apnews.com
putting Russia in a situation in which it must either do something atrocious or compromise the fundamental security of its people is worthy of condemnation on its own.
For better of for worse, that is not at all how Medicaid funding works. There's not a defined budget of money to spend. State's determine, within federal guidelines, who is qualified and what providers will be compensated for treating them. Then payment for that treatment in total, however much it may be, is split between the state and the federal government at defined ratios (Federal Medical Assistance Ratio) that already vary by state or territory and by group being covered. So if a group, in this case adults covered under the ACA Medicaid expansion, is covered at 90% by the federal government, that means that 90% of the cost is covered by the federal government and 10% by the states. Dropping it to 80% means it is now an 80:20 split. It is not unusual to have that vary by state, the normal ratios already are calculated relative to state incomes, states more capable of carrying a higher percentage already do.
putting Ukraine/NATO/Europe in a situation in which it must either do something atrocious or compromise the fundamental security of its people is worthy of condemnation on its own.
amp.cnn.com
I was expecting a big, dramatic falling out between the two. Oh well.Elon Musk says his time in the Trump administration has ‘come to an end’ | CNN Politics
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was granted special government employee status to lead the Department of Government Efficiency, said Wednesday evening that his time in the Trump administration has come “to an end.”
Bye biatch!
can you explain how Ukraine being an independent country risks “the safety of the Russian people”? Why is an independent Ukraine such a gigantic risk that Putin simply has to conquer and ethnically cleanse the place?
Sure, the fundamental security of Russia is threatened by the existence of an independent Ukraine, even though Ukraine has never attacked Russia without Russia first attacking it. That's some dogshit, but we'll put that aside for now;
I understood what you said at the time just fine, but you abandoned it the moment it validated resistance to a brand of Christofascist imperialism you happen to hold in esteem.
I'm aware of all this. But classing this merely as a shift in ratio assumes that states can and will be able to merely make up the shortfall-- which you've already acknowledged is a massive amount of money.
Most Medicaid funding is dramatically less than 90%. The overall repayment ratio is between 50% and 80% depending on state. Only specific groups, such as people covered under the ACA expansion, those between 100% and 138% of the poverty line, had that level of federal compensation.
You've acknowledged here that those for whom the federal funding was cut are not those undocumented immigrants. You've corroborated what I was arguing, just with language making it sound otherwise.
I guess I'm waiting for a good explanation why Russia is allowed to invade its neighbours under some nebulous rationale of "fundamental security", but the fundamental security of all Russia's neighbours from Russia doesn't count for anything at all.
Some would say the school of realism is that explanation. While its not directly stated many of the ideals of realism involving great powers and security does come with the implication smaller countries are just poker chips for the big boys who's concerns just matter less.
It could be no cut at all if those states drop their programs giving Medicaid equivalent coverage to migrants. I'm sure you see it as a compassionate program, offering care to refugees far from their homes, fleeing for their lives. But if there is any one thing we've learned with certainty from the current administration, it's that the overwhelming majority of migrants aren't refugees fleeing for their lives, they are economic migrants following economic incentive structures. Electing Trump doesn't lead to 95% fewer people fleeing for their lives, it changes the incentive structures. California offering free American healthcare to migrants is a carrot to draw in cheap labor, draining foreign populations to the detriment of their home countries and putting downward pressure on American wages, boosting the US economy to the almost exclusive benefit of the rich and powerful.
It's not an if. They are legally obligated to cover it, it is part of the terms by which every state participates in Medicaid in the first place. The federal government foots most of the bill, but states have to be providing a certain coverage to certain populations and they have to fund the remainder, or they're violating the terms of the program. California only has 3 legal options here: cut the migrant aid and keep the 90%, keep the migrant aid and fund the extra 10% themselves, or withdraw from the Medicaid expansion entirely. There is no "we lost 10% of our funding so we cut back Medicaid 10%". That isn't an option.
Calling it "realism" is already a bankrupt branding exercise. It's "realism" in the same sense that if I steal my neighbour's TV, I can then argue the "reality" is that I have the TV.
One might note that economic migrants following economic incentive structures are ultimately contributing to the economic activity of the USA. They are also, even if illegally employed and "off the books", paying taxes - even if only things like sales tax or duties.
Do they, though?
I really have zero interest in your justifications for why you think it's fine to slash medicaid. The gov said the program wouldn't be touched; it was cut severely, and I'm waiting for acknowledgement.
I know. You're arguing against a suggestion I'm not making.
