4 ms·

False. Medicaid eligibility requirements vary by state. In Mississippi, for example, they cover children and pregnant women at roughly the same income level as

False. Medicaid eligibility requirements vary by state. In Mississippi, for example, they cover children and pregnant women at roughly the same income level as other states... but the parents of those children aren't covered if the household makes more than $227/mo (+78/mo for each additional household member). If you don't have children? No coverage unless you're in a very specific category (disabled, covered by medicare, etc)... no matter how poor and destitute you are. https://www.healthinsurance.org/mississippi-medicaid/ https://www.healthinsurance.org/mississippi-medicaid/ Missouri: no medicaid if you aren't disabled or have children (and you're below 381/mo for a family of 3): https://www.healthinsurance.org/missouri-medicaid/ https://www.healthinsurance.org/missouri-medicaid/ Same in TN: https://www.healthinsurance.org/tennessee-medicaid/ https://www.healthinsurance.org/tennessee-medicaid/ Same in TX: https://www.healthinsurance.org/texas-medicaid/ https://www.healthinsurance.org/texas-medicaid/ Seriously, go through the states that haven't accepted the ACA expansion: https://www.healthinsurance.org/medicaid/ https://www.healthinsurance.org/medicaid/ These poor people are not getting Medicaid.

jandrewrogers 7y ago
Who said anything about Medicaid? That is a Federal program that States can opt into to varying degrees, and most States have longstanding separate programs for the purpose. The landscape of how free healthcare is delivered is complicated. Like education, it is the prerogative of the States so any Federal view is only going to tell a small part of the story. I should add, all of my experience is decades before the ACA Medicaid expansion.
- novok 7y ago
  A lot of the these programs don't cover a good chunk of the working poor. If you worked full time at a minimum wage job in california for example, you'd be over the limits and wouldn't have healthcare as a result.
- erentz 7y ago
  > Poor people in the US, the demographic being discussed here, all have access to free medical care at the same clinics middle class people use. This is partly paid for by the government from taxes and partly subsidized by the non-poor users of medical services. This is simply not true. Maybe it was for you growing up where you lived, but I can assure you it isn't today in any part of the country I am familiar with. Our poor friends most certainly do not receive "free medical care at the same clinics middle class people use."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Who said anything about Medicaid? That is a Federal program that States can opt into to varying degrees, and most States have longstanding separate programs for the purpose. No, they don't. Many states name their Medicaid-participating program with a local name that does not include “Medicaid”—California’s is “Medi-Cal”, Oregon’s is “Oregon Health Plan”—but none of them have a general, broad coverage health insurance program for the poor that is not the state Medicaid plan (except to the extent that their CHIP program is separate from their Medicaid program, but that is usually not the case, and CHIP is, in any case, a similar federal program to Medicaid, but newer.) > I should add, all of my experience is decades before the ACA Medicaid expansion. At a minimum, your generalization of your experience across the country and across times and to the whole body of the poor and not those in specific circumstances, and the understanding of the administrative context which enabled your experience, is incorrect, but it's quite possible that the reported experience itself rather than the generalizations based on it (that is, that you had decent, free healthcare while being poor in the US) is correct, especially as a child.

jandrewrogers 7y ago

Who said anything about Medicaid? That is a Federal program that States can opt into to varying degrees, and most States have longstanding separate programs for the purpose. The landscape of how free healthcare is delivered is complicated. Like education, it is the prerogative of the States so any Federal view is only going to tell a small part of the story. I should add, all of my experience is decades before the ACA Medicaid expansion.

novok 7y ago
A lot of the these programs don't cover a good chunk of the working poor. If you worked full time at a minimum wage job in california for example, you'd be over the limits and wouldn't have healthcare as a result.
erentz 7y ago
> Poor people in the US, the demographic being discussed here, all have access to free medical care at the same clinics middle class people use. This is partly paid for by the government from taxes and partly subsidized by the non-poor users of medical services. This is simply not true. Maybe it was for you growing up where you lived, but I can assure you it isn't today in any part of the country I am familiar with. Our poor friends most certainly do not receive "free medical care at the same clinics middle class people use."
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Who said anything about Medicaid? That is a Federal program that States can opt into to varying degrees, and most States have longstanding separate programs for the purpose. No, they don't. Many states name their Medicaid-participating program with a local name that does not include “Medicaid”—California’s is “Medi-Cal”, Oregon’s is “Oregon Health Plan”—but none of them have a general, broad coverage health insurance program for the poor that is not the state Medicaid plan (except to the extent that their CHIP program is separate from their Medicaid program, but that is usually not the case, and CHIP is, in any case, a similar federal program to Medicaid, but newer.) > I should add, all of my experience is decades before the ACA Medicaid expansion. At a minimum, your generalization of your experience across the country and across times and to the whole body of the poor and not those in specific circumstances, and the understanding of the administrative context which enabled your experience, is incorrect, but it's quite possible that the reported experience itself rather than the generalizations based on it (that is, that you had decent, free healthcare while being poor in the US) is correct, especially as a child.