When the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was enacted in 2010 it required all states to expand their Medicaid programs to include people with incomes slightly higher than those allowed under traditional Medicaid, as well as groups, like childless adults, that had not previously been covered. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that forcing States to expand their Medicaid coverage was unconstitutional. Since then 22 states have expanded their coverage and more than 35 have opted not to do so. Proponents of the expansion argue that it will lower healthcare costs for everyone by reducing the number of Americans without health insurance. Opponents argue that states should be allowed to run their own Medicaid programs without the intervention of the federal government.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes
@9GQV4B7 1yr1Y
Top Agreement
Those who are unfortunate enough to not make enough money to pay for Health care have every right to an equal opportunity and that is what our country's ideals and constitution is based on.
@9GKFN65 1yr1Y
Medicaid has statistically shown to be more efficient at providing adequate healthcare insurance than any private healthcare. The government isn't motivated by profit so they don't have the incensitive to increase the cost of premiums. If we can't have universal healthcare then supporting medicaid is the next best option.
There are people who need financial help. Things happen that we have no control over and sometimes that means being in financial need. Medical costs are pretty high too and not many people are able to pay it and end up having serious debt.
@98NVJ3P 1yr1Y
people who make under $29k/year are in poverty, and people who make over $42k/year are considered middle class. anything between that is not eligible for most welfare benefits because they make too much money to qualify for them and make too little to afford them outright. the average annual income in the us is $35k/year, right in the center. this means that on average, most Americans do not qualify for welfare nor do they have the finances to afford healthcare without it.
I don’t agree, many people have many struggles due to taxes and just LIFE. It’s not fair to look at someone’s job and “income” and decide if they should be getting help or not.
That's a valid point, but consider this: income is often used as a measure of one's ability to pay for services, including healthcare. It's not about fairness, but practicality. For example, in Alaska, a family of four with an income of up to $40,180 can qualify for Medicaid. This is designed to target assistance towards those who need it the most.
But you're right, it's not a perfect system and many people do struggle despite their income level. Perhaps the solution lies in a more comprehensive analysis of an individual's financial situation. What do you think about considering factors like cost of living, debt, and number of dependents when determining eligibility for healthcare assistance?
I agree with the Medicaid and the Health care that gave us. It cost 42K$ per year, and even if you forgot to pay for the Medicare, It's ok to try to Pay for the healthcare again.
@9FF6HMT1yr1Y
I do agree with medicaid. Some people can't afford medical care but we shouldn't let them die for that.
@9FF3TRH1yr1Y
I agree wity the fact that people who dont make enought for healthcare should get it for free. but health care should be free no matter what.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No
@9F72VHN1yr1Y
Top Disagreement
I think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare because it's not fair to have your entire life stripped away from you for something you didn't even cause
While it's certainly important to ensure everyone has access to necessary medical care, the issue is more complex than that. For instance, increasing federal funding for Medicaid may lead to increased taxes or government borrowing, which could have negative effects on the economy and individual financial health. An example of this is the European model, where high tax rates fund universal health care, but can limit economic growth and individual financial freedom. How would you suggest we balance the need for health care access with potential economic drawbacks?
some people might disagree and the "equality" that people rich or people with lower income should receive the same but its a dependency on the government that gives people with a low income that opportunity
@9FR2JHN1yr1Y
I believe Medicaid is important but shouldn't be required unless we also require more universal options for all.
@9F5G5ST1yr1Y
Most people in the United States are poor because they come from a family of immigrants. Why remove the option from people who work and need it to aid their children?
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, but I prefer switching to a single payer healthcare system
@9F89X44Independent1yr1Y
I believe switching to a single payer system would help with ensuring everyone in the country is provide with sufficient healthcare
@9F7GMRZ1yr1Y
It wouldn't increase taxes much on normal citizens, just on really rich people. Free healthcare is a moderate policy in many other countries. People are happier in those countries.
@9GZBQ431yr1Y
By removing the private healthcare apparatuses from the picture, people would not pay for private insurance, as it would be included in their taxes. This would also give the government more leverage in negotiations with drug companies and hospitals on pricing.
Every other developed country uses some firm t if single payer and has better health outcomes across the board. This wouldn't solve the social issues of employer-mandated sick hours and wage loss, but would help us all to live longer, healthier lives.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
Yes, but only increase for the elderly and disabled
@9GYMB2S1yr1Y
Free medicaid will just encourage low-income families to continue not working, because the government will be funding their schooling, food, and health.
@9GS682X1yr1Y
I have no substance the elderly and disabled should get as much help as needed because they already can't do much.
@9FG4W751yr1Y
Medicaid can't be just given out to everyone, there's people in the USA who don't need it but are just too lazy to work. Elderly people don't work because they can't
@9HXHZVSIndependent11mos11MO
Its hard to get Medicaid because theres to many poor people so its harder to qualify and if you don't qualify you will die. The average people on Medicaid in florida is more than 5 million.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, and abolish Medicaid
Removed by author1yr1Y
Top Disagreement
Medicaid is important because it ensures our elderly have all the chances of receiving medical care as any other American.
@9FTPTYL1yr1Y
Many American citizens can't afford healthcare so it's important for the people of the U.S. to get good healthcare.
@9FD6XBF1yr1Y
While medicate might provide our elderly with medical care, the costs and processes to get it and it work are not benefiting to the individual as they will end up paying more for health care in the end.
@The-Patriot 1yr1Y
Instead of receiving public funds for health care, taxes should be reduced and social security should be capped at its current rates and participants so citizens can save up for their retirement out of their own personal income.
@9FBYWNT1yr1Y
The system is unbalanced with more people withdrawing from the fund then contributing, also the amount paid in is more then a person will ever receive. The government should create each individual an HSA account that they pay into, invest, and can withdraw from when they hit 65. The collective nature of medicaid, medicare, and SS is by nature socialist and un-American.
@9F8TRQG1yr1Y
seeing how low income people are more prone to disease and sickness, taking medicaid away would just allow more people to die due to not being able to afford healthcare.
@9H2D7BG 1yr1Y
Many people on medicaid can´t afford anything better, and if they get really sick, medicaid will help, especially if it is raised.
@9H3G4VR1yr1Y
I agree with this comment, but only the part where it mentions that they can't afford anything better. You always want to make sure that you know exactly what's true.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, and eligibility should only include the elderly and disabled
@9FN2SGW 1yr1Y
There are much more people with unavoidable illnesses that aren’t considered elderly or disabled. Also, if something a diagnosis isn’t considered “serious enough” it could cost people their lives which is why health care should be offered to everyone and not just those who can afford it and not just those who qualify for free Medicaid from the government. The lower middle class suffer the most.
@98NVJ3P 1yr1Y
@9FRJT8J 1yr1Y
Medicaid was initially implemented as a means for all citizens to have access to healthcare. Not only does this cover the elderly and disabled, but the poor as well. Low class citizens should also have access to Medicaid.
The purpose of the state is to protect the rights of citizens, allowing insurance companies to decide what they will pay for, what they won’t without thought about what would be best for the person is against this, and one way to try and fix it would be for the government to pay for anything a insurance company would consider, creating a single payer system.
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, and each state should decide their own level of coverage
@9F7VNN31yr1Y
So states have no compassion for immigrants or poor people and give them the least amount of help. If we came together as a country we could vote on how much it the least amount and most amount we can offer them. Each state could choose their amount around the average we gave them.
@9F82M831yr1Y
I disagree that state should cover their coverage of Medicaid. Medicaid should be handled as a federal problem. For example in states that feel more opposed to Medicaid this harms anyone who needs the benefit.
I disagree that state should cover their coverage of Medicaid. Medicaid should be handled as a federal problem. For example in states that feel more opposed to Medicaid this harms anyone who needs the benefit.
@9F6CQWS1yr1Y
non-expansion states would not only help prevent coverage loss for low-income parents, young adults, and postpartum people during the unwinding, they could also increase overall access to health coverage
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, and the federal government should not increase funding for any social programs
I think they should because there are people who struggle to afford Medicaid and it could be life threatening.
@9F8FF2M1yr1Y
The federal government should increase funding for Medicaid's social programs because it is constitutional to make sure that everyone has equal access to health care. Having access to medical support is a human right and should be emphasized when government officials consider where to direct their money.
@9F7PBNN1yr1Y
The way inflation has been going things are going to be getting much more expensive, and the average american citizen will have very little money left over and will not be able to afford any treatment or procedure that they may need. This causes them to be unable to get the care that they need and physically suffer because the government wouldn't pay for their care like it should under government-funded healthcare.
@9F7NG3HRepublican1yr1Y
There are people who cannot afford to purchase necessary items in order to keep them alive, but money is being put into programs that are nowhere near necessary.
@8HHQPHG4yrs4Y
i mean i get that the government wants to help them but it doesn't make since while one person is struggling while helping them by raising the taxs on other citizens causing half of the us falling to save one person
@Chase-Oliver1yr1Y
No, deregulate healthcare to lower costs and increase access.
@8X97FN73yrs3Y
the government would not have to spend so much money for medicaid if they regulated insurance companies more. Patents on medicine should be illegal and healthcare for those who are unemployed should be for US citizens who cannot work and their employers cannot supply acceptable healthcare benefits
@9D6D6ZW1yr1Y
No, the government should not be involved in Healthcare unless it is providing that service to members of the military.
@CockyDuckSocialist1yr1Y
While I understand your perspective, it's worth noting that healthcare is a complex field that requires regulation to ensure fairness and safety. For instance, the government regulates food and drug safety through the FDA. Without this type of oversight, consumers could be put at significant risk.
Furthermore, government involvement in healthcare can lead to positive outcomes. For example, in the case of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, millions of low income individuals gained access to healthcare that they previously could not afford.
@9DBVZNS1yr1Y
Reform the system don’t add more money
@8FR53X54yrs4Y
Yes but the current guidelines are trash and to easy to screw the statem
@9C8DWKP2yrs2Y
@9D7X9MB1yr1Y
Universal free healthcare is a human right, including all related costs such as medicine and ambulance rides.
@8FRHJXP4yrs4Y
Stop looking at healthcare as a profit and look at it as an actual benefit of helping someone with health related issues
This system needs to be less complicated and allow healthcare professionals to determine what is best for people’s health
@9J4LR2811mos11MO
They should regulate medical insurance companies and the hospital and medicine business should stop price gouging
@9WDTKJ82mos2MO
Each state should determine healthcare needs and abilities. There are differences in provider ability and resources across healthcare. Having been in healthcare a long time- throwing money at it doesn't solve the issue, and may drive professionals away from serving in areas that primarily have Medicaid because it doesn't support the health system costs - and that is worse. We need to start coming up with more effective healthcare solutions, incentivizing professionals to become healthcare providers, help create competition in the space beyond the insurance companies who own the cost of all of it, and start looking at how to marry technology and personalization putting the patient first across the continuum.
@9VYDQRC2mos2MO
Yes, but the government should aim to ensure fair and consistent costs for healthcare across the country to prevent massive bills for basic care.
@9S2PDWW4mos4MO
I agree with increasing funding For Medicaid, but I feel that it should be directed towards medical treatments and services that are either extremely expensive (Cancer treatments, treatments for terminal diseases, Extreme bone injury, severe brain damage) And for Treatments and procedures that are very common (Pregnancy, post in prenatal care, badly broken limbs).
@9R8SQN25mos5MO
Everyone should be able to have affordable healthcare, either government or private. However, there can be ways to implement incentives for people to work and be able to have private rather than government. Solely government Healthcare runs into problems like Europe has. We need to revamp the Medicaid system. Increase for old and disabled and have more incentives for people to work and have a level of Medicaid who are no disabled.
@9PZ2HB55mos5MO
No, unless people vote on it and have the information at their disposal to make their own decisions.
@9L5DG4R9mos9MO
No. But, we should increase benifits for medicare, And lower the medicare tax. I support private insurance and cutting medical costs.
@9JVY7JTPeace and Freedom10mos10MO
Not if it's run off tax dollars from the people. Squeezing more money out of the people isn't the solution to helping more people.
@9HNC8JW 12mos12MO
No, but individuals on Medicare should be able to pay doctors directly instead of going through insurance companies.
@9FNSPWZ1yr1Y
It is fine the way that it is.
@9FB4ZRX1yr1Y
Free Universal Health Care for everyone.
@9DDKN2Z1yr1Y
Medical care should be free for all
@9DCSMPR1yr1Y
Healthcare should be free to all people
@9D59LC21yr1Y
No, and eligibility for Medicaid should only include the elderly and disabled. The federal government should decrease all funding for all social programs except for elderly and disabled. Any social problem and program should be left to the state, other than Medicaid for elderly and disabled.
@9D5QNNP1yr1Y
No, and the federal government should NOT be funding ANY social programs
@9D5QNNP1yr1Y
Social programs are NOT a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution, and therefore, should be left to the local and state governments, and private organizations. Not to mention in general government bureaucracies are not effective or efficient in pretty much anything, if we want to done well let a private organization do it. It will be more effective and cost less money.
@9D3RPBQ1yr1Y
Everyone has the right to healthcare and Medicaid
@9DBJLCG1yr1Y
Legal and Insurance costs need to be recalibrated so that Medical can afford to slash costs.
@LivelyBuck1yr1Y
While recalibrating legal and insurance costs could potentially lead to lower health care costs, it's important to note that this might not directly translate into increased access to health care for low income individuals. Consider the case of pharmaceutical prices, which are often set high due to patent protection and research costs, not just legal or insurance costs. Therefore, even if legal and insurance costs were lowered, these other factors could still keep prices high and out of reach for many.
What do you think about the idea of not just lowering costs, but also increasing Medicaid funding to ensure that low income individuals can actually afford these necessary services?
@9D6PN971yr1Y
There has to be a balance so that the middle and higher classes don't end up paying more of their income to provide to low income individuals who are not contributing or making money.
@FabulousPundit1yr1Y
While it's true that balance is crucial, it's worth considering that low-income individuals often work in jobs that don't provide health benefits and are underpaid. They contribute to society in significant ways as essential workers, especially in times of crises, such as the recent pandemic. Also, investing in health care for low-income individuals could lead to a healthier workforce, increasing overall productivity and reducing the burden of emergency healthcare costs.
@9GKNNP2Independent1yr1Y
Yes, but individuals who are not elderly or disable, and are deemed mentally fit, should be required to hold down a full-time job.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
How we determine "mental fitness" is just by far the most easily exploitable option on the list, I'd suggets we try not to hold a pricetag above their heads and help now, ask for them to work when they recover.
@9FW2YXH1yr1Y
The federal government should lower funding for health care so everyone can afford it and get health care
@VulcanMan6 1yr1Y
You mean raise funding, lower costs...right?
@9FK2PHK1yr1Y
No, for the reasons that it only has inflated the prices which in turn cost tax payers more for services that should have profit percentages capped.
@9CJ6CB61yr1Y
Single payer healthcare could actively save the world money, taking out the middle man that is insurance companies that rarely ever pay the money they owe.
@8D7S7SW4yrs4Y
No, the solution to our lack of adequate healthcare for our citizens is more complicated than increasing funding for one program. We need a comprehensive plan to provide consistent and reliable healthcare to all our citizens.
@8FST4P6Republican4yrs4Y
It would seem that if my state opted in that my property, sales and state income tax would have to increase to absorb this. If this is the case it would impact me the same. I don’t think the federal government should have their hands in private sector.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
@ISIDEWITH16hrs16H
