If you do not have children, you probably are not eligible for Medicaid. Via Aaron Carroll…..
Generally, Medicaid is meant to cover those at the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum. The government defines poor this way:
Persons in Family 2009-2010 Poverty Level
1 $10,830
2 $14,570
3 $18,310
4 $22,050
5 $25,790
6 $29,530
7 $33,270
8 $37,010
While you consider the table, remember this amazing fact – a single parent, with a child, who makes minimum wage earns MORE than the poverty level. That’s how low the line is.Regardless, Medicaid must cover:
Kids under 6 years of age to 133% FPL
Kids 6-18 to 100% FPL
SCHIP upps these to 300% FPL in most states
Pregnant women up to 133% FPL
Parents to 1996 welfare levels
The elderly and those with disabilities who receive SSI
Now, states get to implement things above that as they see fit. But the first important thing to note is that adults without children aren’t mentioned at all. And in most states, they can’t get Medicaid.Let me say that again – in most states even the poorest adults without children don’t get Medicaid.(Bold mine. Ed.)
And it gets worse. Those 1996 welfare levels can be super low. So low that, for instance, in Alabama a couple with two children making ($2500 original incorrect number. Ed.) $5300 a year doesn’t qualify for Medicaid. Granted, some states are more generous. But in many, parents have to be very, very poor in order to get Medicaid.
Most of the conservatives who write about health care say that they have no problem with the truly needy receiving Medicaid. Would $5300 a year with two kids seem like a reasonable cut off? Why are those without children ineligible at any income level?
I’ve seen the poverty numbers before, but not so clearly connected to Medicaid. My take home is a little more than the poverty level for a family of 8. I support 3 and we don’t have a lot of room for extras. The cutoffs for poverty are ridiculously low. You leave out that virtually all liberals think the needy should get Medicaid, the Dems had both houses of Congress, the Presidency for 2 years and we still have a situation like this.
How could Obama get re-elected if a realistic definition of poverty is used? “U.S. household income fell to its lowest level in more than a decade in 2010 and poverty rose to a 17-year high…” To face. reveal, the truth of Obama’s economy would guarantee failure to be re-elected. Can’t have that, can we?
P.S. I’m not saying this is your position, just that of many liberals and most of the MSM.
Most of the liberals who write about health care think money grows on trees.
The country is bankrupt.
We need serious health care finance reform, not the abominable ObamaCare which only shifts costs and drives them higher.
Most of the left who write about health care say over and over that we need to get health care costs down.
Steve
I can’t fathom how anyone lives on this little money. When I was single I made between $25K to $33K (depending on how good the year was) and considered myself POOR. Most of my money was spent on rent (in not a great place) and I had no healthcare outside of Planned Parenthood. I don’t know what would have happened if I’d ever had an extended illness or injury.
[...] No Medicaid For You (aleksandreia.com) Rate this: Psssst…Pass it on!FacebookStumbleUponEmailDiggRedditTwitterLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]