http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...babies-born-medicaid

This data stunned me!

Your thoughts, please.

oh I would guess the tax payers are the ones taking a F@%@#$

Absolutely disgusting.

No wonder we're broke and in debt up to our eye balls. What is medicaid anyways and why is it paying for births?

How can we fix the medical system when No One has clearly identified What's Wrong with it!

Can someone post text of link. It makes my phone go nuts with ads?

In 24 States, 50% or More of Babies Born on Medicaid; New Mexico Leads Nation With 72%

By Terence P. Jeffrey | March 24, 2017 | 12:49 PM EDT

U.S. Capitol (J. Scott Applewhite)
(CNSNews.com) - In 24 of the nation’s 50 states at least half of the babies born during the latest year on record had their births paid for by Medicaid, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

New Mexico led all states with 72 percent of the babies born there in 2015 having their births covered by Medicaid.

Arkansas ranked second with 67 percent; Louisiana ranked third with 65 percent; and three states—Mississippi, Nevada and Wisconsin—tied for fourth place with 64 percent of babies born there covered by Medicaid.

New Hampshire earned the distinction of having the smallest percentage of babies born on Medicaid. In that state, Medicaid paid for the births of only 27 percent of the babies born in 2015.

Virginia and Utah tied for the next to last position, with 31 percent of the babies born on Medicaid.

However, according to KFF, some of the nation’s most populous states shared the distinction of having 50 percent or more of the babies born there born on Medicaid.



In California, Florida and Illinois, for example, 50 percent of all babies were born on Medicaid in the latest year on record.

In New York, 51 percent of the babies were born on Medicaid.

In Ohio, 52 percent of babies were born on Medicaid.

The Kaiser Family Foundation gathered its data on the number of babies born on Medicaid in each state by surveying the state Medicaid directors.

“Medicaid directors were asked to provide the most recent available data on the share of all births in their states that were financed by Medicaid,” said a KFF report.

“About half of the states were able to provide data for calendar 2015 or fiscal year 2015,” said KFF. “Other states generally provided data from 2013 or 2014. On average, states reported that Medicaid pays for just over 47 percent of all births.”

“Eight states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia) reported that Medicaid pays for 60 percent or more of all births in their state,” reported KFF.

The KFF survey said data from Hawaii was not available.

A study published by the journal “Women’s Health Issues” in 2013 looked at births covered by Medicaid in the years 2008, 2009, 2010. The report said it was trying to establish a “baseline” for Medicaid-covered birth before the Affordable Care Act’s—AKA Obamacare’s—expansion of Medicaid kicked in.

“Starting in 2014,” said this report, “some states will extend Medicaid to thousands of previously uninsured, low-income women. Given this changing landscape, it is important to have a baseline of current levels of Medicaid financing for births in each state.”

That study, done by researchers at George Washington University and the March of Dimes, determined that in 2008, 40.08 percent of the births in the United States were covered by Medicaid; and that, in 2009, 43.89 percent were covered by Medicaid.

By 2010, according this report, the percentage of births in the United States covered by Medicaid had risen to 47.75 percent—or 1,805,151 out of 3,780,519 total births.

Another report, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention later in December 2013, looked at the form of payment for births in the 33 states and the District of Columbia that as of 2010 had adopted the 2003 version of “U.S. Standard Certificate for Live Birth.” This certificate specifically asks the mother to say which of four categories the payment for her child’s birth falls into: private insurance, Medicaid, self-pay, or other.

This data, according to the CDC, covered all 2010 births in the 33 states and the District of Columbia, which accounted for 76 percent of all births in the nation in that year. According to the CDC, this data revealed that 44.9 percent of the babies born in these jurisdictions in 2010 were born on Medicaid.

In this 2010 CDC data for 33 states, New Mexico also led with the highest percentage of births on Medicaid—with 57.5 percent of all babies born there that year having their births covered

QUOTE]Originally posted by tleddy:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...babies-born-medicaid

This data stunned me!

Your thoughts, please.[/QUOTE]

We're practically a single payer system already. This is infuriating to me.

A lot of these cases are "single" moms having children and claiming destitution when in fact they are "married" but remain officially single so they can receive state benefits.

I work with someone who perpetuates this racket. He makes $80+ thousand a year and is "married," but his wife is not officially his wife so she can remain on Medicaid and not have to go on his healthcare. She's a very sick woman (I mean that literally, she has MS or something like that) so is constantly at the hospital. The worst part is that this guy has no shame whatsoever about taking money from the state. He's proud to tell anyone who'll listen that he is not officially married just so he and his wife can get freebies from the state.

Oh and yes, they have children.

quote:

New Mexico led all states with 72 percent of the babies born there in 2015 having their births covered by Medicaid.

Large Indian (feather, not dot) and illegal population.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
I work with someone who perpetuates this racket. He makes $80+ thousand a year and is "married," but his wife is not officially his wife so she can remain on Medicaid and not have to go on his healthcare.

If they live in a common law marriage state, perhaps they are in fact married under the law.

This is insane. I had no idea that the numbers of government paid births. Why is our government paying for people to have babies?

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
This is insane. I had no idea that the numbers of government paid births. Why is our government paying for people to have babies?

And add the fact that 66% of total Medicaid expenditures go to nursing homes , one does wonder! MG

Don't worry.... it's all just borrowed "money", just digitized bits on someone's computer at the Fed...

To understand just how dangerous this has become, we need look no further than this chart:




Our current debts and other national liabilities now total more than 1,000%(!) of the nation's annual income, a.k.a GDP.

US economic growth began slowing due to its accelerating ‘too much debt’ problem back around 2000. Instead of allowing natural market forces to clear out the excessive debts, the Federal Reserve chose to go into overdrive to ‘remedy’ the problem. It's remedy? Drive interest rates to 0% to reduce the service burden of those debts, and print trillions of fresh dollars that in turn can fund new borrowing.

Of course, no true ‘solution’ for having too much debt involves piling up even more of it. That's like treating cancer with more cancer. Or alcoholism with more alcohol. But such has been the twisted logic of our central bankers.

Just spoke with a good friend of mine that does case management for an insurance company about costs for having a baby. A normal vaginal birth and both mother and baby are healthy about 15 to 20k. A C section about 30k. Now when you get to pre-me's (premature birth) costs can go into the 100k minimum to over a million easy.

These are the high risk births that the mother had alot of issues during pregnancy, never saw a dr., drug addict, overweight and poor health to name a few. These are about 1 in 18 births. 30k a day in an ICU, baby on a vent and or feed tube can add up fast and medicaid pays.

I don't like that. But this is a slippery slope. How do conservatives square this? How many of those having those babies would have really rather aborted it? How many didn't have easy access to birth control? Would we the tax payer be better off funding other measures? This is very complicated depending on ones views.

The government will pay for it, but not your 65" TV in each room. Which will you spend your money on?

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I don't like that. But this is a slippery slope. How do conservatives square this? How many of those having those babies would have really rather aborted it? How many didn't have easy access to birth control? Would we the tax payer be better off funding other measures? This is very complicated depending on ones views.

Not complicated at all to me. I am probably as conservative as anyone on this board.

I see absolutely no reason for a woman to get pregnant if she does not want to. Too many birth control methods out there, many of them free of cost. As I understand it, planned parenthood hands that stuff like candy.

And for Catholics who follow that version of birth control, use the rhythm method which has been advocated by the church for many years.

And how many of these medicaid paid births are to illegals? I didn't see any data.

^^^ Yep.
Right on, JALLEN. Short and to the point, as usual. Good to see you back here.

The birth costs are likely a drop in the bucket compare to lifetime welfare costs for many...

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
How do conservatives square this?

Piece of cake.

quote:

How many of those having those babies would have really rather aborted it?

No way to tell, and a common leftist rationalization.

quote:

How many didn't have easy access to birth control?

Yet another leftist argument. There isn't a woman alive in this country who doesn't have easy access to birth control. And even if they are completely destitute, all they need to do is what my mother advised my sisters to do oh so many years ago: Use an aspirin. Put it between you knees and hold it there.

quote:

Would we the tax payer be better off funding other measures?

No, we wouldn't. We'd be better off discouraging both sexes from fucking whenever the mood strikes them.

What we are seeing now is the extension of the "If it feels good, do it" movement. Better than 50% of these larvae are nothing but sex trophies.

(Not calling you a leftist 6guns, just that these are their arguments)

quote:

A normal vaginal birth and both mother and baby are healthy about 15 to 20k. A C section about 30k.

These are not across the board numbers. We charge in the neighborhood of 5K for L&D and between 10 and 15K for a section.

Still a lot of money down the drain.

Gustofer, does Medicaid reimburse at the same rate as commercial health insurance? I ask this because my wife's aunt used to work in medical billing, and she said Medicaid reimbursements were much lower, and the doctors/facilities had to wait a long time for their money.

As I understand it, hospitals cannot turn the births away. That to me says the health care crisis is worse than I had previously considered. If Medicaid reimbursements are under the market rate, given the large percentages mentioned above, can the hospitals/doctors absorb that reimbursement going away and still continue to function?

It seems like a complete circus any way one looks at it.