Gov. Rick Perry says no to Medicaid

[FaxModem1]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/07 ... -expansion

Texas Gov. Perry Says No To Medicaid Expansion

by Scott Hensley

01:58 pm

July 9, 2012

Twitter (8)
Facebook (14)
E-mail
Share
Print
Comments (23)
Recommend (1)


The official seal of Texas.
Wikimedia Commons

Any doubt, and there probably wasn't much, that Texas would reject an expansion of Medicaid under the big federal health law was dispelled today.

The Supreme Court decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows states to opt out of the expansion without losing all federal Medicaid funding. Only the federal money that would have gone toward the expansion is affected.

Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he was joining "the growing chorus of governors who reject the PPACA power grab."

The Medicaid expansion "would simply enlarge a broken system that is already financially unsustainable," he wrote. "Expanding it as the PPACA provides would only exacerbate the failure of the current system, and would threaten even Texas with financial ruin."


About 1 in 4 Texans has no health insurance. And if Medicaid had been expanded as the federal law originally planned, more than 1.7 million people in the state were expected to get coverage.

Under the law, people with an annual income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line would qualify for Medicaid.

Perry had telegraphed the move. "The cost of this bill to the states is going to be absolutely stunning," Perry said last week on CNBC's Squawk Box. "We don't believe it's right and we know it's going to basically bankrupt the states."

He was on the cable show when Florida Gov. Rick Scott co-hosting. Scott gave a thumbs down to Medicaid expansion and taking part in the insurance exchanges.

Like Florida, Texas also won't come up with its own insurance exchange.

And some states, including Maine, are now looking at whether they can use the Supreme Court's recent decision to roll back some required benefits.

As part of the 25 percent in Texas who do not have health insurance, I'm not really impressed with my governor.

[Aaron MkII]

It seems somewhat counter productive to pass Federal legislation but allow States to opt out.

[The Kernel]

It seems somewhat counter productive to pass Federal legislation but allow States to opt out.

They didn't, the Supreme Court decision allowed them to do that. Didn't you see the news?

Anyway the reasoning behind it had to do with the fact that Medicaid isn't a Federal program but rather it is a state program which is given grants by the Federal government. If the states want to turn down funds from the Feds to subsidize insurance for poor people then there isn't anything that can really be done about it.

From Texas' standpoint though this actually makes sense. Medicaid increases make a lot of sense for states that already had healthy Medicaid programs but Texas is the worst in the nation in healthcare precisely because they've been cutting programs like this down to the bone (states like California on the other hand are enormously going to benefit as MediCal is a HUGE expense for us). The last thing Texas wants is to take Federal money which will lead to actual obligations to provide decent health care for their poorest--the fact that the poor in Texas tends to have a gentrification element to them as well is of course just a coincidence.

[Aaron MkII]

Oh ffs it's right in the article!

[Guardsman Bass]

Assuming the bill survives Congress for the next couple of years, Texas will likely come around - eventually. They already have a high number of uninsured folk (and one of the highest uninsured rates in the country), and that means that local governments and the hospitals will put pressure on them to accept money being offered to off-set the financial burden from treating the uninsured.

Of course, that could be a while. When Medicaid was passed, it took a number of states nearly a decade to accept the funding and join the system (Arizona took nearly two decades).

[Gil Hamilton]

Huh. Given that this is Rick Perry, I'm surprised that he didn't publicly crow about the horrible Federal government than quietly take all that he could.

[Lord MJ]

So a co-worker was saying that Texas is doing so well economically because of lower taxes and inexpensive health care due to tort reform in the state. And that Texas health care system is what Obamacare should have been. Hmm...

[TheFeniX]

So a co-worker was saying that Texas is doing so well economically because of lower taxes and inexpensive health care due to tort reform in the state. And that Texas health care system is what Obamacare should have been. Hmm...

Hahaha! No, Texas is doing "well" because of the almost fraudulent way in which the budgets are reported, combined with massive cuts to infrastructure and education (which started after their bullshit budgets finally came up for renewal). All the while, Perry decries fed intervention while simultaneously taking billions in bailout money.

Huh. Given that this is Rick Perry, I'm surprised that he didn't publicly crow about the horrible Federal government than quietly take all that he could.

Why go quietly when you can make up half-ass rationalizations? I'm not going to try and dig up the article because I'm just fucking tired of Dick Perry, but the last bailout he took (like 15 billion) was explained off with something like "If we don't take the money, someone else will."

I do recall, this was also around the same time as his bullshit "We'll just suc.. seceed...su.... LEAVE the union!" rhetoric.