Obama Administration Says NO To Medicaid Verification

Obama Administration Says NO To Medicaid Verification

Illinois wants to make sure that people applying for Medicaid produce a little more proof than merely writing down an address as proof of residency, except the Obama Administration says NO! The reason for that is because the procedure would have been more restrictive than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. I can't see how asking for a month's worth of pay stubs, instead of the current requirement of one stub is more restrictive. And I have to tell you something else, given that Illinois is a Sanctuary State - what Illinois was proposing is not even out of line with their already whacked-out stand on rewarding Illegals for breaking the law. I mean, what is wrong with getting a little handle on the verification process?

As it stands now, anyone can just mosey into the State of Illinois and pony up a solitary pay stub, of any amount, and get benefits. You have to wonder, given the debt crisis charade being played out in Washington, how many states are being hand-cuffed by some asinine Federal Requirement and what the total cost of that is to empty State Treasuries?

And politicians wonder why people are livid when they hold Americans hostage while refusing to do the simplest things to recapture government waste and fraud. Are they really that stupid? Okay let's just cut to the chase because the answer to that is a resounding yes! Look, I understand and advocate the need to provide for the poor and the indigent but at the same token - that support should go to those who really need it.

The Illinois Medicaid fiasco is just one example of how broken our system is, but, you can rest assure that that isn't the only example! It is bad enough that our elected officials continue to permit unlawful entry into this country and force the subsequent support of Illegals onto American Taxpayers. However, it is even worse when they tell us the country is rapidly going broke and won't do anything about it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course, some elected leaders actually do understand the frustration. Illinois Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) is absolutely correct when she said "frankly, this is what enrages people. If all we want to do is find out if people are actually eligible for the services, and the federal government is telling us we can’t do that, that’s absolutely ridiculous."

Other officials may get it too but do they underestimate the costs? Julie Hamos, Illinois' Department of Healthcare and Family Services Director, says she is disappointed with the federal decision even though the eligibility requirements were only a piece of the overall Medicaid reforms and placed a conservative estimate of saving $1 Million a year by looking closer. Personally I think she is being way too conservative and that the number is significantly higher, in large part due to the Sanctuary Policy. As she says, some things are merely a piece and when it comes to the abuse of Health Care, illegals place a high burden on the overall system.

As I see it, verification for the purpose of receiving any government benefit is a must! And anyone thinking that is discriminatory, well, that doesn't wash with me because I would make that mandatory for everyone. Period. Besides, lawful residents already offer proof of identity and eligibility for everything. If there is a discriminatory angle - then it would be in reverse mode.

As I have said repeatedly, there are enough places to cut government waste without holding legal residents and taxpayers hostage. The question, though, does the government have the stomach to do the right thing?

Well, given this latest example of misguided policy - I guess not!

 

Honk I I Paid For Your Health Care

 

Follow maciric on Twitter

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I don't think this is worth my time to research the legalities of either position, but it seems that if Medicaid doesn't pay, Cook County Hospital will. With the laws on "a hospital has to treat anyone who makes it to its door," and we don't want people spreading TB all over the place, the only real answer would be deporting the people, but the government apparently doesn't have the resources to round up all 11 or so million.

    So, while this may be wrong, I think we are stuck.

    Finally, this, combined with the arbitrator's decision on the 2% raises (which is final on construing the contract, and can be vacated by a court only on very limited grounds, probably not applicable here (710 ILCS 5/12) ), the state has reached the end of the rope. Some people predicted, and Quinn can now say, based on these types of decisions, that the budget has to be increased, even though the state can't pay what it owes now (cf. Monday's post).

    That is, unless the deluded believe that the Des Plaines casino brought in enough in one day to solve all money problems.

  • In reply to jack:

    You are probably right and yes there is no logistical way we can deport 11+Million Illegals; however we should be able to at least verify that they are residents of Illinois. I am sure they will need to just find a work-around that is agreeable to the Obama Administration. As for that 2% Pay Raise - yeah I read that and right again. That contract appears iron-clad and that Quinn tried a little slight of hand on that by blaming the legislature. The Des Plaines Rivers Casino will either lose its appeal (already read about people complaining of tight slots) and/or just suck business away from Victoria or Hollywood. It is what it is - saturation. The only benefit is the money from licenses?

  • "The only benefit is the money from licenses?"

    At least in this instance, the casino had to pay for it in an auction. Supposedly, one of the hangups of the Chicago one is that Daley wanted a city owned license but wouldn't pay for one.

    However, IIRC, during the early Blago years,the state raised taxes on casinos to the extent that the state was taking about 70% of the take, thus depleting what was left for the localities. Besides saturation, there was also the question about the smoking ban's and bad economy's effect.

  • In reply to jack:

    Of course my licenses comment is dependent on Quinn and his reservations on expansion; but the upfront fees is about all the state can expect so far as any guarantees. Daley was a moron in many ways and that was one of them. Perhaps that was his way of saying no when he said yes. I don't know about 70%; I used to go to the track and para-mutual's I thought was 20-30% off the top. I would think at 70% it wouldn't be profitable for anyone because casinos need to "renew" themselves and that takes some capital. But, that smoking thing - that is bigger than legislators think and it is enough of a tipping point for folks to drive to Indiana. Missouri or Iowa (depending where you live of course).

  • The casino tax was explicitly raised, but don't take my percentage as gospel. I was also thinking percentage of the casino's percentage. Obviously, a percentage of the total take would be less, since some of the handle has to be paid to winners.

    A track running betting on the parimutuel system basically gets only a commission (vigorish), while you are betting against the house at a casino. Otherwise put, someone has to win each horse race, and the track is indifferent whether the winner pays $2.20 or $57.60, since the pool is the pool.

  • In reply to jack:

    I'll have to check into that more, just as a would be good to know kinda thing. I had always thought, though, that casinos were also under the para-mutual umbrella - but since there isn't a pool to speak of I guess that would change that to a "take" since winnings are all based on the odds. So, it makes sense. As for the track - I was told by a few jockey's that the track and state both takes a cut off the top and what is left over is distributed into the para-mutual pool. I could be wrong but that's how I remember it explained.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    The second to the last sentence seems correct.

Leave a comment