@cicerone imposter,
According to today news (Austin Statesman) people of Massachusetts like their universal health care just fine. They just don't think they should pay for it elsewhere:
Brown said on the campaign trail that MA had taken care of its own uninsured and that it wouldn't be in the state's interest to contribute to an effort to cover the uninsured in other states.
Brown's message underscores the fact that rates of the uninsured vary widely, from 8 percent in MA to Texas, where an estimated 25 percent lack insurance. Also, the regional dynamic is more stark in health care reform: As it stands, the federal government shares the cost of medicaid coverage based on states' income, ranging from a 50-50 split in the richest states to 80 percent in the poorest.
But, under the national legislation, that disparity could grow in a way that doesn't necessarily accord with state wealth. Many states, and not necessarily the poorest, set stringent terms for Medicaid eligibility, while others have eased entry. In Texas, parents qualify for Medicaid only if their income is below $5,720. In Wisconsin, New Jersey, Maine, Minnesota, Illinois, Connecticut and the District of Columbia, the cutoff is $40,000 or higher.
The legislation would set a single standard for Medicaid eligibility, about $28,000 or $33,000 for a family, and the federal government would pay almost the entire cost of newly eligible people. That means that states with looser standards would continue to pay as much as half the cost for a broad swath of people that in other states would be paid for almost entirely by the federal government.
"It's totally striking," said John Holahan of the Urban Institute. "The real beneficiaries of this are the states in the South and the West who are opposing health care reform."
So, who knows? Does anybody know what they are doing? I agree. The Feds should do nothing right now!
