When the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was enacted in 2010 it required all states to expand their Medicaid programs to include people with incomes slightly higher than those allowed under traditional Medicaid, as well as groups, like childless adults, that had not previously been covered. In 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that forcing States to expand their Medicaid coverage was unconstitutional. Since then 22 states have expanded their coverage and more than 35 have opted not to do so. Proponents of the expansion argue that it will lower healthcare costs for everyone by reducing the number of Americans without health insurance. Opponents argue that states should be allowed to run their own Medicaid programs without the intervention of the federal government.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes
@9GQV4B7 6mos6MO
Top Agreement
Those who are unfortunate enough to not make enough money to pay for Health care have every right to an equal opportunity and that is what our country's ideals and constitution is based on.
@9GGYX2W7mos7MO
Healthcare for lower income people is important to ensure the safety and health of everyone in America which is most important.
@9GGZJY57mos7MO
i agree with it, although it is not always the less fortunate that spread illnesses, its mostly more wealthy people who don't believe in vaccines
@9GGZTJY7mos7MO
if something can be broken that was never built properly in the first place. The United States has never invested in its mental health care systems the way that we have for physical health.
@9F8FF2M8mos8MO
According to the American Journal of Public Health, almost 45,000 annual deaths are caused by the lack of health insurance. Just because someone is impoverished doesn't mean they deserve to die because they can't afford the greatly expensive health care they need.
@9GKFN65 7mos7MO
Medicaid has statistically shown to be more efficient at providing adequate healthcare insurance than any private healthcare. The government isn't motivated by profit so they don't have the incensitive to increase the cost of premiums. If we can't have universal healthcare then supporting medicaid is the next best option.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9F72VHN8mos8MO
Top Disagreement
I think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare because it's not fair to have your entire life stripped away from you for something you didn't even cause
@HouseOfRepsSnipeLibertarian8mos8MO
While it's certainly important to ensure everyone has access to necessary medical care, the issue is more complex than that. For instance, increasing federal funding for Medicaid may lead to increased taxes or government borrowing, which could have negative effects on the economy and individual financial health. An example of this is the European model, where high tax rates fund universal health care, but can limit economic growth and individual financial freedom. How would you suggest we balance the need for health care access with potential economic drawbacks?
@9F5G5ST8mos8MO
Most people in the United States are poor because they come from a family of immigrants. Why remove the option from people who work and need it to aid their children?
some people might disagree and the "equality" that people rich or people with lower income should receive the same but its a dependency on the government that gives people with a low income that opportunity
@9FR2JHN8mos8MO
I believe Medicaid is important but shouldn't be required unless we also require more universal options for all.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, but I prefer switching to a single payer healthcare system
@9F89X44Independent8mos8MO
I believe switching to a single payer system would help with ensuring everyone in the country is provide with sufficient healthcare
@9F7GMRZ8mos8MO
It wouldn't increase taxes much on normal citizens, just on really rich people. Free healthcare is a moderate policy in many other countries. People are happier in those countries.
Every other developed country uses some firm t if single payer and has better health outcomes across the board. This wouldn't solve the social issues of employer-mandated sick hours and wage loss, but would help us all to live longer, healthier lives.
@9GZBQ436mos6MO
By removing the private healthcare apparatuses from the picture, people would not pay for private insurance, as it would be included in their taxes. This would also give the government more leverage in negotiations with drug companies and hospitals on pricing.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, but only increase for the elderly and disabled
@9GYMB2S6mos6MO
Free medicaid will just encourage low-income families to continue not working, because the government will be funding their schooling, food, and health.
@9LY6MR22wks2W
Elderly and disabled people sometimes can't afford healthcare because they can't afford it because most of them don't have jobs.
@9LJB65NIndependent1mo1MO
I think that Medicaid is great for people who need it but I think that it is not good for people who can afford but just take the money from the people who do need it.
@9FLDP5P8mos8MO
I believe in low or NO taxes for citizens. Funding bloated safety nets for segmented populations always ends in corruption and control. If we the people could keep our money throughout our lives to invest and use at our own discretion then we would be able to take care of ourselves with private financial mechanisms. There will always be that segment of population that doesn’t prepare for their future, but local communities, churches, and volunteer groups should be the answer. It has never been the federal government’s job to take care of us.. I believe it’s inherently unamerican, and it’s a drain on all taxpayers. Especially considering the corruption of elected officials which ALWAYS happens!
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and abolish Medicaid
Removed by author8mos8MO
Top Disagreement
Medicaid is important because it ensures our elderly have all the chances of receiving medical care as any other American.
@WidgeonEddieLibertarian8mos8MO
While I wholeheartedly agree that our elderly deserve the best care, it's worth noting that Medicaid isn't their primary source of health coverage - that would be Medicare. That being said, Medicaid does supplement Medicare for low-income seniors, covering costs that Medicare doesn't.
However, the question here is whether more federal funding should be allocated to Medicaid. One argument against this is that increasing funding might discourage states from managing their Medicaid programs efficiently. For example, if a state knows it will receive more federal funds, it may be less incentivized to control costs.
What do you think about this? Could there be a way to increase funding while still encouraging states to manage their programs effectively?
@9FTPTYL7mos7MO
Many American citizens can't afford healthcare so it's important for the people of the U.S. to get good healthcare.
@9FD6XBF8mos8MO
While medicate might provide our elderly with medical care, the costs and processes to get it and it work are not benefiting to the individual as they will end up paying more for health care in the end.
@The-Patriot 8mos8MO
Instead of receiving public funds for health care, taxes should be reduced and social security should be capped at its current rates and participants so citizens can save up for their retirement out of their own personal income.
@9F8TRQG8mos8MO
seeing how low income people are more prone to disease and sickness, taking medicaid away would just allow more people to die due to not being able to afford healthcare.
@9F8B6V68mos8MO
Not every person is above the poverty line and for those who have multiple kids, it'd be harder to pay for health insurance.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and eligibility should only include the elderly and disabled
@9F4M3X58mos8MO
Top Disagreement
How would those who are incapable of producing the money to pay for medical services live? What about those who've lost employment to no fault of their own? This stance only makes sense on the surface.
@BuckLarryProgressive8mos8MO
While I understand your concerns, it is also important to consider the fiscal health of our country. Continuously increasing funding for social programs without a balanced budget could lead to the devaluation of our currency and inflation. For instance, in the 1980s, many Latin American countries experienced hyperinflation due to excessive government spending. This resulted in severe economic instability and poverty. Instead, perhaps we should focus on creating more robust job programs and affordable housing to help lower-income individuals get back on their feet. What are your thoughts on this approach?
@VulcanMan6 8mos8MO
The economy is made up
@9FN2SGW 8mos8MO
There are much more people with unavoidable illnesses that aren’t considered elderly or disabled. Also, if something a diagnosis isn’t considered “serious enough” it could cost people their lives which is why health care should be offered to everyone and not just those who can afford it and not just those who qualify for free Medicaid from the government. The lower middle class suffer the most.
@98NVJ3P 8mos8MO
To people who are unable to afford healthcare because their income does not allow it nor for them to receive private insurance, Medicaid is essential.
@9FF2LN7Women’s Equality8mos8MO
Yes. I could expect that healthcare was exceptionally great, and the healthcare should always be expanded, and so does the private insurances.
@9F6RZ398mos8MO
Everyone need the help for certain things think of it as if you were really sick disables how would you get the help.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and each state should decide their own level of coverage
@9F7VNN38mos8MO
So states have no compassion for immigrants or poor people and give them the least amount of help. If we came together as a country we could vote on how much it the least amount and most amount we can offer them. Each state could choose their amount around the average we gave them.
@9F82M838mos8MO
I disagree that state should cover their coverage of Medicaid. Medicaid should be handled as a federal problem. For example in states that feel more opposed to Medicaid this harms anyone who needs the benefit.
I disagree that state should cover their coverage of Medicaid. Medicaid should be handled as a federal problem. For example in states that feel more opposed to Medicaid this harms anyone who needs the benefit.
@9F6CQWS8mos8MO
non-expansion states would not only help prevent coverage loss for low-income parents, young adults, and postpartum people during the unwinding, they could also increase overall access to health coverage
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and the federal government should not increase funding for any social programs
@9F8DNS2Women’s Equality8mos8MO
I think they should because there are people who struggle to afford Medicaid and it could be life threatening.
@9F8FF2M8mos8MO
The federal government should increase funding for Medicaid's social programs because it is constitutional to make sure that everyone has equal access to health care. Having access to medical support is a human right and should be emphasized when government officials consider where to direct their money.
@9F7PBNN8mos8MO
The way inflation has been going things are going to be getting much more expensive, and the average american citizen will have very little money left over and will not be able to afford any treatment or procedure that they may need. This causes them to be unable to get the care that they need and physically suffer because the government wouldn't pay for their care like it should under government-funded healthcare.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...