If you have "no place to go," come here!

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Families with kids on Medicaid have trouble getting covered

Boston Globe:

Families shopping for health insurance through the new federal marketplace are running into trouble getting everyone covered when children are eligible for Medicaid but their parents are not.

Children who qualify for Medicaid, the safety-net program for the poor and disabled, can’t be included on subsidized family plans purchased through the federal marketplace, a fact that is taking many parents by surprise and leaving some kids stuck without coverage.

A California man says he was given false assurances that his children could be covered by the same plan he picked for his wife and himself, and a Florida father says his daughter is going without coverage while he waits for answers.

And in New Hampshire, some parents who've enrolled in private plans for themselves alone are finding out later that their children aren’t eligible for Medicaid after all, leaving their kids with no options.

‘‘The children are getting stuck in this spot where we've enrolled the parent, but we can’t bring the children back on the family plan,’’ Maria Proulx, senior legal counsel for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Hampshire, told a state advisory board panel this month.

Well, when you've got an insanely complicated system of buckets that you're throwing people into, it's inevitable that some people are going to fall between buckets, which is what's happening here -- and wouldn't happen in a Canadian-style single payer system.*

NOTE I would have sworn we posted on this; but I can't find anything. Readers?

NOTE * Maybe that's what I should start saying instead of "Medicare for All," given that Medicare is infested with neo-liberal rent seekers.

No votes yet


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

but is it possible that referencing "a Canadian like health care system" could also become a bit confusing?

I do appreciate your concern over this issue. As a matter of fact, I consider this to be a vital issue, if the progressive wing of the Democratic Party plans to push for replacement of the ACA with a single-payer system.

Otherwise, I fear that politicians may lead progressive activists astray again (regarding health care "reform.")

One example--according to at least some accounts, Schweitzer "envisions something like Medicaid For All."

Excerpt below from "Canadian-Style Health Care Coming to Montana?"

Medicaid as Substitute

Schweitzer’s proposal would not result in a mandatory single-payer system in the state. Instead, he envisions something like “Medicaid for all,” where state employees would be placed in the Medicaid system and private employers could buy into it.

He also proposes revamping the state’s Medicaid program to offer care through community health clinics instead of the traditional fee-for-service program.

Now, other articles use MFA as his model. [This is also true of other Democratic politicians.]

Again, I have a feeling that the ambiguity surrounding this term is partly responsible for the US winding up with the ACA.

I could be wrong, but that's my take. ;-)

[Do I have in mind "the correct term?" No, that's the dilemma! I just think that most of the terms that journalists and bloggers use are very ambiguous, and generally not well-understood by the public writ large.]