NH Senate Votes To End Medicaid Expansion And Leave 40,000 Stranded Without Insurance
Source: NH Labor News
Today, the New Hampshire Senate voted straight down party lines against continuing the states partisan Medicaid expansion.
New Hampshire Senate Republicans including Jeb Bradley have praised the states bipartisan Medicaid expansion program, saying the indications are that its working exactly as we intended. Its reducing emergency room visits, and reducing what I call the hidden tax of uncompensated care.
Yet despite touting the programs benefits for New Hampshires people, businesses and economy, the Senate Finance Committee voted yesterday along party lines against continuing the bipartisan plan.
Just yesterday, Republican Senators on the Finance Committee touted the success of our bipartisan Medicaid expansion plan, said Senator Woodburn. This isnt a partisan issue. New Hampshires business community, including the Business and Industry Association, has called on us to continue the states successful expansion program because its reducing heath care cost-shifting onto our families and businesses, strengthening the health of our workforce, and boosting our economy.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://nhlabornews.com/2015/05/nh-senate-votes-to-end-medicaid-expansion-and-leave-40000-stranded-without-insurance/
NH Labor is run by DUer Matt Murray.
EEO
(1,620 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)EEO
(1,620 posts)And the list goes on and on.
marym625
(17,997 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)While I am certainly pissed at the GOP, I am equally pissed that once the public option was gone and we were left with Heritagecare that the architects did not plan ahead for this type of shit.
Provisions should have been made iron clad that any medicaid expansion would be protected from individual state's attempts to overturn it. What, they thought the GOP ruled red states would just go along with this without any fights?
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)Dems. Your statement is ridiculous.
TM99
(8,352 posts)Then in the planning stages. Yes.
It is ridiculous to think given the scope and magnitude of the program that such contingencies would not have been planned for given the immediate push back from the GOP on 'Obamacare'.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)optional.. Again, you aren't answering the question. What could be done?
TM99
(8,352 posts)You are telling me no one in legal thought to ask about the ACA, "is there any way this could be challenged in court?" How can we make the ACA such that options for federal funding for medicaid expansion are not going to be ruled 'optional'?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)coercive to make it non-optional.
So, no, there's nothing they could have done about that.
On the plus side, that same rule may save the subsidies in June.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)how many times do we have to explain it?
TM99
(8,352 posts)The 11th Dimensional wunderkind could have had his team of crack insurance reps do this little thing called 'risk assessment'.
What challenges legally is this plan likely to face? OK, let's plan for as many as possible.
What challenges politically is this plan likely to face? What, you mean the GOP is just going to accept it without fighting it in the courts or in state government? OK, let's plan for as many of those challenges as possible.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)I didn't predict it. I don't blame Reps and Senators for not predicting that strange Supreme Court ruling.
Sgent
(5,857 posts)they either expanded Medicaid or lost ALL medicaid dollars.
The problem was the supreme court said that this was illegally coercive to the states. The fact that the supreme court had allowed this type of thing when it came to the drinking age (lose transportation funds), drug laws, and other issues meant no one expected the supreme court to backtrack.
George II
(67,782 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)But seriously, what the hell happened where Blue States are going psycho?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Maggie Hassan is a Democrat and from what I can see she is a liberal.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)For two reasons:
1. Businesses are against the repeal.
2. She's not going to repeal one of her signature acts. She was the driving force behind the original passage of the law.
okaawhatever
(9,462 posts)there ran as a Democrat. NH is an anomoly in politics.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)oh so very strange. Still, the thing about libertarians is that as much as they hate government Tyranny, they sure like corporate tyrants who do things few governments would dare to do, like deny old and sick health care.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Whence comes this conclusion? There is only one (1) federally elected Republican in office (Ayotte). The other Senator, and the entire House delegation, are all Democrats...and all women, as is the Democratic governor. NH went for Kerry in 2004, and for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
Your information is out of date.
moose65
(3,168 posts)One of NH's Congressional Representatives is a Republican man. Frank Guinta represents the swingy 1st district. He and Carol Shea-Porter kinda take turns (it seems) representing this district.
Their other Rep is a Democratic woman, as is the other Senator, Jeanne Shaheen. The Governor is a Democrat, but both houses of the legislature are currently held by Republicans. NH is like the ultimate swing state, although I suspect that deep down it really leans more to the blue side.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)Live free or die! A lot of people are dying in NH....
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)There is only one (1) federally elected Republican in office (Ayotte). The other Senator, and the entire House delegation, are all Democrats...and all women, as is the Democratic governor. NH went for Kerry in 2004, and for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
Your information is out of date.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Repubs winning a vote 'strictly along partisan lines' tells us that there are more Repubs than Dems at that particular level of government.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)When it comes to statewide offices.
Republicans in the last election took a commanding lead in the state legislature. It was a bloodbath.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It also went for Bush in 2000.
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)Governor Hassan will veto it. Republicans have failed to override her vetoes so far.
No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It's where New England sends it's RW morans.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)let see...Do the Koch Brothers have any logging interests in NH..I smell a Koch Brothers rat somewhere
CK_John
(10,005 posts)graegoyle
(532 posts)Especially with all the underhanded 💩 that has been seen in elections, that statement is idiotic.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)..signed Medicaid expansion into law in March 2014.
It would be surprising if she signed a repeal.
http://www.wmur.com/politics/gov-maggie-hassan-signs-medicaid-expansion-into-law/25197176
Tempest
(14,591 posts)And Republicans haven't been able to override any of her vetoes. They won't on this one either.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)But she won't have to. It'll never get out of the House.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)I wonder how many of the recipients know this is in the works? How many are registered to vote?
Tempest
(14,591 posts)The Senate snuck it in and the reaction has been brutal against the Senate. Everyone I know is contacting the Senate and House members not to even think about eliminating the exchanges.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)My experience of having cancer, getting treatments, having to stop work, getting well and looking for work after treatments at age 63 is that there are mostly part-time jobs out there for me. Employers love it that they can pay a low hourly wage and not have to offer benefits, which they justify since the employee has Medicaid expansion if he's poor enough, or O-care if he makes more. We'll see how this turns out, but it won't be pretty.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)Businesses and health care executives are hammering the House members to not take it up.
Because of the power of businesses in this state, campaign contributions from individuals is paltry in comparison, the House won't go against them.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)if the feds want something,
they should pay for it.
Tempest
(14,591 posts)"The federal government pays 100 percent of the cost for the newly eligible recipients who can earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level under the Affordable Care Act."
quadrature
(2,049 posts)Tempest
(14,591 posts)former9thward
(32,080 posts)The federal share of coverage goes from 100% to 90% by 2020. In addition the state has to pay administrative costs.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The current Medicaid expansion is still good through the end of 2016. This vote was about expanding their current program past that date, and really they are just kicking the can down the road.
I'm sure they'll do something before 2017, but whether it will be quite the current program, who knows?