Yeah, yeah.
Jan. 28th, 2009 11:42 amI saw.
They took it out.
It's not approved yet. Go make some phone calls. I did.
And please, when it has to do with money - don't be surprised when it's going to be cut off, particularly when it's not popular.
(I must have gotten this one wrong. This State waiver option wasn't a burden on Medicaid - it was on the States, and looks to remain that way. Yeah, you can still get what you got before - you just have to file with your State to have the Medicaid objection waived. More bureacracy and the forms haven't run out yet, so.)
I saw the Florida program. Jeez. Expensive much?
They took it out.
It's not approved yet. Go make some phone calls. I did.
And please, when it has to do with money - don't be surprised when it's going to be cut off, particularly when it's not popular.
(I must have gotten this one wrong. This State waiver option wasn't a burden on Medicaid - it was on the States, and looks to remain that way. Yeah, you can still get what you got before - you just have to file with your State to have the Medicaid objection waived. More bureacracy and the forms haven't run out yet, so.)
I saw the Florida program. Jeez. Expensive much?
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 09:48 pm (UTC)But one health-related provision was sacrificed to political expediency on Tuesday in an attempt to wrangle Republican support for the stimulus package: Medicaid expansion for birth control.
Medicaid is already the single largest source of public funding for family planning nationwide, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The stimulus provision would have made it easier for states to cover family planning for low-income women who currently make slightly too much to qualify for regular Medicaid.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 08:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 09:48 pm (UTC)But one health-related provision was sacrificed to political expediency on Tuesday in an attempt to wrangle Republican support for the stimulus package: Medicaid expansion for birth control.
Medicaid is already the single largest source of public funding for family planning nationwide, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The stimulus provision would have made it easier for states to cover family planning for low-income women who currently make slightly too much to qualify for regular Medicaid.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 08:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 09:49 pm (UTC)The $825 billion economic stimulus package is finally taking shape as House committees finalize their contributions to the bill. The good news is that healthcare spending will be a major part of the stimulus: $87 billion has been set aside to help states pay for Medicaid alone.
But one health-related provision was sacrificed to political expediency on Tuesday in an attempt to wrangle Republican support for the stimulus package: Medicaid expansion for birth control.
Medicaid is already the single largest source of public funding for family planning nationwide, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The stimulus provision would have made it easier for states to cover family planning for low-income women who currently make slightly too much to qualify for regular Medicaid.
Yeah, everyone is in a lather over OBAMA LIED. *eyeroll*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 09:52 pm (UTC)All of my Obama-lusty friends keep telling me we'll have great universal health care any day now. Shyah right. Not going to happen in this country any time soon. The public doesn't have the right attitude for it yet.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 10:03 pm (UTC)(At first blush, I thought this was removing a layer of bureacracy between fed and state regarding Medicaid. This is actually something of a misnomer - you *can* get BC with Medicaid if your state will allow you to file a waiver. What I thought they were doing was removing the waiver requirement. Less bureacracy=less money, neh? Not so much.)
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:11 pm (UTC)?? They ARE only removing the waiver requirement. It's a stupid requirement.
Also, distributing more BC WOULD be less money because the consequences of poor women not having birth control is unwanted, state-supported children. This would PREVENT an estimated $700 million in costs!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:18 pm (UTC)But it will shut some people up when they want to bash Obama saying he hates babies and all that. No change - no additional money - no shift on policy.
And people can still get their stuff, same as before.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:27 pm (UTC)they're going to say that anyway! There is NO POINT in pandering to the pro-lifers!
No change - no additional money - no shift on policy.
there will be additional money - because the bc would save money.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:34 pm (UTC)Pandering? No. Shut the fuck up, yes.
And you can still get the BC - with the expensive layer of
bullcrapbureaucracy they all know and love.But I'm with you - I'd have rather skipped this one.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:48 pm (UTC)not really. Because some states have been on the waiver waiting list for TWO YEARS.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-29 12:46 am (UTC)I made my calls. It's not over yet. And no, ain't happy about it - but as they say, it's good to want. Builds character and all that.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-28 11:34 pm (UTC)I'd gladly pay for it here. We pay wayyyyyyyyyyy more in premiums, copays, deductibles, and non-covered in one year than I paid in taxes my entire adult life in Canada (not that I made much money so I didn't pay much taxes, but that's kind of the point).