While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care. We will support a three-year expansion of the Medicaid program under the new health care law as long as the federal government meets their commitment to pay 100 percent of the cost during that time.Florida Gov. Rick Scott • Discussing his decision to expand his state’s Medicaid program via the Affordable Care Act, despite previously suggesting he would not. Scott, a former medical industry executive, was a staunch critic of the Affordable Care Act, and his decision puts him in conservative crosshairs. But his decision was partly personal — his mother recently died, and the reminder of her struggle to raise him and his siblings on a low income had given him a new perspective on the matter. “Losing someone so close to you puts everything in a new perspective, especially the big decisions,” he said.
On Medicaid, it’s really pretty simple. Like Jon and Mitt know, you send it back to the states and let us do it.Rick Perry, saying the states will be able to handle Medicaid reforms safely and responsibly.
» A new study with broad ramifications: The results of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s study may seem obvious, but the debate on whether or not to cut funding for Medicaid has long rested on whether experts thought low-income people would actually use the public form of medical insurance. The new study proves this is the case, and does it in an interesting way — rather than comparing the insured to the uninsured (a common tactic used before), the study treated Medicaid the same way researchers might treat a drug. The result? Fellow researchers are hailing the study as “historic” and say it’ll shape national health care debates for years to come.
» What was wrong with the bill? Well, from a moral standpoint, a lot. But from a legislative standpoint, the issue is that Medicaid beneficiaries are legally permitted to use their Medicaid anywhere they want, so long as they do so at a “qualified service provider.” The bill Daniels discriminates against Planned Parenthood for reasons unrelated to its qualifications. Proponents of the bill correctly pointed out that the Hyde Act makes it illegal for federal funds to pay for abortions; however, only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortive, and for low-income Hoosiers to be blocked from Planned Parenthood’s other services simply because the governor once wanted to run for president is not only wrong—it’s against the law.
» Last June, he called for a “truce" on social issues. Now, with a presidential run looking ever-so-tempting, Mitch Daniels has no problem cutting reproductive services for 9,300 Medicaid recipients in Indiana, of which he is regrettably the governor. Today, a court rejected Planned Parenthood’s efforts to postpone enforcement of the bill. For low-income Indianans who feared they might have life-threatening illnesses, Planned Parenthood was one of their only resources. Now, thanks to Daniels’ quixotic presidential ambitions, they’re out of luck. (Note: A separate request for an injunction, filed by the ACLU, has not yet been ruled on)
So, fun fact about Medicaid for children: Around two-thirds of uninsured children are eligible to receive it. But nearly 4.7 million children who are eligible for the service don’t receive it. Why? Well, to put it simply, state and federal governments are absolutely terrible at informing parents that it’s an option. It’s something the Obama administration has been working on, however, and thanks to some incentives, 15 states are being rewarded for insuring more children (around 874,000 in total) in the last year. Or, actually, Alabama and 14 other states: