatize" the provider side of that because the provider side of that is private.

Medicare is a payer. Partial privatization of a payer means Medicare turns its responsibilities as a payer over to private companies who then do what the public payer was previously doing. That's what Part C is. Instead of relying on Medicare (i.e. the government) as the payer, about one fifth of Medicare beneficiaries opt to get coverage through a private insurance company instead.

So what was your plan again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Missouri does receive $1.29 for every $1 it gives in federal funding, perhaps Missouri is willing to vote to change that next?

Better idea, why don't we all vote to change that. Can you point to any state that gets less in federal funding that it sends in? The feds should be required to not spend money they do not get from taxes, and any overage should first come out of the pockets of the representatives who vote for it. My guess is that would balance the budget overnight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why haven't they opted out of Medicaid yet? What's the deal, Missouri?

You actually disappointed me here.

You generally try to research something before you comment, and this shows that you only research stuff that supports your position. Prop C is a non binding resolution on the issue of Missouri opposing the individual mandate. In other words, all this is aimed at is the requirement for individuals to purchase something from a private company even if they do not want it. How does that begin to equate to opting out of Medicaid, most of which is paid by Missouri anyway?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why haven't they opted out of Medicaid yet? What's the deal, Missouri?

Good question.

Isn't that cute? Greenbeard's own personal catamite.

 

[Greenbeard]

Can you point to any state that gets less in federal funding that it sends in?

These are 2004 numbers but it'll give you the general idea. Any state marked as receiving less than $1.00 (i.e. for every dollar it sends to the federal government) is getting less out than it pays in:

 

[DiveCon]

Thank Green, I have to tell my Mom and Dad that Medicare was Privatized. That sure is great news. Very Informative!

Where do I find out more about this Privatization?

Presumably your parents already know they can take advantage of Part C. If not, just send them to the website.

but that doesnt replace it, it just supplements it

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2) So the consensus is now that "ObamaCare" hasn't been rejected by Missouri, just the individual mandate? Looks like we're all on the same page.

I wouldn't know what the consensus is, nor do I care, all I care about is the truth.

 

[Greenbeard]

You generally try to research something before you comment, and this shows that you only research stuff that supports your position. Prop C is a non binding resolution on the issue of Missouri opposing the individual mandate. In other words, all this is aimed at is the requirement for individuals to purchase something from a private company even if they do not want it. How does that begin to equate to opting out of Medicaid, most of which is paid by Missouri anyway?

First of all, no state pays for most of its Medicaid program. States getting the lowest FMAP possible (i.e. states with the highest per capita incomes) get an FMAP of 50, meaning they go half and half with the feds.

Missouri gets an FMAP of 63, bumped up to around 71 during this recession. In other words, 63-71% of their program is paid for by the federal government.

Now, what here suggests they should opt out of Medicaid? Well, that depends. If you view this as a repudiation of federal involvement in state health care matters (and reform), then certainly they should stop accepting federal money and guidance for their state programs for ideological consistency. If you think, as you do, that it's only a statement of dissatisfaction with the individual mandate (and not a broad philosophical or policy statement), then there's no reason to support refusing their FMAP or voiding the rest of the law. And it's also not an interesting political story in that case.

 

[Oddball]

Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, August 5, 2010, 11:52 AM
71.1% of Missouri residents rejected O-Care on Tuesday:


On Wednesday Liberal Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) lectured Missouri about their misguided vote saying…
“People “don’t realize” how beneficial the “mandate” for health care will be.”

Click Image for video–
RealClearPolitics - Video - Sen. McCaskill: "Message Received" On Missouri Voters Against Health Care

Via Real Clear Politics:

“I certainly noticed the vote on Prop C, the healthcare law, and message received,” Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) said.

read the rest here and comments..
Gateway Pundit

Classic condescending authoritarian nanny attitude.

"Y'all are too stupid to see how great Big Daddy Big Gubmint is."

 

[Oddball]

When can I "opt out" of paying for that train wreck?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Can you point to any state that gets less in federal funding that it sends in?

These are 2004 numbers but it'll give you the general idea. Any state marked as receiving less than $1.00 (i.e. for every dollar it sends to the federal government) is getting less out than it pays in:

If we assume those numbers are accurate (which we both know they are not) there is no way those states that get less money than they send in can pay for the states that do not. The way this should work is that every state should get less money than they send in, not less than half of them.

 

[Greenbeard]

but that doesnt replace it, it just supplements it

No, Medicare has four parts: A, B, C and D. Part A and Part B are the original components of Medicare: Part A is hospital insurance and Part B is general outpatient health insurance, both of them paid by the government (i.e. Medicare pays when you use that insurance). Part D is the recent addition that covers prescription drugs but we're not particularly interested in that here.

Part C is not supplementary coverage, it's an option to get the benefits provided by Parts A and B through a private insurer. Supplementary coverage is something seniors can buy themselves to tack onto the benefits they get through Part A and Part B. But that's not what Part C is, Part C is choosing to get those (Part A and Part B) benefits through a private payer, though sometimes with additional benefits thrown in.

So Part C can have supplementary benefits but that's not primarily what it is, it's a private version of traditional Medicare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You generally try to research something before you comment, and this shows that you only research stuff that supports your position. Prop C is a non binding resolution on the issue of Missouri opposing the individual mandate. In other words, all this is aimed at is the requirement for individuals to purchase something from a private company even if they do not want it. How does that begin to equate to opting out of Medicaid, most of which is paid by Missouri anyway?

First of all, no state pays for most of its Medicaid program. States getting the lowest FMAP possible (i.e. states with the highest per capita incomes) get an FMAP of 50, meaning they go half and half with the feds.

Missouri gets an FMAP of 63, bumped up to around 71 during this recession. In other words, 63-71% of their program is paid for by the federal government.

Now, what here suggests they should opt out of Medicaid? Well, that depends. If you view this as a repudiation of federal involvement in state health care matters (and reform), then certainly they should stop accepting federal money and guidance for their state programs for ideological consistency. If you think, as you do, that it's only a statement of dissatisfaction with the individual mandate (and not a broad philosophical or policy statement), then there's no reason to support refusing their FMAP or voiding the rest of the law. And it's also not an interesting political story in that case.

Are you trying to claim that no state gets any of the money that it collects in federal taxes for Medicaid back? You need to factor in all the money that comes from a state before you can argue that no state pays most of its Medicare expenses. That is the problem with liberal arguments about taxes, they assume the money comes from the feds when it really comes from the people and the states, who actually get their money from the people, again.

You are entirely correct that the states should opt out of Medicaid, as should the federal government. That particular issue is separate from the one we are discussing though, which is the mandate that was voted on in Missouri. That does not make this not an interesting political case though, it just makes it less interesting than some people are making it.

 

[DiveCon]

Can you point to any state that gets less in federal funding that it sends in?

These are 2004 numbers but it'll give you the general idea. Any state marked as receiving less than $1.00 (i.e. for every dollar it sends to the federal government) is getting less out than it pays in:

If we assume those numbers are accurate (which we both know they are not) there is no way those states that get less money than they send in can pay for the states that do not. The way this should work is that every state should get less money than they send in, not less than half of them.

well, they also tend to include military spending in those numbers
which are not really "aid"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They also tend to ignore other things that change the numbers, which is why I added my condition to my post.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberal definition of Privatize: More Government Programs