And it's done! Proud to be a Virginian!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone with a disabled child on Medicaid, I’ll be honest, I’m torn. While I’m glad so many people will have health insurance now, it may mean those of us who qualified under the original program which the federal government reimburses less for will be squeezed. Childless adults will be prioritized to some degree since the feds pay so much for them. We are so lucky to be covered but recent years have felt the threat of budget cuts and the potential for lost services. VA will be on the hook for more money no and I’m concerned about my DS who is 12. I may be flamed for this, but I’m just a mom who wants the best for my kid... while other people have access to care too.

Interesting. Are you involved with any advocacy groups for children with disabilities? Were any of them expressing these concerns in opposition to the expansion for these reasons?
I would think that over the entire lifetime of your child, as they become older, this expansion will be better than if it had not happened.

Yes I am. So the expansion is a catch 22. The newly eligible people (generally those up to 138% of the federal poverty line) are “worth more” to the states since the feds pay approximately 94% of their costs. For a state that’s a great deal. Those those of us where were previously enrolled the feds pay 60-ish%. Therefore a state has to pay way more for us. All that to say it’s better economics for a state to prioritize the new people. Who I’m not arguing are not deserving.

In my interactions with some advocacy groups they support the expansion since they see it as more members. When talking with our therapists or other special needs parents they are all concerned. Opposing Medicaid expansion isn’t popular so everyone feels forced into silence due to a fear of being labeled as uncaring.

It’s a slippery slope in my opinion because we have seen services and quality slip in the past, I just hope we aren’t used to make up budget shortfalls. Medicaid expansion in every other stage has cost more than predicted. I just want my DS to continue receiving services.

While I understand your concern, can you explain how your position isn't virtually the same as a wealthy person who opposes tax heights? He's got his, and doesn't want benefits to others to impact what he has. Same thing you're saying.

I am conflicted in answering since you seem to have your mind made up about me already. I would hardly equate ourselves to the “rich” people in your analogy. I am concerned that healthy (albeit low income) individuals will eat up precious resources (I.e state dollars) that had been using to support my incredibly disabled DS. He will never walk, never talk and will be under our care our whole lives. His therapy is vital to his life and we have already had issues of getting services approved due to budget shortfalls.

I am sure you wouldn't . . . but you haven't provided any principled reason why you're different. In fact, a decent case could be made that the rich person is less culpable than you. In both cases there are a finite number of resources available for public benefits. Neither of you want the status quo to change, even though such changes would benefit others. In the rich person's case (and it's not only rich people, it's anyone who is opposed to a tax hike), he or she *knows* that the change will be to his or her detriment (in the form of increased taxes and less money in his or her pocket). In your case, you don't know that the change in the status quo will be to your detriment, but are guarding against the mere possibility.

Your motivations are certainly understandable (and more laudable), but at bottom, both positions are motivated by "looking our for yourself."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah VA...welcome to 2015. I guess you're less far behind than Mississippi?

+1 This is the thing about VA. While NoVA may be liberal, it's still at the behest of the rest of VA laws. Why did it take so long? In 2 years time, the subsidies will be going down. VA lost several years of subsidies.. for what?

[Anonymous]

It took several years OP. Is that really something to be proud of? Better late than never, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It took several years OP. Is that really something to be proud of? Better late than never, I guess.

I am proud of our direction, how we rose up last November and changed things. Not the entire history of the Commonwealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah VA...welcome to 2015. I guess you're less far behind than Mississippi?

+1 This is the thing about VA. While NoVA may be liberal, it's still at the behest of the rest of VA laws. Why did it take so long? In 2 years time, the subsidies will be going down. VA lost several years of subsidies.. for what?

so they could be in the cool republican state club, yo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone with a disabled child on Medicaid, I’ll be honest, I’m torn. While I’m glad so many people will have health insurance now, it may mean those of us who qualified under the original program which the federal government reimburses less for will be squeezed. Childless adults will be prioritized to some degree since the feds pay so much for them. We are so lucky to be covered but recent years have felt the threat of budget cuts and the potential for lost services. VA will be on the hook for more money no and I’m concerned about my DS who is 12. I may be flamed for this, but I’m just a mom who wants the best for my kid... while other people have access to care too.

Interesting. Are you involved with any advocacy groups for children with disabilities? Were any of them expressing these concerns in opposition to the expansion for these reasons?
I would think that over the entire lifetime of your child, as they become older, this expansion will be better than if it had not happened.

Yes I am. So the expansion is a catch 22. The newly eligible people (generally those up to 138% of the federal poverty line) are “worth more” to the states since the feds pay approximately 94% of their costs. For a state that’s a great deal. Those those of us where were previously enrolled the feds pay 60-ish%. Therefore a state has to pay way more for us. All that to say it’s better economics for a state to prioritize the new people. Who I’m not arguing are not deserving.

In my interactions with some advocacy groups they support the expansion since they see it as more members. When talking with our therapists or other special needs parents they are all concerned. Opposing Medicaid expansion isn’t popular so everyone feels forced into silence due to a fear of being labeled as uncaring.

It’s a slippery slope in my opinion because we have seen services and quality slip in the past, I just hope we aren’t used to make up budget shortfalls. Medicaid expansion in every other stage has cost more than predicted. I just want my DS to continue receiving services.

While I understand your concern, can you explain how your position isn't virtually the same as a wealthy person who opposes tax heights? He's got his, and doesn't want benefits to others to impact what he has. Same thing you're saying.

I am conflicted in answering since you seem to have your mind made up about me already. I would hardly equate ourselves to the “rich” people in your analogy. I am concerned that healthy (albeit low income) individuals will eat up precious resources (I.e state dollars) that had been using to support my incredibly disabled DS. He will never walk, never talk and will be under our care our whole lives. His therapy is vital to his life and we have already had issues of getting services approved due to budget shortfalls.

I am sure you wouldn't . . . but you haven't provided any principled reason why you're different. In fact, a decent case could be made that the rich person is less culpable than you. In both cases there are a finite number of resources available for public benefits. Neither of you want the status quo to change, even though such changes would benefit others. In the rich person's case (and it's not only rich people, it's anyone who is opposed to a tax hike), he or she *knows* that the change will be to his or her detriment (in the form of increased taxes and less money in his or her pocket). In your case, you don't know that the change in the status quo will be to your detriment, but are guarding against the mere possibility.

Your motivations are certainly understandable (and more laudable), but at bottom, both positions are motivated by "looking our for yourself."

You’re right, I am looking out for my DS. I’m not a policy expert or advocate, solely a mom with a disabled child. To me it seems unfair that a healthy 28 year old male living with his parents and not working could qualify for Medicaid now. This seems crueler than I intend, but for a kid that has never been given the “fair” aspect of anything, you can seen where I’m coming from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone with a disabled child on Medicaid, I’ll be honest, I’m torn. While I’m glad so many people will have health insurance now, it may mean those of us who qualified under the original program which the federal government reimburses less for will be squeezed. Childless adults will be prioritized to some degree since the feds pay so much for them. We are so lucky to be covered but recent years have felt the threat of budget cuts and the potential for lost services. VA will be on the hook for more money no and I’m concerned about my DS who is 12. I may be flamed for this, but I’m just a mom who wants the best for my kid... while other people have access to care too.

Interesting. Are you involved with any advocacy groups for children with disabilities? Were any of them expressing these concerns in opposition to the expansion for these reasons?
I would think that over the entire lifetime of your child, as they become older, this expansion will be better than if it had not happened.

Yes I am. So the expansion is a catch 22. The newly eligible people (generally those up to 138% of the federal poverty line) are “worth more” to the states since the feds pay approximately 94% of their costs. For a state that’s a great deal. Those those of us where were previously enrolled the feds pay 60-ish%. Therefore a state has to pay way more for us. All that to say it’s better economics for a state to prioritize the new people. Who I’m not arguing are not deserving.

In my interactions with some advocacy groups they support the expansion since they see it as more members. When talking with our therapists or other special needs parents they are all concerned. Opposing Medicaid expansion isn’t popular so everyone feels forced into silence due to a fear of being labeled as uncaring.

It’s a slippery slope in my opinion because we have seen services and quality slip in the past, I just hope we aren’t used to make up budget shortfalls. Medicaid expansion in every other stage has cost more than predicted. I just want my DS to continue receiving services.

While I understand your concern, can you explain how your position isn't virtually the same as a wealthy person who opposes tax heights? He's got his, and doesn't want benefits to others to impact what he has. Same thing you're saying.

I am conflicted in answering since you seem to have your mind made up about me already. I would hardly equate ourselves to the “rich” people in your analogy. I am concerned that healthy (albeit low income) individuals will eat up precious resources (I.e state dollars) that had been using to support my incredibly disabled DS. He will never walk, never talk and will be under our care our whole lives. His therapy is vital to his life and we have already had issues of getting services approved due to budget shortfalls.

I am sure you wouldn't . . . but you haven't provided any principled reason why you're different. In fact, a decent case could be made that the rich person is less culpable than you. In both cases there are a finite number of resources available for public benefits. Neither of you want the status quo to change, even though such changes would benefit others. In the rich person's case (and it's not only rich people, it's anyone who is opposed to a tax hike), he or she *knows* that the change will be to his or her detriment (in the form of increased taxes and less money in his or her pocket). In your case, you don't know that the change in the status quo will be to your detriment, but are guarding against the mere possibility.

Your motivations are certainly understandable (and more laudable), but at bottom, both positions are motivated by "looking our for yourself."

You’re right, I am looking out for my DS. I’m not a policy expert or advocate, solely a mom with a disabled child. To me it seems unfair that a healthy 28 year old male living with his parents and not working could qualify for Medicaid now. This seems crueler than I intend, but for a kid that has never been given the “fair” aspect of anything, you can seen where I’m coming from.

NP. Mom of disabled child. I'm sorry to see you are getting trolled. I get what you are saying.

The sad part is there shouldn't be resource problem. We are one of the wealthiest countries in the world!

In fact, PP instead of jumping on this mom focus your anger on the Republican's who distributed wealth so drastically that we 99% are fighting for the crumbs.

Come on, we are better than this.