Senators want governors involved in health talks

[corbe]

Senators want governors involved in health talks

 By Alexander Bolton - 06/03/17 05:10 PM EDT

Republican senators from states that expanded Medicaid enrollment under ObamaCare are pressing for their home-state governors to be involved in the Senate talks over a new healthcare bill.

The senators are skeptical of language in the bill approved by the House that cuts Medicaid by nearly $900 billion and ends the expansion of federal funding to states in 2020.

Republican senators want governors from their home states, who would have to deal directly with a cap on federal spending, to give their conference an analysis of the potential impact.

“There are obviously concerns because we’re impacted big time,” said Sen. Jeff Flake (R), of Arizona, where Medicaid enrollment under ObamaCare has expanded by more than 400,000 people.

“Twenty-eight, 29 percent of the population is on Medicaid, it’s a big number,” said Flake, who is considered to be a Democratic target in next year’s midterm elections.

ObamaCare gave states the option of expanding Medicaid with federal help.

Thirty-one states and Washington, D.C., decided to accept the federal help and expand Medicaid. Sixteen of those states have Republican governors, and would now see federal support for the expansion drop in 2020.

A number of the states, such as Arizona, also backed President Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

Sen. John Hoeven (R) of North Dakota, another state that supported Trump and expanded Medicaid under ObamaCare, has urged his governor, Doug Burgum, to tell congressional negotiators what he and other governors think about proposed reforms.

Hoeven, who served as governor of North Dakota for 10 years, said there’s been “some” input form the states “but we want more and I think we’ll see that.”

“I talked to him. My guy’s working with his staff and then I have been talking about him working with other governors,” he said of Burgum, who was elected last year.

In pushing for the House bill, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), a champion of Medicaid reform, argued the program “works better” when states have more flexibility to run it.

But Flake argues that his state has worked to improve Medicaid, but would now be injured with a quick reduction in federal help.

He talked with Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey shortly before the Memorial Day recess to get on the same page.

“One of the concerns initially is that those states that have run the inefficiency already out of it might be penalized,” Flake said.

Burgum and Ducey, who was elected in 2014, came to office after their respective states opted to expand Medicaid. Their allies in Congress say it’s unfair to penalize them for the decisions of previous state administrations.

The issue of Medicaid has long been dicey in the Senate, where 20 Republicans represent states that expanded the program.

<..snip..>

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/336112-senators-want-governors-involved-in-health-talks

[corbe]

   Lee and Cruz are being overswamped in the Senate Health Committee and are rightly calling for reinforcements, Republican Governors, they are the ones that are gonna be tasked with running this crap.
   It IS a State problem, NOT Fed.

[Emjay]

   Lee and Cruz are being overswamped in the Senate Health Committee and are rightly calling for reinforcements, Republican Governors, they are the ones that are gonna be tasked with running this crap.
   It IS a State problem, NOT Fed.

Yes, get the governors involved.  They deal more directly with the people and the problems.  Sometimes it seems that senators live in another universe.

[corbe]

Yes, get the governors involved.  They deal more directly with the people and the problems.  Sometimes it seems that senators live in another universe.

   I agree @Emjay It was the US Senate that forced this crap sandwich on us to begin with. 
   Consistent Conservatives are rare in that august body, but somehow the 2 best we got, Lee and Cruz are on that Committee, very fortunate for us.

[Cripplecreek]

   I agree @Emjay It was the US Senate that forced this crap sandwich on us to begin with. 
   Consistent Conservatives are rare in that august body, but somehow the 2 best we got, Lee and Cruz are on that Committee, very fortunate for us.

Those senators should demand to be returned to the control of the state governments.

[Emjay]

   I agree @Emjay It was the US Senate that forced this crap sandwich on us to begin with. 
   Consistent Conservatives are rare in that august body, but somehow the 2 best we got, Lee and Cruz are on that Committee, very fortunate for us.

I guess two is a start !!!

[libertybele]

   Lee and Cruz are being overswamped in the Senate Health Committee and are rightly calling for reinforcements, Republican Governors, they are the ones that are gonna be tasked with running this crap.
   It IS a State problem, NOT Fed.

This is going to be a bitter pill to swallow.  It is not just a State problem as it is a federal/state joint program.  Medicaid dollars cover the poorest of the poor and the neediest of the needy. Medicaid covers low income/asset people including children, children born prematurely without insurance, pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly in nursing homes, etc. Cutting benefits to this sector of people is going to be seen as inhumane. Granted, illegals benefit hugely (verbage intended) from Medicaid dollars.  We need to stop giving assistance to illegals, however, the problem isn't so cut and dry.  When a pregnant illegal female gives birth in this country, that child becomes a citizen ... so even if the law were to change to grant Medicaid $$ to only citizens ... that infant would become eligible at birth. The ONLY solution would be to deport the mother before she gives birth.  We're dealing with humanitarian issues; pregnant females and infants.  This is why we need a WALL; to keep them from getting into our country in the first place.

[corbe]

This is going to be a bitter pill to swallow.  It is not just a State problem as it is a federal/state joint program.  Medicaid dollars cover the poorest of the poor and the neediest of the needy. Medicaid covers low income/asset people including children, children born prematurely without insurance, pregnant women, the disabled and the elderly in nursing homes, etc. Cutting benefits to this sector of people is going to be seen as inhumane. Granted, illegals benefit hugely (verbage intended) from Medicaid dollars.  We need to stop giving assistance to illegals, however, the problem isn't so cut and dry.  When a pregnant illegal female gives birth in this country, that child becomes a citizen ... so even if the law were to change to grant Medicaid $$ to only citizens ... that infant would become eligible at birth. The ONLY solution would be to deport the mother before she gives birth.  We're dealing with humanitarian issues; pregnant females and infants.  This is why we need a WALL; to keep them from getting into our country in the first place.

   I get that @libertybele especially the First part, the States that had expanded Medicaid for the sake of more Federal Dollars are what shattered the House plan to smithereens.
   This calling in the Governors by the Senate Committee (if true) is just cover for some Republican Governors to help shape this CF, that   McConnell and Cornyn, with help from the Lobbyist (another contributing factor to the House debacle), are trying to shove down Lee and Cruz's throat.
   I have been know to be wrong before, actually, on numerous occasions. The second part of your Argument is right on also.

[libertybele]

   I get that @libertybele especially the First part, the States that had expanded Medicaid for the sake of more Federal Dollars are what shattered the House plan to smithereens.
   This calling in the Governors by the Senate Committee (if true) is just cover for some Republican Governors to help shape this CF, that   McConnell and Cornyn, with help from the Lobbyist (another contributing factor to the House debacle), are trying to shove down Lee and Cruz's throat.
   I have been know to be wrong before, actually, on numerous occasions. The second part of your Argument is right on also.

I've looked briefly and so far, I cannot find current stats on the dollar amount of Medicaid going to illegals. Some of the stats that I ran across are not surprising, and certainly the economic impact of illegals receiving 'benefits' is staggering and I am still of the opinion that if we were to stop giving benefits to non-citizens it would have a tremendous positive impact on our 'benefit' programs.  It has been no secret that to continue affording benefits to those that are non-citizens and for the most part have never contributed to the system, would be unsustainable.

In September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies published a landmark study of immigration and welfare use, showing that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one federal welfare program — cash, food, housing, or medical care — compared to 30 percent of native households. Following similar methodology, this new study examines the dollar cost of that welfare use.

    The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household.

    The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household. Housing costs are about the same for both groups.

    At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region — 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.

    Illegal immigrant households cost an average of $5,692 (driven largely by the presence of U.S.-born children), while legal immigrant households cost $6,378.

    The greater consumption of welfare dollars by immigrants can be explained in large part by their lower level of education and larger number of children compared to natives. Over 24 percent of immigrant households are headed by a high school dropout, compared to just 8 percent of native households. In addition, 13 percent of immigrant households have three or more children, vs. just 6 percent of native households.


http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

Executive Summary:

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings

    Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
    The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
    Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
    At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
    Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

Other stats:

https://amac.us/illegal-immigration-cost-1/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cashing-in-illegal-immigrants-get-1261-more-welfare-than-american-families-5692-vs-4431/article/2590744

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feds-spend-nearly-20000-to-settle-every-refugee/article/2593331

[Hondo69]

   I get that @libertybele especially the First part, the States that had expanded Medicaid for the sake of more Federal Dollars are what shattered the House plan to smithereens.

It sure makes for an interesting timeline.

In the midst of the financial meltdown state legislators were in full out panic mode.  With their precious tax dollars dwindling quickly the legislators were desperately grasping at straws to keep their smorgasbord of giveaway programs afloat.  After allowing them to stew in their own juices for a few months Tony Soprano appeared from the shadows.

"It would be a shame if anything happened to your nice little state there", stated Soprano.  "I'll be happy to float you a few hundred million - for the good of the people, of course."  The reaction to the carrot on a stick was predictable, legislators fell all over themselves to grab that precious carrot.

Now they're dealing with the matter of the vig.