Texas Plans to Use Medicaid Expansion it Rejected to Pay For Women's Health Program

Thumbnail image for RickPerry.jpeg

In early June, Governor Rick Perry was quick to announce that no state of his would be taking any of that tyrannical federal money to expand Medicaid coverage. Yet court documents filed by outgoing Health and Human Services Commissioner Tom Suehs claim that the state's new, Planned Parenthood-free Women's Health Program will be easily paid for. By relying, mainly, on Medicaid expansion money. Whoops.

As Christy Hoppe over at the Morning News points outs, lawyers for the state have made rather misleading claims about how the program will be paid for. In several legal briefings before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, they manage to indicate that the program will only cost Texans serious money next year, with costs dipping dramatically (for us, anyway) in 2014.

In a brief filed for July 3, Texas' attorneys say that the state's Deputy Executive Commissioner for Financial Services, Greta Rymal, has projected the fiscal impact of the new Women's Health Program for the next three years. That projection assumes "that all clients will be eligible for Medicaid following the expansion of the Medicaid program in January 2014."

Under that rosy scenario, the new WHP will cost Texans $39,132,223 in fiscal year 2013. But in 2014, Rymal estimates that the costs would drop by more than half, to $15,861,313, with the gap filled in by that new Medicaid money.

"In addition," it continues, "maintaining a state-funded Women's Health Program would generate cost avoidance in the Medicaid program, resulting in a net projected savings of $4.4 million general revenue over the 14 months the program would operate."

But no one has apparently run any of this by Rick Perry. In a letter to federal Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in July, he had a message for her to pass on to President Obama: "I oppose both the expansion of Medicaid as provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the creation of a so-called 'state' insurance exchange, because both represent brazen intrusions into the sovereignty of our state."

And if there's anybody who knows a thing or two about brazen intrusions, it's Governor Perry.


My Voice Nation Help
6 comments
jax20
jax20

Romney running mate proposed the same thing holmantx, with the bonus of killing Medicare completely... It's about insuring everyone and not wasting money in Medicare, which republicans do want, unless proposed by Obama.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

The President is taking 700 billion away from Medicare and the people that have spent their lives contributing to it and giving it to Medicaid for those that have not contributed a dime, under Obamacare.

 

Republicans should go on offense on Medicare, because the president as part of ObamaCare passed $700 billion in cuts in Medicare. And Romney wants to repeal ObamaCare, including those cuts.  

 

The fact is if a Republican were proposing $700 billion, or had passed $700 billion in Medicare cuts, you'd be savaging that president for their brutality to seniors.  

 

Or asking Perry why he's heartlessly killing grandma.

 

 

icowrich
icowrich

This isn't surprising.  The plan, all along, was to say no, loudly, in public, to the Medicaid expansion funds, and then, after the election, to quietly take the funding.  Whether you like the expansion or not, it makes no sense to turn down the funding when your state is going to pay the taxes, anyway.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use  drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job. - written by a 21 yr old female in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011.  She went on:  AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE!  Yes,  that is correct.  For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. 

 

and a follow up from an unknown thinker:  Women should not receive child support unless they establish paternity. The father should then be obligated to pay or repay the costs to this support. Under age? The father's parents should be required to pay this expense until such time as the support can be turned over to the father. There is no reason why the current generation ofwelfare queens should be allowed to spawn the next generation -- and without consequences.

Chuck_Schick
Chuck_Schick

 @holmantx Sounds like big government regulation to me. And you can't legislate morality.

holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

 @Chuck_Schick smoke in bed a meet Big Government.

 

and morality is not what The Left is all about however, using taxation and regulation to modify societal (and the individual's) behavior is now in every aspect of American life.

 

We just need to begin the process of reversing the damage.

 

"What shall we do with the Negro?" by Frederick Douglass, a freed slave and prominent statesmen before, during, and after the Civil War:

 

"What shall we do with the Negro?" I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature's plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!"

 

We then set about destroying the Black Family Unit.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...