Millions of poor will have to pay full price in the exchanges?

Texsdrifter · Oct 13, 2013

Maybe I am the only one that just figured this out. I have been so busy hating this law for my reasons I did not notice this till now. If you make less than 100% of the poverty level in those states you have to pay full price with no asstance though the exchanges. I assume they will still be fined if they do not do so. While I know the democrats will blame the states and I agree they get some of the blame. They did not write this law and "have to pass it to find out what was in it."

The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the countrys population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the countrys uninsured working poor are in those states. Among those excluded are about 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses aides.

The irony is that these states that are rejecting Medicaid expansion many of them Southern are the very places where the concentration of poverty and lack of health insurance are the most acute, said Dr. H. Jack Geiger, a founder of the community health center model. It is their populations that have the highest burden of illness and costs to the entire health care system.

The disproportionate impact on poor blacks introduces the prickly issue of race into the already politically charged atmosphere around the health care law. Race was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the state-level debates about the Medicaid expansion. But the issue courses just below the surface, civil rights leaders say, pointing to the pattern of exclusion.

Every state in the Deep South, with the exception of Arkansas, has rejected the expansion. Opponents of the expansion say they are against it on exclusively economic grounds, and that the demographics of the South with its large share of poor blacks make it easy to say race is an issue when it is not.

In Mississippi, Republican leaders note that a large share of people in the state are on Medicaid already, and that, with an expansion, about a third of the state would have been insured through the program. Even supporters of the health law say that eventually covering 10 percent of that cost would have been onerous for a predominantly rural state with a modest tax base.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/h...ncovered-by-health-law.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Now I am really impressed with the bipartisan agreement in my state. The only southern state that will not have this apply.

Lawsuits by Oklahoma and Indiana seek to make this apply to all citizens in states that did not set up their own exchanges. While I doubt they will succeed the damage to the poorest Americans in over half of the states is already done.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...na-sues-to-deny-residents-obamacare-premiums/

Taxcutter · Oct 13, 2013

ACA = Vollsted Act. It will be hated that much.

REPUBLICRAT · Oct 14, 2013

The supreme court rules that each state could decide whether or not to accept the medicaid expansion under the ACA. Those states that refused it pretty much assured their low income citizens would be left out. Why? Because it was Obama's idea. The sad thing is, many of the red states that refused it have the most low income citizens that needed the help the most. Bottom line is, these republican governors would rather keep their poor uninsured so they can claim the ACA doesn't work for poor people.

Log in or Sign up

Millions of poor will have to pay full price in the exchanges?

Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

Taxcutter New Member

REPUBLICRAT Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Millions of poor will have to pay full price in the exchanges?

Texsdrifter Well-Known Member

Taxcutter New Member

REPUBLICRAT Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches